MTR is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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 Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all
Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to
join this project.Hong KongWikipedia:WikiProject Hong KongTemplate:WikiProject Hong KongHong Kong articles
This article is written in
Hong Kong English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The previous edits to spin off #Modified Initial System as its own article (and to expand with more, encyclopaedic details; considering the length of this main article, and, the existing practice for other sections) and to downsize that section according to summary style had met with unexplained edit warring and extensive simple vandalism/overdone reverts by
Citobun, among others. No discussion had ever been launched on either talk pages (neither here nor
Talk:Modified Initial System). Please state here your concern and valid reason to oppose such an operation, if there's any. Otherwise
Wikipedia:BOLD will be adhered to and all such disruptive edits will be reported. Thanks.
219.73.29.243 (
talk) 02:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I didn't carry out any vandalism. Please do not make false accusations. I don't think splitting off Modified Initial System is necessary unless you intend to significantly expand the coverage of that subject. Secondly you need to stop adding links to a so-called "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" unless you can provide evidence that this is a well-established name, as I have asked of you
repeatedly – per
WP:BURDEN. I also don't understand why you keep adding circular redirects to this nonexistent article. Citobun (
talk) 06:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
BTW I already suggested the alternative names "Tsuen Wan Line immersed tube" or "Modified Initial System immersed tube" since "Harbour Crossing Tunnel" is not an official name nor is it widely used. It also looks clumsy and ungrammatical. Citobun (
talk) 06:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I would concur but these are like neologisms invented by the Wikipedian community. The existing name appears at least in scholastic publications.
124.217.188.171 (
talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@Citobun: These names don't exist anywhere else apart from this talk page.
203.218.155.184 (
talk) 13:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I went through the edit history and found that you actually did.
[1] Meanwhile that article on the MIS has been expanded quite considerably and I would suppose you too would consider it necessary to have a separate article on that, given your precondition has been fulfilled.
124.217.188.171 (
talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Given your precondition has been fulfilled there's so far clear consensus to spin off the section. On the other hand it isn't uncommon for former lines of rapid transit system to have their own articles, e.g.,
Branch MRT Line of Singapore, the
District Railway in London or the IRT Trunk Line and the Fulton Street Line in the NYC.
124.217.188.171 (
talk) 07:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I found no reason that this shouldn't be carried out. The name of that tunnel isn't quite a relevant point and should be settled separately.
124.217.188.171 (
talk) 06:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Agree. Go to an appropriate venue to discuss the naming issue around the article for that immersed tube tunnel. Its name got nothing directly to do with whether the MIS section warrants a split. Meanwhile would anyone request to unprotect that page?
203.218.155.184 (
talk) 13:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Please stop jumping from IP to IP, it makes this discussion extremely hard to follow and probably constitutes
Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Citobun (
talk) 05:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Now that while there's no longer by logical deduction any opposition towards spinning off the section
MTR § MIS and given the spun-off article
[2] has been considerably expanded
[3] JalenFolf has gone way further to argue not even the redirect is printworthy and removed the R with possibilities tag.
[4] The page has also been locked
[5] upon their request.
[6] They've also proceeded to de-link the redirect to the article section
MTR § MIS from as many as ten articles
[7] which amounted to
disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The question would be that whether such disruptions (including, but not limited to Citobun's blanket reverts mentioned above)
[8] should be tolerated, and whether the new materials in the expanded article should be incorporated for the being under the MTR § MIS section or should that expanded article be restored.
124.217.188.171 (
talk) 11:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I did wonder why
JalenFolf had removed the link to the MIS section of the
MTR article from the
Wilfrid Newton article. Also 124.217.188.171, I recommend you sign up for an actual wikipedia account.
Turini2 (
talk) 12:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Please stop jumping from IP to IP, it makes this discussion extremely hard to follow and probably constitutes
Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Citobun (
talk) 05:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)reply
This is simply counterproductive. The content of the enriched article isn't incorporated anywhere. It's like simply scraped.
220.246.91.139 (
talk) 05:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)reply