Talk:List of rail transit stations in the Greater Manila Area

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

Image copyright problem with Image:Srts logo.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Srts logo.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand Coverage to Greater Manila Area[edit]

Hi it has come to my attention that most of the future lines like MRT-7 and extensions like LRT-1 SEP and MRT-2 EEP as well as the PNR extends or would extend to the Greater Manila Area. So with that I propose to extend the coverage of the stations mentioned here to cover those that would fall already in the Greater Manila Area provinces such as Bulacan, Cavite, Rizal and Laguna to make the article more comprehensive. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PNR Stations[edit]

Not all of the PNR stations opened on September 13, 1931

  • Blumentritt and Santa Mesa stations were opened in December 22, 1905 as part of the Antipolo Line extension
  • Vito Cruz, Buendia November 24, 1975
  • Laon-Laan, Espana, EDSA (Magallanes) 1978
  • Pandacan and Paco (including the Cavite line) March 25, 1908, the Paco station building was completed in 1915
  • Pasay Road, Sucat, Alabang and Muntinlupa June 21, 1908
  • Tutuban station was opened in March 24, 1891, the first railway service of the Manila-Dagupan line the section between Manila (Tutuban) and Bagbag in Calumpit, Bulacan.

Stations from Muntinlupa to Calamba on 1909. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.16.65 (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.210.220 (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rail transit stations in the Greater Manila Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of rail transit stations in the Greater Manila Area. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Line 6 and Line 9 Future Stations[edit]

Regarding Future Stations section

- Line 6 should be removed, due to cancellation of the project (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W2n8tsqNhTTU-E5xBmf1WJQdoNMA5y2L/view)

-Line 9 (Metro Manila Subway) should be added to the section, as we now have a confirmed route and area approximation of stations Jpg0813 (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed new article naming scheme[edit]

Hi it has come to my attention that due to the numerous projects and plans being conducted and added around the Metro, station names have been contentious given that two different stations may have the same name and suffix like "EDSA LRT Station" which could pertain to the existing Line 1 station that is situated at EDSA corner Taft Avenue or the future Line 4 Station that is planned to be located at EDSA corner Shaw Boulevard.

Given these, I propose some formats for the new station naming scheme to be implemented instead across all articles:

Option A: STATION NAME Line # Station (eg. EDSA Line 1 Station)

Option B: Line # STATION NAME Station (eg. Line 1 EDSA Station)

Or any other combination proposal that would also future proof naming schemes for future lines (Proposed Lines 10 and 11)

The agreed upon scheme will then be implemented across all numerical (or alpha if ever) rail lines in Metro Manila with the exception of PNR Stations which would still utilize the STATION NAME railway station format.

To start off with the voting, I go for Option B of the station renaming scheme. Korean Rail Fan 15:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll vote for Option B since it would tell easily that it would belong to anonther line first, then the station. -DEARPAUL24 (talk) 05:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP article titles should be WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE. I believe adding the specific line name/number for every station would be too precise and definitely not concise. There was a proposal a couple of years back to name them according to the format "<Stationname> station" with the line number in paranthesis only as a disambiguator. Ex: Kamuning station, but Edsa station (LRT-1) and Edsa station (MRT-4). I believe this is the most effective format to use, as still the majority of station names are unique. In this way, we are also doing away or limiting the confusion between LRT and MRT. Regardless of how they are called now and in the future (LRT or MRT), Kamuning station will still be Kamuning station.--RioHondo (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that could also work as Option C. I think all given and proposed options are under WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE, its just a matter of consensus from the Wikipedians on which path to go through.

Given these, I'll recap the options and votes so far.

0 Vote - Option A: STATION NAME Line # Station (eg. EDSA Line 1 Station)

1 Vote - Option B: Line # STATION NAME Station (eg. Line 1 EDSA Station)

3 Votes - Option C (disambiguation): STATION NAME station (Line #) (eg. EDSA station (Line 1))

Korean Rail Fan 05:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Except that my proposal was for a downcased s in <Stationname> station, and with further parenthetical disambiguation of the line# only when needed. The logic there being station is not part of the name, it's not on any map or signages. It's just Kamuning, with station only for disambiguation purpose on wikipedia. I see that some of the station articles still follow this format like Tandang Sora station and Tandang Sora subway station. More concise, the better. Less usage of confusing lrt/mrt mix, the better. Less usage of line number, always best. :) And this is where WP:RECOGNIZABILITY also comes in. The Article title should be recognizable to readers who are familiar with, but NOT necessarily experts in the topic. So adding the line numbers and whatnot is being too much of an expert, which ordinary readers and even occassional commuters/train users might not recognize. Most commuters can recognize the station they took or got off from, but ask them for the line number of the station they used, and chances are you'll get the response of "the mrt" or "on edsa", "line number what's that"? Btw, it's not actually my proposal per se, but TagaSanPedroAko's so credits to him.--RioHondo (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken, corrected "Station" to "station" instead. I am very impressed with the argument and I am inclined to change my vote to Option C. Also since this is TagaSanPedroAko's proposal, I would count him as a vote for Option C. Should there be no other dissenting opinions by April 5, 2019, I would implement the option with the most votes across all articles concerned. Korean Rail Fan 03:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are no contentions, I shall implement Option C to all Manila Rail Station Articles for Lines 1-9. Format will be as follows
Standard: STATION NAME station
Disambiguated: STATION NAME station (Line #).
Korean Rail Fan 16:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of this discussion going on. This frankly should've been announced on WT:TAMBAY at least. :\
Now, that said, if we were going this route with naming, "(Line xxx)" is too ambiguous. If you ask me, it should indicate the system that it's on, similar to how Paris does it (e.g. Barbès – Rochechouart (Paris Métro), without the word "station"), since the line numbers are implied anyway. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be a need for consensus next time, it shall be posted to WP:TAMBAY. The station format suggested at Option C is actually a standard stn format utilized in most railway station articles. I agree with Riohondo and TagaSanPedroAko that it is simply called STATION NAME station. Given that, the votes will still be in favor of Option C and that there is still a clear consensus. Korean Rail Fan 01:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Harbor hey! That was my original proposal from way back, lol but i think it was turned down by both TagaSanPedro and HTD then, as i remember HTD insisting on the use and mention of the word station. Anyways, i thought the Paris and NY subway stations format was ideal too, but this would do for the timebeing i guess. Btw, is there a way we can merge all those, what do you call them, interchange stations? bearing identical names so we that we could do away with so many "empty" disambiguated station articles? Like what is this Quezon Memorial station (Line 7) and Quezon Memorial station (Line 8)? And Quezon Avenue station (Line 3) and Quezon Avenue station (Line 9)? If those are interchange stations, it would be so much better if they are discussed in a single article similar to what North Avenue Grand Central station does, and following WP:RAILSTATION that says When multiple rail lines, even on a different type of rail, meet at a single location, it is preferable to have a single article for all lines. That would make navigating on the different rail lines easier and less complicated, and with the same station bolded under different lines in the same navbox box below, you'll know right away that it is a transfer station. If its two different names in more or less the same location, we could even do a hyphenated (or slashed) format to discuss those interchange stations in just one article. That would be neat too.--RioHondo (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RioHondo With regards to Quezon Memorial, Detailed Engineering Design linked in the Line 8 station article showed how Line 7 and 8 stations are not entirely under one roof unlike that of the University Avenue station for both lines. Anyways, I actually prefer the merge of same station named articles but the only concern is those of the likes of Araneta Center–Cubao station (Line 2) and Araneta Center–Cubao station (Line 3) which was separated despite being nearby due to location issues. Otherwise I agree that some stations must follow the lead of North Avenue Grand Central station and University Avenue station otherwise they are on very different locations such as those of EDSA station (Line 4) and EDSA station (Line 1) Korean Rail Fan 06:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does not matter whether they are a few hundred meters apart or if they have different names, as long as they are transfer stations in more or less the same location, we should house them under the same article following WP:RAILSTATION and following common practice elsewhere like my favorite NYC Subway. This article on a transfer station 42nd Street–Bryant Park/Fifth Avenue (New York City Subway) for example, discusses two differently named stations of two different lines, one is 42nd Street-Bryant Park and the other is Fifth Avenue. Notice how the stations are discussed under different sections but as transfer stations they are housed under one roof. This for us should be the best route. For example EDSA station (Line 1) and Taft Avenue station could just be one megastation article titled Taft Avenue/EDSA station. And EDSA station (Line 4) and Shaw Boulevard station would be at Shaw Boulevard/EDSA station. It should be easiest with Araneta Center-Cubao station (Line 2) and Araneta Center-Cubao station (Line 3). Put them together, thats another 2 stations being freed from complicated disambiguation. Thats how i all understood WP:RAILSTATION to mean. And for me, the best way to go. So long as the stations are connected via underpass, pedestrian bridge, overpass or whathaveyous, they are all transfer stations that are best merged under one article.--RioHondo (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, i once tried the lrt2 and transferred to mrt3 at Cubao, from what i remember, they were connected. Same with taft avenue/edsa switch from lrt1 to mrt3. But that was probably 10 years ago lol. I wonder what Sky Harbor, TagaSanPedroAko and Howard the Duck have to say regarding this.--RioHondo (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add unlike Line 1 to 2 and Line 1 to 3, there is no direct connection from Line 2 to 3 but is provided an indirect connection via the Araneta Center through a more than 1km route passing inside Gateway-Coliseum-Farmers Plaza link. Korean Rail Fan 08:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also I have opened a new section below as this topic merits its own section so as to make it more precise.Feel free to comment and put your inputs below. Cheers! Korean Rail Fan 08:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meeh, didn't seem too far or too long a walk for me. And i checked google map directions between the cubao lrt2 and mrt3 stations, it says the distance is only 400 meters and thats through the streets. Im assuming it is much shorter through the pedestrian bridge and mall link. Which isnt really uncommon if you think about similar interchanges in NYC. The Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway) comes to mind, as well as Chambers Street–World Trade Center/Park Place/Cortlandt Street (New York City Subway), if you have lived in NY like i did, or even visited it, you'll know those long walks to get from one station to the other and thats not counting the PATH stations to New Jersey hehe. Filipinos are not known to be walkers eh? Teehee!--RioHondo (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of transfer stations[edit]

In lieu of the discussion above, I would like to open a new consensus building topic regarding geographically near transfer stations:

Option A: Retain status quo (disambiguation)
Option B: Harmonize transfer stations from different lines regardless of name that is in proximity of a certain area into a single article. (e.g. Doroteo Jose station, Recto station, Lerma station -> Doroteo Jose/Recto/Lerma station), (e.g. Quezon Memorial station (Line 7) and Quezon Memorial station (Line 8) -> Quezon Memorial station) To start off, I vote for Option B and assume RioHondo to be of the same vote.

Option A: 0 votes
Option B: 2 votes

Korean Rail Fan 08:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, and just to add this is in line with the guidelines set out in WP:RAILSTATION where stations of different lines in more or less the same location should be treated as one and in one article. Tho i'd say we consider the other transfer stations with different names too.:/--RioHondo (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add that to Option B, but my suggestion would be should it be of different names, lower number station name goes first. (eg.EDSA/Taft Avenue station, Shaw Boulevard/EDSA station, Doroteo Jose/Recto/Lerma station)Korean Rail Fan 10:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, so that the older and more recognizable station is mentioned first, i see no problem in that. Although, again this should be between transfer stations only or those that are actually physically connected to each other via pedestrian bridge, underpass, overpass, including mall transfer stations, like araneta center and the north avenue mrt3 that will connect to north avenue grand central via trinoma. It actually is also very convenient as the station article titles would show the actual road intersection of these stations, which is how people really identify many of these stations like Edsa/Taft station, and seldom as plain Edsa only. Doroteo Jose/Recto station is perfect and very convenient as LRT2 will have at least 2 more stations there along Recto Avenue.--RioHondo (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends. Should be case by case. Same name stations in the same location (like the Quezon Memorial station and unlike the two Tandang Sora stations located in different neighborhoods) should be merged (e.g. City Hall station (Seoul)). But for your first example, I think retaining the three separate articles would be better. A good example of the latter is Meiji-jingumae Station and Harajuku Station, which are in very close proximity to each other.--Truflip99 (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_rail_transit_stations_in_the_Greater_Manila_Area&oldid=1206706257"