This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed after a couple of weeks. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Bombardier Movia C951 →
Changchun Bombardier Movia C951 – Reason given by previous mover is invalid and unsourced. Bombardier Transportation and Changchun Bombardier (joint venture of CNR Changchun and Bombardier Transportation are two distinct entities. This is indicated in the sources provided. The title should be reverted to "Changchun Bombardier Movia C951" to reflect this, in line with other Singapore MRT rolling stock which has stuck to this convention.
Mailer Diablo 06:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.
Natg 19 (
talk)
19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Mailer diablo: Noting this has now been moved to Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, no idea if that's an acceptable title. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951 →
Bombardier Movia C951 – The tender submitted was clearly not a joint venture by the both company. The winning bid submitted was solely by bombardier and its Singapore company unlike the C151A trains which was submitted by both Kawasaki and CSR. Pls refer to C951 tender results and C151A's
http://web.archive.org/web/20100228004114/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jun08_951.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902142556/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jan09_151a.htm
Lee480 (
talk)
16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This article, Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, attracted attention in light of the C151A scandal that broke a few days ago. As a result, there is now a requested move and removal of the phrase "Changchun" trying to remove all references to China. Personally I never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject Trains follow the operator rather than the manufacturer, but it is a fact established by several sources that these trains are constructed by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles, a joint venture by Bombardier Transportation and CNR Changchun. Could we have other editors comment on this naming convention? - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Even before the C151A scandal, this train was never referenced as "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951". You're the first person I've ever seen that does so. And without consulting other editors around, this editor moved this page and made major change by adding what you think is appropriate, forcefully.
Various website, including Singapore's government (LTA), calls it Bombardier Movia without the "Changchun". [1] [2]
Another point is this editor asserting that referencing numerals/values from another website is a copyright violation! Shocking! So if Apple made a net profit of $1.67 Billion and they flaunt it all over their website, this "$1.67 Billion" is a trademarked value according to our dear editor, @ Mailer diablo:.
Seemingly like a hollywood movie, this editor tries to allege that I am attempting to remove reference to China in this page! This train is well-known and proud to be made in China! There's nothing to hide. A quick search in the editor's talk page clearly shows why he is emotional about the China linkage. However, we should be professional not emotional and come out with baseless conspiracies!
To exemplify my professionalism, I've edited this page to make it clear that this train contract was won by Bombardier (the canadian company) but built by your favourite: Changchun!!
Hope this clarifies.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 ( talk • contribs)
I cannot easily determine the goal of this RfC. Is this to discuss the name of the article and a move? If so, what are the options being considered? Briefly, what is the justification for anyone supporting any given option? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Material on LTA's website is copyrighted. You can't copy tables of information ad verbatim down to the exact party names including spaces and typos, refer to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Also refer to LTA's terms of use, clause 6. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( non-admin closure) sami talk 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Nobody calls it "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951/C951A".
However from what I read above it seems that the editor Mailer Diablo (poorly) attempted to oppose the renaming the article because he "never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject". What he is trying to tell us is that although the transport ministry, the train operator, the manufacturer and Wikipedia herself follows certain naming convention we shouldn't follow it because it doesn't fit his style.
Singapore's original C151 trains were built by 4 separate manufacturer and I dont see the editor Mailer Diablo attempting to rename it. Why is he so selective?
So the solution is simple, either we follow the nomenclature the masses are doing or we rename the C151 page, to ensure consistency across.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed after a couple of weeks. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Bombardier Movia C951 →
Changchun Bombardier Movia C951 – Reason given by previous mover is invalid and unsourced. Bombardier Transportation and Changchun Bombardier (joint venture of CNR Changchun and Bombardier Transportation are two distinct entities. This is indicated in the sources provided. The title should be reverted to "Changchun Bombardier Movia C951" to reflect this, in line with other Singapore MRT rolling stock which has stuck to this convention.
Mailer Diablo 06:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted.
Natg 19 (
talk)
19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Mailer diablo: Noting this has now been moved to Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, no idea if that's an acceptable title. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951 →
Bombardier Movia C951 – The tender submitted was clearly not a joint venture by the both company. The winning bid submitted was solely by bombardier and its Singapore company unlike the C151A trains which was submitted by both Kawasaki and CSR. Pls refer to C951 tender results and C151A's
http://web.archive.org/web/20100228004114/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jun08_951.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20090902142556/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jan09_151a.htm
Lee480 (
talk)
16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This article, Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, attracted attention in light of the C151A scandal that broke a few days ago. As a result, there is now a requested move and removal of the phrase "Changchun" trying to remove all references to China. Personally I never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject Trains follow the operator rather than the manufacturer, but it is a fact established by several sources that these trains are constructed by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles, a joint venture by Bombardier Transportation and CNR Changchun. Could we have other editors comment on this naming convention? - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Nope. Even before the C151A scandal, this train was never referenced as "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951". You're the first person I've ever seen that does so. And without consulting other editors around, this editor moved this page and made major change by adding what you think is appropriate, forcefully.
Various website, including Singapore's government (LTA), calls it Bombardier Movia without the "Changchun". [1] [2]
Another point is this editor asserting that referencing numerals/values from another website is a copyright violation! Shocking! So if Apple made a net profit of $1.67 Billion and they flaunt it all over their website, this "$1.67 Billion" is a trademarked value according to our dear editor, @ Mailer diablo:.
Seemingly like a hollywood movie, this editor tries to allege that I am attempting to remove reference to China in this page! This train is well-known and proud to be made in China! There's nothing to hide. A quick search in the editor's talk page clearly shows why he is emotional about the China linkage. However, we should be professional not emotional and come out with baseless conspiracies!
To exemplify my professionalism, I've edited this page to make it clear that this train contract was won by Bombardier (the canadian company) but built by your favourite: Changchun!!
Hope this clarifies.
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 ( talk • contribs)
I cannot easily determine the goal of this RfC. Is this to discuss the name of the article and a move? If so, what are the options being considered? Briefly, what is the justification for anyone supporting any given option? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Material on LTA's website is copyrighted. You can't copy tables of information ad verbatim down to the exact party names including spaces and typos, refer to Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Also refer to LTA's terms of use, clause 6. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( non-admin closure) sami talk 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Nobody calls it "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951/C951A".
However from what I read above it seems that the editor Mailer Diablo (poorly) attempted to oppose the renaming the article because he "never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject". What he is trying to tell us is that although the transport ministry, the train operator, the manufacturer and Wikipedia herself follows certain naming convention we shouldn't follow it because it doesn't fit his style.
Singapore's original C151 trains were built by 4 separate manufacturer and I dont see the editor Mailer Diablo attempting to rename it. Why is he so selective?
So the solution is simple, either we follow the nomenclature the masses are doing or we rename the C151 page, to ensure consistency across.