|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Kowloon–Canton Railway was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
Would anyone able to fix the layout of the route map and its captions? I think it's so messy but I don't know how to fix it well. Thanks! Spring Dennis 15:40, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I guess I created the routemap too poorly. =( I'll try and recreate it again when I have the time. If you can create a better one yourself, feel free to replace the existing one! ;) - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
References, references, references. From what I can see, there is only one reference, and some websites, none of which are specified of where you got the information. I think you may have References and External Links confused. All fair-use images should have fair use rationales also. Please see WP:CITE and WP:FAIR, and good luck, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Article was added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA/Nominations.
I've just removed a poorly created section titled "station numbers". There was absolutely no context to tell what the numbers meant. Are they the number of stations on the line or descriptive numbers for each station or what? The removed content is in the page history. Slambo (Speak) 13:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
- That was my guess, but it wasn't very clear at all from the text. Whatever the data really is, it needs to be explained better and referenced before it's put back in the article. Slambo (Speak) 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why all the titles for KCR stations (and for that matter, MTR stations) are not called "~ Station"? Bourquie 6:01, 29 May 2006
- Generally all of the first letter are written in capital letter officialy. In WP, some Wikipedian may consider that what they want to emphasize is the area around the station rather than the station itself, thus the "station" is in lower-case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 01:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think my question was misunderstood. I apologize for not making my point more clear.
What I wanted to ask is: Why is the word "Station" in "Mong Kok Station (KCR)" omitted in the article? This goes for all MTR and KCR East Rail/West Rail/Ma On Shan Rail/Light Rail Stations. Bourquie 12:48 30 May 2007
- Then I think I cannot give it a good answer. The early topic creators seem to be leaving for a long period, except user:Instantnood. To make it more shocking, the railway station topics of Moscow Metro are also omitted the word Station. But their RU counterparts have clearly named the topic in the bracket (станция метро), meaning metro station. If you are really concerned, make a survey. -- Sameboat - 同舟 01:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I personally don't know how to begin a survey. If you can start it for me, it'll greatly appreciated. Bourquie 6:17, 31 May 2007
- Portal_talk:Trains#Naming_of_railway_station_article -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
When will the conversion from ~~車站 to ~~站 be finished on East Rail stations? Iianq 23:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- After the merge, but MTR may decide not to alter it, I guess. -- Sameboat - 同舟 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the MTR-KCR merge at WPHK (so we can have one consolidated discussion about it instead of having the same discussion across the few relevant articles). . Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think this article and the other related articles needs to be realigned, like this:
- Kowloon-Canton Railway (historical), the original line, in both sections, before 1949.
- Kowloon-Canton Railway, the modern rail network itself in Hong Kong, now a part of MTR.
- Kowloon–Canton Railway Corporation, the operator of the KCR network from 1982 until 2007.
- Why does the historical use of the railway have to be in strictly separate articles to the current-day one, if the same name is retained? There's no rule that separate organisations in a particular field should always have separate articles - often the content can be better brought together on a single page. I think it would be more sensible to use the history section which currently exists. Unless, of course, if a massive expansion is required, in which case History of the Kowloon-Canton Railway sounds more natural... bobrayner (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I understand that dealing with name change/merger and history is not simple in the case of this article. Still, I think it looks strange to see references to feeder buses introduced in 2011 within an article named "Kowloon-Canton Railway", an entity which strictly speaking does not exit since several years. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
- Besides, the article seems to imply that the name of "Kowloon-Canton Railway" is still in usage. Is that what is really meant? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
We're doing an injustice
The current arrangement of info on this topic - across this article, KCRC and Guangzhou-Kowloon Through Train - lamentably fails to do justice to the venerable Kowloon-Canton Railway, opened in 1910 (British Section) and 1911 (Chinese Section) and the engineering marvel of its time. Instead we have a modern-centric, corporate-tilted snapshot that leaves this glorious history buried under the corporate ghost of KCRC and the GZ connection.
For sure, the modern KCR 'network' (let alone the company that the government created to manage it) is not the same thing as its unilinear forebear. But it is the latter that should take precedence, and carry the name Kowloon-Canton Railway. (It was hyphenated in those days, and often still. We might consider a space, but never that clumsy en-dash.)
I see that there was previously an article 'Kowloon-Canton Railway (1910-1949)', which is a possible solution. I'm ready to discuss this, as it has been raised before, and changes made. But the current mess needs fixing. Onanoff (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)