Talk:Kowloon–Canton Railway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee 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.
May 28, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed


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)

GA Failing[edit]

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.

Section removal[edit]

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)

Looks like he wants to state the number of station on each line, as he did on the MTR article.--Kylohk 20:15, 30 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)

Station Names[edit]

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)

MTR-KCR merge[edit]

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). [1]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Content realignment[edit]

I think this article and the other related articles needs to be realigned, like this:

So, what do you think? JSH-alive talkcontmail 02:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

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)
That sounds good, too. Actually, the Kowloon–Canton Railway Corporation article's "Origins of the corporation" section is too long, and the Guangshen Railway article needs clean-up. JSH-alive talkcontmail 14:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Current entity[edit]

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)
Well 'KCR' is certainly still in use, informally but widely. Onanoff (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Kowloon–Canton Railway (network)Kowloon–Canton Railway –. user:Scriber en undiscussed move. The disambiguation qualifier is needless because there's no article and no need for an additional article for the original "Kowloon–Canton Railway", it is already covered in the history section. Scriber en also moved the DE, FR, IT and FI respective articles too, but I only know there's the similar move request template available to -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Even with the creation of Kowloon–Canton Railway (1906–1949), the move of this article is still unjustifiable per wp:common name. "KCR" is the common name of the network of East Rail, West Rail and Ma On Shan Rail even after the merger with MTR. The railway of 1906 to 1949 was also a "network" in the grammatical sense. The current disambiguation qualifier, "network", does not make the title clearer or unambiguous. Scriber en, Please stop avoiding discussion. If you wonder, it was me to request the FR and DE admins to revert your move because your action led me to believe you're not fully understanding the naming convention policy/guideline of Wikipedia. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Also need to change the em dash in the title to an en dash. The article has it right; only the title needs correction. •••Life of Riley (TC) 23:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

We're doing an injustice[edit]

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)