Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station

Gardens by the Bay MRT station has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: December 17, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Singapore Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Trains Low‑importance Trains Portal 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should the article be renamed from Gardens by the Bay MRT Station to Gardens By The Bay MRT Station? The minor capitalization of the letters have appeared in the latest updated map from the LTA. http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/dam/ltaweb/corp/PublicTransport/img/Train%20System%20Map%20July%202014.jpg

Seloloving (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, see WP:NCCAPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gardens by the Bay 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120908133557/http://app.mot.gov.sg/News_Centre/Latest_News/NewsID/1025BFFF26792831/Speech_by_Mr_Lui_Tuck_Yew_Minister_for_Transport_at_the_Inspection_of_Downtown_Line_1_Station_and_A.aspx to http://app.mot.gov.sg/News_Centre/Latest_News/NewsID/1025BFFF26792831/Speech_by_Mr_Lui_Tuck_Yew_Minister_for_Transport_at_the_Inspection_of_Downtown_Line_1_Station_and_A.aspx

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) 00:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seloloving and ZKang123, I have made some incremental changes to station infoboxes, which I shall detail below.

Change 1

The first change is the inclusion of an SCDF shelter glyph. I had originally positioned it between the station code and English name. I then shifted it to the "type" parameter, below "Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station", where it is more discreet and less obtrusive.

TE22  Gardens by the Bay 滨海湾花园 சரையோரப் பூந்தோட்டங்கள் Taman di Pesisiran
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station

TE22  Gardens by the Bay 滨海湾花园 சரையோரப் பூந்தோட்டங்கள் Taman di Pesisiran
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station

Change 2

The second change I made was to add qualifiers to the "type" parameter in the infobox. Before I made this change, the value was uniform across the board ("Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station"). I have diversified it into the 6 following values:

1. For a non-interchange, non-terminal station: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station
Examples: Cashew, Pasir Panjang

2. For a non-interchange, terminal station: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) terminus
Examples: Punggol Coast, Tuas Link

3. For an interchange, non-terminal station: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange
Examples: Outram Park, Botanic Gardens

4. For an interchange station that is the terminus of some lines: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) interchange and terminus
Examples: Dhoby Ghaut, Tanah Merah, Tengah

5. For an interchange station that is the terminus of all lines serving it: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) termini
note: "interchange" omitted here because it would be superfluous as "termini" (plural) implies more than one line
Examples: HarbourFront, Sungei Bedok

6. For a non-interchange, non-terminal station, but with terminating services: Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station and terminus
Examples: Stadium

The same logic applies to standalone LRT stations, LRT termini, and LRT stations that interchange with MRT stations. Unopened or shell stations get a "Future" prefix added to the above values.

Change 3 (prospective)

The last change I would like to make, but one I am withholding from until further consensus is sought, is to relegate the Malay, Chinese, and Tamil station names from the top of the infobox to a nested area within the infobox (what I previously did on the main Mass Rapid Transit and line pages). I tried this in sandbox with the other_name parameter:

TE22  Gardens by the Bay 滨海湾花园 சரையோரப் பூந்தோட்டங்கள் Taman di Pesisiran
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station

TE22  Gardens by the Bay (shifted) (shifted) (shifted)
Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) station
General information
Other names	Taman di Pesisiran (Malay) 滨海湾花园 (Chinese) சரையோரப் பூந்தோட்டங்கள் (Tamil)

In my view it looks better, tidier, and harmonises MRT infoboxes with other train articles throughout Wikipedia. It will also provide us with space to include Roman transcriptions for Mandarin and Tamil, which can differ significantly from the English names. I would like to use a North Korean example I got from Template:Infobox station:

Sinanju Ch'ŏngnyŏn Station
General information
Location	Anju, South Pyongan Province North Korea
Line(s)	P'yŏngŭi Line Kaech'ŏn Line

I look forward to your input.

Cheers, Tiger7253 (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiger7253
First off, you shouldnt have implemented the changes across the MRT station pages without consensus. That is to say, your proposed changes arent totally welcome.
I have discussed this issue with other experienced editors. General consensus is: the changes are unnecessary and considered cruft. It instead overcomplicated the infobox and stuffed too much information. There is also no need to indicate whether this station is a bomb shelter or not. Another complicated matter, particularly for interchange stations, is that only one line platforms is a designated CD shelter. (E.g. for Newton, only the NSL platforms are)
A station can also be an interchange, terminus etc. Plus, theres those roundel things at the top of the infobox. The text itself will also indicate that the station is a terminus. For standardisation sake (since this proposed system will make things more complex), we just keep to state that it is a Mass Rapid Transit station.
There is also no official Roman transcription of the Chinese and Tamil names. Still would keep at the top.
I apologise if the wording sounded harsh. I know you are editing in good faith. But you have made the infobox standardisation more complicated. I would prefer if you help by cleaning up plenty of articles. For starters, you can help add details of the station's artworks for the pages without a proper artwork section. Especially for NEL and CCL. On CD shelters, descriptions may vary by line. I have written a few samples for some articles for each line. You can copy them, though not sure for the NSEWL stations. Cross check with the circle line book, downtown line book on CD shelters and wheelchair accessibility.
Sources to help:

• LTA Art-in-Transit page
• SBS Art-in-Transit page
• Books on the CCL and DTL with their info on construction difficulties, CD shelters and wheelchair accessibility

I hope you can still help improve our articles in other ways. You dont have to revert your changes for now; someone else will help. ZKang123 (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZKang123 I acknowledge and accept your views. Anyone who wants to revert any of the edits I have made can feel free to go ahead - I have no objection. The only thing I take objection to is the framing, more specifically the language, employed by the aforementioned editors - I presume in the Discord? (which I am not yet part of, but may join at a later date when I can devote more time to my various pursuits on Wikipedia). In my nearly seven years of being here on Wikipedia I have learnt that it takes all kinds to contribute to the Wikiproject's corpus - there are those that are the literary sort, focusing exclusively on copyediting, there are those that throw themselves entirely into taking pictures, or creating SVG graphics, then there are those that engage in what could be termed janitorial work, doing clean-up or making mundane, low-level cosmetic improvements to articles, then there are of course those that dabble in a bit of everything - and each respective division of labour deserves its fair share of acknowledgement. I would think that the aforementioned editors, who have probably been on here far longer than any of us have, would be enriched enough by their "experience" to know better than to call nitty-gritty edits made in good faith by longstanding editors "cruft" (even if they disagree with the essence of the edits). The line between constructiveness and frivolity on here can be amorphous - are colourful roundels or caplets (for example) in station infoboxes necessary when plain text would be more practical from an accessibility standpoint, easier for the colour-blind to read? I believe they add cosmetic value, if not encyclopaedic value, but I can imagine an editor from another era deeming these largely cosmetic edits (that are now a mainstay in the MRT Wikiproject) irrelevant to Wikipedia and calling their inclusion "cruft", chastising the person who came up with them. Perhaps I am reading too much into the word, but the literal definition of it is quite uncharitable.

In any case, I have done my fair share of copyediting (most notably to the lead of the main MRT article) and I look forward to getting back to it in the near future.

Thanks, Tiger7253 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have offended you. I am appreciative of your thoughts and edits to improve the articles but the proposed changes are not really suitable. I hope you will continue to come up with other ideas for improvements in other aspects and let's have a discussion on improvement on WP:SG or WP:TRAINS talkpages. I appreciate your edits, but I hope you can do more to help. ZKang123 (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger7253, imo, wide spread changes like these should have been either discussed or sounded out, or tested on a small scale (i.e. 5-10 pages) before full-on implementation. this is coming from someone who had initiated a set of widespread changes on 200 over BLPs. in this manner, you would have either gotten buy-in from other editors, or know before it is too late that the work is unnecessary. the gylph you have used is recognisable as a radioactive material sign, not a CD shelter glyph. people may think that singapore holds radioactive materials all around singapore. next, on the roman transcriptions, I don't think there is a need for those when is an official English name of the place. This is also grounded in WP:TRANSLITERATE. What's the point of tranliterating other languages, when the recognisable English names of places is used throughout the content? The Korean train infobox has additional tranliterations precisely because it is possible for the native name to be printed in those manners in English. We wouldn't see that for the train stations in Singapore, i.e. you should not be seeing Binhaiwanhuayuan MRT station used in English, but Gardens by the Bay MRT station. I have no comments on change set 2. – robertsky (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomson east coast line could open on 22nd October. 101.78.107.69 (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gardens by the Bay MRT station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (note this is my first time doing this, so bear with me ;)), my name is Brachy0008 and I’m the (surprise) reviewer for Gardens by the Bay MRT station.

Is it well written?

1. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: , surprisingly great for a stub. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: , no issues found. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it verifiable with no original research?

1. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: , no issues Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: , Sources are largely government publications or reliable news media. Well done! Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. It contains no original research: , no issues found after some spotchecks. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: , no issues. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it broad in its coverage?

1. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: , explains the main aspects, like its openings, construction and location. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): , everything is relevant to topic and summarised. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it neutral?

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: , no words to watch present and no biased sources of information. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it stable?

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: , no edit war so far. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

1. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: , All images are appropriately licensed, either uploaded directly by contributors to Commons, or uploaded from a blog which has stated images are licensed there under a compatible Creative Commons license. Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: , all images are relevant pictures of the station, aerial or landscape. Well done! Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overalls

Pass or fail?: You pass! Well done! Brachy08 (insert welcoming to chat with you message here) 05:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ZKang123 (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]