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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I have just modified one external link on
Aljunied MRT Station. 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:
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment that it might help your argument if you provided examples of the LTA or SMRT/SBS using lower-case "station" in their official websites or statements. Also, that's a whole lot of pages that will need redirect links if this move is carried out... Yikes.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well... not really "done". All three of your links don't use "Station", but they don't use "station" either, so that's not a really strong argument. Referring to the station simply by its name doesn't prove anything.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose moves to "Foo MRT station". No reason to include disambiguation where it's unnecessary. Move to "Foo station" in unambiguous cases, "Foo station (MRT)" when there is more than one station with that name.
feminist (
talk)
02:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
For a reason I don't understand, R22-3877, decided to change the move request from "[Name] MRT station" to "[Name] station" after Feminist's oppose comment. It's a little odd to see the requester so suddenly change the move request due to someone's comment, especially without second thoughts or third opinions. I don't understand what "Foo" refers to, either.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weslam, I changed the names because I was unsure about what was consensus, and had not read station naming conventions. I do apologise for my indecisiveness.
R22-3877 (
talk)
07:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
R22, no worries. A tip for you, though: if someone makes a counter proposal, don't immediately change the move request to that guy's proposal, especially if you don't necessarily agree with them. There were something like three replies at that time, two of which were comments and one was Feminist's counter proposal. It's way too hasty to just jump to change your move request without waiting for other people to input their opinions or checking the reliability of Feminist's argument. Consensus is something that's determined after
WP:SNOW or a thorough discussion by multiple parties, and not via a short opinion by a single editor. Cheers!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Feminist, please see my note about station naming conventions below. This kind of "preemptive disambiguation" is very widely used. It is what
WP:UKSTATION recommends and has been adopted in may other countries. We should talk about separately from the caps issue if there's a desire to switch to a different convention for Singapore.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support the proposal for "[Name] MRT Station" to "[Name] MRT station", oppose the counter proposal for "[Name] MRT Station" to "[Name] station" (excluding "MRT" from title).
However, this being said, I do support the originally proposed move, where the only change was the replacement of upper-case "Station" with lower-case "station". I support this since upper-case "Station" makes no sense, as per
MOS:CAPS, as well as that upper-case "Station" does not seem to be actually part of the name of the station, but that "station" is simply a suffix. Additionally, all other Mass Rapid Transit systems in other cities (examples above) have station articles with lower-case "station" in their titles, so it would be best if we maintained continuity with existing conventions. My only concern now is that we'll have a massive amount of work to create so many redirects, if this move is carried out. Does anyone know of a tool that can create article redirects en masse?
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
10:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Unless you create a bot to do this, I don't think there is one. Also, if we are moving MRT Station then don't we also have to move LRT stations too? -
1.02 editor (
talk)
08:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No, probably not. Doesn't hurt to ask, though. And yeah, that's actually a really good point, I didn't think of that. We should move the LRT stations as well, if either version of this move gets carried out. Good eye!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
14:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Alright, thanks! I've fixed a few errors you didn't catch.
R22-3877, would it be too much trouble for you to add all the LRT stations to this list as well? By the way,
1.02 editor, what's your vote on this? The 7 day period ends in just a few hours, we might end up with an inconclusive result if not enough people support R22's proposal.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Same. But honestly, better to do it now than later. Holding this move off will just make any future attempts even harder, when even more stations get added to the MRT network.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
07:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment on conventions – Most countries use station naming conventions similar to
WP:UKSTATION; more have moved to this recently. The common alternative
WP:USSTATION would omit the MRT, but still include the lowercase station. This RM proposal is just about fixing the overcapitalization, with minimal change to the naming convention otherwise, bringing the articles into the style of
WP:UKSTATION. Many of the comments above are from editors unaware of any of these conventions, it appears.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was unaware of this
WP:UKSTATION convention. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I'm still correct about my argument that "MRT" should be kept in the article titles, since the convention also agrees on the exact same format. Given that Singapore is a Commonwealth country, it makes far more sense for these station names to follow the UK convention, and not the US convention, as Feminist and SMcCandlish are trying to argue for. Besides, as I've already stated, all other MRT networks in different cities all keep "MRT" in the title; so why should Singapore's MRT stations be a special case?
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment on work to be done – Don't worry about continuity; no links will be broken as the old names will all be automatically left as redirects. As for fixing the whole lot, yes it's some work, but it goes quickly; even the post-move cleanup edits are less than a minute each, so we're looking at a few hours of work. I did thousands of these last year, and Singapore's set is small by comparison.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
My concern that this mass move will be troublesome has now been completely trivialised... lol. Kudos to you for that amazing feat, and thanks for letting me know about continuity; I forgot that old titles are left as redirects to the new title after a page move. Cheers!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Followup – @
Feminist and
SMcCandlish: – are you two OK with MRT staying in the titles, given the explanation about the widely used
WP:UKSTATION convention of including such system info in station titles? It would be much simpler to keep this RM just about the caps as intended, and seems to be a consensus for that, but it would be more clear with your agreement.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure. We can revisit whether such "over-disambiguation" or "pre-disambiguation" should be done in another discussion. Didn't mean to muddy the water. Consensus mostly seems to be against the idea, but there have been multiple noteworthy exceptions, and I can't be certain that an RfC about UKSTATION doing it wouldn't support the practice for some reason. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Decaps for LRT titles
Just a note, all the LRT stations also need to be manually moved to their new titles as well. ("Station" to "station") Everyone, please try to help out with this if you can; thanks!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Singapore, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Singapore on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SingaporeWikipedia:WikiProject SingaporeTemplate:WikiProject SingaporeSingapore articles
Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under
fair use but there is no
explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the
boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with
fair use.
Please go to
the image description page and edit it to include a
fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on
criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
I have just modified one external link on
Aljunied MRT Station. 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:
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment that it might help your argument if you provided examples of the LTA or SMRT/SBS using lower-case "station" in their official websites or statements. Also, that's a whole lot of pages that will need redirect links if this move is carried out... Yikes.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
14:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well... not really "done". All three of your links don't use "Station", but they don't use "station" either, so that's not a really strong argument. Referring to the station simply by its name doesn't prove anything.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose moves to "Foo MRT station". No reason to include disambiguation where it's unnecessary. Move to "Foo station" in unambiguous cases, "Foo station (MRT)" when there is more than one station with that name.
feminist (
talk)
02:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
For a reason I don't understand, R22-3877, decided to change the move request from "[Name] MRT station" to "[Name] station" after Feminist's oppose comment. It's a little odd to see the requester so suddenly change the move request due to someone's comment, especially without second thoughts or third opinions. I don't understand what "Foo" refers to, either.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weslam, I changed the names because I was unsure about what was consensus, and had not read station naming conventions. I do apologise for my indecisiveness.
R22-3877 (
talk)
07:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
R22, no worries. A tip for you, though: if someone makes a counter proposal, don't immediately change the move request to that guy's proposal, especially if you don't necessarily agree with them. There were something like three replies at that time, two of which were comments and one was Feminist's counter proposal. It's way too hasty to just jump to change your move request without waiting for other people to input their opinions or checking the reliability of Feminist's argument. Consensus is something that's determined after
WP:SNOW or a thorough discussion by multiple parties, and not via a short opinion by a single editor. Cheers!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
13:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Feminist, please see my note about station naming conventions below. This kind of "preemptive disambiguation" is very widely used. It is what
WP:UKSTATION recommends and has been adopted in may other countries. We should talk about separately from the caps issue if there's a desire to switch to a different convention for Singapore.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Support the proposal for "[Name] MRT Station" to "[Name] MRT station", oppose the counter proposal for "[Name] MRT Station" to "[Name] station" (excluding "MRT" from title).
However, this being said, I do support the originally proposed move, where the only change was the replacement of upper-case "Station" with lower-case "station". I support this since upper-case "Station" makes no sense, as per
MOS:CAPS, as well as that upper-case "Station" does not seem to be actually part of the name of the station, but that "station" is simply a suffix. Additionally, all other Mass Rapid Transit systems in other cities (examples above) have station articles with lower-case "station" in their titles, so it would be best if we maintained continuity with existing conventions. My only concern now is that we'll have a massive amount of work to create so many redirects, if this move is carried out. Does anyone know of a tool that can create article redirects en masse?
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
10:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Unless you create a bot to do this, I don't think there is one. Also, if we are moving MRT Station then don't we also have to move LRT stations too? -
1.02 editor (
talk)
08:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No, probably not. Doesn't hurt to ask, though. And yeah, that's actually a really good point, I didn't think of that. We should move the LRT stations as well, if either version of this move gets carried out. Good eye!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
14:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Alright, thanks! I've fixed a few errors you didn't catch.
R22-3877, would it be too much trouble for you to add all the LRT stations to this list as well? By the way,
1.02 editor, what's your vote on this? The 7 day period ends in just a few hours, we might end up with an inconclusive result if not enough people support R22's proposal.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
16:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Same. But honestly, better to do it now than later. Holding this move off will just make any future attempts even harder, when even more stations get added to the MRT network.
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
07:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment on conventions – Most countries use station naming conventions similar to
WP:UKSTATION; more have moved to this recently. The common alternative
WP:USSTATION would omit the MRT, but still include the lowercase station. This RM proposal is just about fixing the overcapitalization, with minimal change to the naming convention otherwise, bringing the articles into the style of
WP:UKSTATION. Many of the comments above are from editors unaware of any of these conventions, it appears.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes, I was unaware of this
WP:UKSTATION convention. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I'm still correct about my argument that "MRT" should be kept in the article titles, since the convention also agrees on the exact same format. Given that Singapore is a Commonwealth country, it makes far more sense for these station names to follow the UK convention, and not the US convention, as Feminist and SMcCandlish are trying to argue for. Besides, as I've already stated, all other MRT networks in different cities all keep "MRT" in the title; so why should Singapore's MRT stations be a special case?
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment on work to be done – Don't worry about continuity; no links will be broken as the old names will all be automatically left as redirects. As for fixing the whole lot, yes it's some work, but it goes quickly; even the post-move cleanup edits are less than a minute each, so we're looking at a few hours of work. I did thousands of these last year, and Singapore's set is small by comparison.
Dicklyon (
talk)
00:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
My concern that this mass move will be troublesome has now been completely trivialised... lol. Kudos to you for that amazing feat, and thanks for letting me know about continuity; I forgot that old titles are left as redirects to the new title after a page move. Cheers!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
05:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Followup – @
Feminist and
SMcCandlish: – are you two OK with MRT staying in the titles, given the explanation about the widely used
WP:UKSTATION convention of including such system info in station titles? It would be much simpler to keep this RM just about the caps as intended, and seems to be a consensus for that, but it would be more clear with your agreement.
Dicklyon (
talk)
16:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure. We can revisit whether such "over-disambiguation" or "pre-disambiguation" should be done in another discussion. Didn't mean to muddy the water. Consensus mostly seems to be against the idea, but there have been multiple noteworthy exceptions, and I can't be certain that an RfC about UKSTATION doing it wouldn't support the practice for some reason. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
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 or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Decaps for LRT titles
Just a note, all the LRT stations also need to be manually moved to their new titles as well. ("Station" to "station") Everyone, please try to help out with this if you can; thanks!
Weslam123 (
talk •
contrib)
15:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply