Talk:MTR/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• image* *image* image* *image*...

This page is chock-full with images! Needa some urgent clean-ups. Let's give a big hand to Mailer diablo, who have been working hard on this insurmountably annoying drudgery! *clap* :-D

I have taken some photos recently, and I hope they would be useful. :)

Btw, could the images be much smaller in size? Though I'm not suffering from megalophobia, i.e. fear of large things, my heart would strike like mad if my eyes get contact with these goliath-sized pictures! ;P -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:39, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

LOL! =D Most are useful, especially those ones on individual stations which can be used in individual station articles. Anyway, Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)'s next on my worklist! ;) - Mailer Diablo 19:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think some of the images placed in this article are misplaced. For example:

• Image: MTROlympicStation.jpg should be placed in the section West Rail Interface Works, since it is the only section in the article that talks about the station.
• Image: MTR Hong Kong station Diamond Hill.jpg should not be placed in this article as it does not say anything about the station. ( Image: MTR Hong Kong station Kwun Tong.JPG should be all we need for a photo of a station on the Kwun Tong Line.)
• Image:MTR Hong Kong station Central.jpg should not be placed in the Tsuen Wan Line section since the section doesn't say anything about it. (I know the Central Station is part of the Tsuen Wan Line, but Image: MTPrinceEdwardStationPlatfo.jpg is more suitable for that section, because the station name "Prince Edward" appears a few times in it.
• Image:MTR Hong Kong station Tiu Keng Leng.JPG should be placed in Tseung Kwan O Line, since it is part of the Line.
• Why is Image:MTR North Point station (1).jpg not being shown? It is placed in a perfect location, and if you say the caption is too long, well, I have shortened it.
• Image: HK MTR ChaiWan Waiting 2003Jan17.JPG should not be placed in West Rail Interface Works because it is not about Island Line. But since it shows the look of an M- , place it in MTR rolling stock should be better.
• Image: Ifc hong kong station.jpg should be either removed or moved to Airport Express and Tung Chung Line instead, since it is not related to the section. (Well, the section does talk about toliet facilities in the Airport Express, but in any case, placing a photo of the facilities is better than a photo of the station entrance, isn't it?)

I also think these two images should be added to the article: Image:Mtr.gif and Image:WIL-SIL-Proposal-4.png.

Opinions are welcome. Riddle | Talk 05:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must say that the rearrangement is a mess. Serious disruption is found upon textual arrangement. I don't like the changes at all. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I guess I finally get it - we are using different screen resolutions. I'm using 800×600, while you, PZFUN, and perhaps the others are using 1024×768, or something even larger. I'm really sorry for the mess. Riddle | Talk 06:35, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've rearranged some of the images yet again with trial and error. To abate monotony, some have been staggered. Feel free to improve further. Mission9801 09:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Seems it's one of the main sources of MTRC's income...could anyone write something about it? :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The main income for the MTRC is actually the money which comes from the right granted to the MTRC in building apartment housing above its stations. (With the word "above" meant in the loosest sense.)

A method for helping the MTRC to clear its debts by the government, as it looked almost impossible to do at one point. Nowadays, it's the main source of income MTRC relies on for profit. (Fares cover for maintenance and not profit in a good year. During SARS it didn't even do that.) MTRC has been pushing for the approval to build the Western and South Island Lines even though it admits that the current size of population in areas which would benefit from these two lines does not warrant for building the lines in the first place, that it is appropriate because of its value as "strategic development" (loosely translated), meaning that rather than building a line to ease traffic problems associated with rising populations, it is building these lines so that it can introduce more populations into these areas. (And there will already be the railways to cater for them.)

In short, what was once used as the "last resort" method to help the MTR to repay its debts is now a main mode of profit-making that the MTR seeks actively.

[1] The platform number 3 is actually a new platform, built as part of the project to extend the Kwun Tong line from Quarry Bay to North Point. — Instantnood 15:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Better remove it or relocate it...too many pictures in this article. The lengthy caption has dirupted the arrangement of the text. Btw, the same pic has already been added to the Island Line page...:D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 15:51, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agree. :-D — Instantnood 16:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Airport Express, on top of a different fare system, has its own gates. — Instantnood 15:25, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

What there's a redirect page for Nam Cheong, which is absent in the case of Kowloong Tong? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS There is a caption: Admiralty station in Central, on Hong Kong Island. Is that true? Or should it be Central District? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 16:27, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Nam Cheong is an integrated station. Passengers are only required to pass through the gates once (instead of twice as at Kowloon Tong or Mei Foo). Admiralty is actually part of Central. I'm not sure if people actually used the name Admiralty or 金鐘 to call the area, then full of barracks, before the station was built. Queensway (金鐘道) used to be part of Queen's Road East. :-) — Instantnood 16:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

" The first proposal was submitted by MTR Corporation Limited on May 2002, but had some major drawbacks. After permission was given, a feasibility study was then conducted in mid-2003 to determine the cost-effectiveness of the lines, the external benefits and impact on other modes of transport. The company derived a modified proposal in November 2003 to address the earlier drawbacks, and proposed three alignment options for the South Island Line.

" A third revised scheme was handed in end-March 2004, which included an extension plan on the Island Line. The plan was turned down by the government to favour the construction of highways. MTR gave a fourth try in February 2004, in which the legislative counsellors support the building of West Island Line. "

Is the above removed paragraphs going to be relocated to West Island Line and South Island Line? :-D — Instantnood 17:54, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Very likely. ;) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 19:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good. — Instantnood 20:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed that a lot of the station articles have been changed recently so their opening paragraphs read different from each article. I propose that we create a standard as follows: Station name (Chinese character, Chinese pronunciation) is a [[List of Hong Kong MTR stations|station]] on the [[Hong Kong]] [[MTR]] located in [[''Neighbourhood name'']]. It is located between [[''Station 1'']] and [[''Station 2'']] on the {{MTR Line Name}}. The station's [[livery]] is '''colour'''. Any objections? - PZFUN 02:17, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Very considerate. :-D --Jerry Crimson Mann 04:02, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The MTR has three-letter abbreviations for all its stations and lines. Should these be added to the articles? — Instantnood 11:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why not? :D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 12:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haven't got the information on hand right now.. :-( — Instantnood 20:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

My work: Station Code of MTR Lines and Stations --Xavier Fung 18:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I tried right-aligning the logo in order to make the intro paragraph less narrow (it's all of about ten words per line, five with my Firefox sidebar open) and to make the flow of text less jolting (in particular, the article's subject should be the very first thing in the article proper), but simply got reverted. Any reasons for having it the way it currently is? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 30 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

Because it looks perfectly fine on my computer, and there's no reason to have the logo be so large, and I actually like it on the left. Páll 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Same here. It works perfectly on my computer. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 1 July 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Shall we add a section on the security measures taken by the MTR Corporation, such as CCTVs, staff at concourses and platforms, police stands, the Rail District (previously MTR District) of the Hong Kong Police Force, armed police officers on s and in stations, etc.? (in response to the bomb in the London Tube :-D ) — Instantnood 17:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

So do you have any information? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at the moment. Haven't taken any pictures for the MTR so far. — Instantnood 20:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Today I got a leaflet from an MTR kiosk, and I found that the MTRC do not consider the Airport Express as part of the MTR system; they're totally separate. So should we separate the AE from this article or what? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Which leaflet did you pick up? I don't think Airport Express should be turned into a separate article, and by the end of the year this line would pick up citizens to the new Expo center too. Despite the different ticket system, I really don't think this should be separated. --Xavier Fung 07:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess the reason why it is presented as such is that they want to make it clear that the Airport Express is not in the same fare system. — Instantnood 20:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'v got some information about the "art in mtr" campaign, and I shall upload them afterward. :) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 11:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Great! — Instantnood 20:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

When I try to correct 53 station to 52 station. Someone (may be admin) change back it.

from the websutes MTRC

"We are currently operating a railway network of 90.9 kilometres route with 52 stations. With a daily patronage of over 2.4 million passengers, our system is one of the most ntensively utilized systems in the world." http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/railway/railway_details.html#quality

Please edit it with the correct datas.

--Mmlcs36 19:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The 53rd station is AsiaWorld-Expo, opening late 2005. --Xavier Fung 18:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found out that the page has grown over 40K. I read the page Wikipedia:Article_size and they suggest of keeping it below 32K to enhance readability. I think the part for History is already too lengthy so I suggest spilting the detail history part into a new article. A brief summary could be a rewrite of the overview section. I get an idea to briefly present the history by means of a table or a list in chronological order.

Any ideas from all of you? --Xavier Fung 20:45, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the History part can be restructured. It is currently not only history, but also introduction to most of the lines. I think the detailed history of the currently existing lines can be incoporated into the articles of respective lines, with just a very brief introduction (summary) listed on the main article. -- Spring Dennis 11:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

As interesting as the image is, it's missing some information already in the article, namely the missing West and South Island lines, and the Tung Chung Line extension to Fortress kill will have new stations, namely Tamar Station and HKCEC Station. Victoria Park Station will depend on which alignment they decide to use. Jonathan Stanley 15:33, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to the anonymous person whom updated the map... :D Though on another note, if Fortress Hill a dual line interchange as show, or should it be a triple interchange (Tung Chung Line)? I've looked at the plans from the MTR and it actually doesn't seem clear... Jonathan Stanley 15:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, there won't be any interchanges at Fortress Hill. The Northern Island Line continues from Hong Kong(Tung Chung Line) to Tamar, HKCEC to Victoria Park/North Causeway Bay then to Fortress Hill and all stations on the Island Line East of that. Whereas the Tseung Kwan O Line will extend from North Point to Tin Hau directly and all stations west of the Island Line, including the new Western Island Line. (Thus the Island Line as such will no longer be but split into the Tung Chung Line and the Tseung Kwan O Line, I wonder whether they're going to give them different names though.)

What do you guys think about my MTR Route Maps? (Especially on the future MTR map!) I want to see some feedback from users so that I can be able to add/subtract things from the maps so it will be more presentable and user-friendly. ng_iman@USA 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What a good drawing!

I think the colors of some lines are different from the official documents from MTR. The South Island Line (W) is grassy green, and the (E) section is reddish purple.

The Kwun Tong line section from Whampoa across the harbour is just a proposal for the fifth rail crossing and it is not yet planned. So I would say remove this section to avoid ambiguity.

One minor issue is on the Tseung Kwan O Line. The line is continuous through Tsueng Kwan O station to its two legs, so it is nicer to show its continuity by altering the lines.

I have also drafted one for my own drawing pleasure \:> , but I have added the portions of KCR lines to it. My drawing.

--Xavier Fung 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The requested move to Mass Transit Railway was unsuccessful. The discussion can be found here. I note that I voted in this discussion, but consensus was definitely to keep the article at the current location, with only one supporting vote. enochlau (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Just like the M-Train, I think it's time for the article to receive a bit of refurbishment. Basically at this time, there are two immediate issues I can think of :

• Revised reference format, i.e. new 'Notes' section. I'm referring to In-line citations. That'd be great.
• Revised prose for smaller and newer sections.

What do you guys think? :)

- Mailer Diablo 05:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds great to me, at the same time, implying lotsa drudgery... :-/ -- Jerry Crimson Mann 06:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the {{MTR station}}, {{MTR station 2 lines}} for the proposal MTR station infobox, and share about the comments regrading to the infobox in Template talk:MTR station. Also see Quarry Bay (MTR) and Tai Koo (MTR) for the sample effects. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 1~6:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the infobox and the station box should be implemented. We shouldn't make the whole page out of a template. The article should have a normal flow. Cos some may have more information and they can't add due to a template. Like just the station infobox and the station box. :P --Terence Ong ^|Talk 18:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Great ideas, but will it be difficult to maintain the exact data for some field, like the number of esculators? --Xavier Fung 06:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, but needs lots of research though. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 07:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of escalators? Hmmm... call me crazy but that seems like an odd thing to include in an infobox. enochlau (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing the article text from the template will be better, and it can be implemented look at Westminster tube station or Oxford Circus tube station. for examples.

I like the new preceding/following station box in particular. --Xavier Fung 09:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm in fact wondering if we can find out the information regarding the depths or elevations of the stations. :-) — Instantnood 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

An alternative way is to move the infobox to a separate template, and keep the infobox template as part of the station template. The station template can be directly used for most stations, and be {{subst:templatename}} for special cases, which would allow greater flexibility. — Instantnood 20:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving the name to Template:MTR Station Infobox and Template:MTR Station Infobox 2 will be a suggestion. The article should have a free flow like what Instantnood said. I will move it and edit the template. --Terence Ong ^Talk 18:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't logical (doesn't make sense). How can the Tung Chung line disconnect the Island island at Quarry Bay Station, i.e an overlap (2 lines running parallel to each other. this isn't NYC! or Duopoly)

The original Island line should be kept as it is; if there is an extension (South Island line East and West) it would only be added to the existing line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.27.182.175 (talk • contribs) . 21:00, December 24, 2005 (UTC)

The two lines will be running parallel to each other, but they're not like the local and express services on the New York City Subway. The North Island Line, which will extend the Tung Chung Line to Fortress Hill and from there pick up the eastern half of the Island Line, will be further north, serving the coastal areas. — Instantnood 21:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Which seems strange because it is not an ideal train network layout

Guess they want to alleviate the burden on the old line, and to simplify its network by turning three lines into two. This will probably also bring convenience to passengers, that they don't have to change train for several times. — Instantnood 08:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The plan is like this: Tung Chung Line + North Island Line + Island Line (Fortress Hill to Chai Wan), and Island Line (Kennedy Town to Tin Hau) + Tseung Kwan O Line. That means the Island line itself is separated into two lines, without any overlapping of service. According to the RDS-2 of Hong Kong government, the separation of Island line produces two east-west railway corridors to enhance service from the suburbs to the CBD. The only inconvenience is that people have to change trains at North Point to reach Causeway Bay and Wan Chai. --Xavier Fung 15:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that the info on platform 2 at Hong Kong MTR station is missing (not on this page, but no one is reading the other page). Even if this platform doesn't exist, can someone put in some information on why this is the case?

• There actually "is" a platform 2 of Hong Kong station, but it is not open and no tracks were laid. P2 of Hong Kong station uses as the arrival platform of Airport Express, then the trains will reverse its direction in the turnback siding next to the station to platform 1 for departure. Since the turnback siding lies in the area of Central Reclamation Phase III, it is not built at the same time as Airport Express. Now the reclamation is undergoing and there's still no plan to build the siding and restore platform 2 for daily operation. --Xavier Fung 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed at this page that applying line colours to the text referring to different lines is not recommended. In the past the article of both MTR and KCR have so many "coloured" links that does not conform well to accessibility, and soon there's a weak consensus that the first reference to the line names could apply its colour. I oppose the deletion of relevant templates for line colours, but if the final resolution is delete, we have to think of another method to reference the colours in the series.

I would come up the following discussion in my mind:

• Another effective method to present the colours so that they could be applied to station templates and makes contribution from others easier. CSS? or other else?
• A consensus on how should the colours apply to gain a balance between accessibility and information presented.
• A unification of line colours of MTR and KCR lines to be used in the articles.

For the 3rd point, I have made the following table:

So any ideas? --Xavier Fung 17:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

IMO using these color link templates in the text body is a bad idea. First, they are so out of place. All links should be like links on any other pages, not some fancy blue/red/pink/yellow bold links. Second, I can't see how informative the links would be by just coloring them. If the information that we want to convey to the readers is the common colors used by the company to denote their different lines, we could very well add a simple section/table listing the colors and the lines. There is no need to color the text itself.

We are building an encyclopedia, not a tourist guide. --Lorenzarius 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that being accessible and informative, the color of the text is not a must. I've to point out that these colors can also convey information in distinguishing the lines, and the previous consensus made here was to leave the colors there but use them in a smart way. I am finding out how to unify all the line colors (this is why using color templates by some fellow editors) so that everyone editing the MTR/KCR series can use the same color, and to preserve the consistency plus accessibility.

These colors will also be used in neighbouring station box too. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean that we cannot provide some practical info like the line colors. Xavier Fung 15:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we use this template on all the MTR stations, instead of just only interchange stations. This one is neater than the previous version. I suggest we should make it into a template. Look at Oxford Circus tube station and Marble Arch tube station on how to make the box. We don't need to be exactly the same as them though, just using the template style. Any suggestions or comments? --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, great for navigation. See also what we do with Sydney's CityRail stations: e.g. Redfern railway station, Sydney. enochlau (talk) 12:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That is the one which is also used on MTR stations. Maybe the London Underground one will be a better example and LU is a featured article too. I just dislike the colour parade on the boxes, quite hard to see. Hope I don't sound too bias here. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 15:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am running short of time to update all. Here are the updated examples: Sheung Wan, Tsim Sha Tsui and Ma On Shan. All stations on KCR East Rail & Ma On Shan Rail has been updated with the new neighbour box, but not all the MTR stations :-) --Xavier Fung 09:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Could some one help me fix {{Start MTR box}} and {{MTR Line}}. Thanks. And use it instead of the current one, I prefer templates (for this neighbouring stations box) than the whole code on the page itself. As you just need to add the line, colour, and stations. --Terence Ong 03:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you're heading with those templates. Could you give me an example of how you would use the template, so I'll have some idea on what the parameters should be? enochlau (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I took this code from {{Start MRT box}} and {{MRT line}}. I'm planning to put it on all stations as the neighbouring stations box. --Terence Ong 15:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have one problem and one suggestion. The problem is that any choice to adjust specific box after applying templates? I found some station names are quite long (e.g. Tsueng Kwan O South) which wraps off the box, and some interchange stations are linked by subways (Central - Hong Kong). Both types need specific adjustments. The suggestion is: make the box universal to suit all railway lines, not MTR lines only. --Xavier Fung 16:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it really true that the government has approved MTR's proposal for the Shatin to Central Link? The person who added the information did not provide any sources, and there is no mention of it in the MTR website. --Kylohk 18:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'll look for it shortly. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think so. It seems based on a report from Apple Daily a week ago. We are still waiting for the final bits about the merger, but no news on how MTR will do the Shatin to Central Link. --Xavier Fung 17:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been converted to the new in-line citation format, in accordance to the standards set out in Featured Articles. Also the future of the MTR section has been summarised and split into a separate article, as the size has just grown too large to be managable. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :-). I would suggest moving the History part to a new article if they are not moved into the history section of the line pages. Xavier Fung 04:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. enochlau (talk) 09:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)