Talk:MTR/Move discussion

This is the discussion of a failed requested move. Do not edit this page. enochlau (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTR is not a proper noun; according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, article titles are not capitalized unless they are proper nouns.--Huaiwei 18:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What mean? How come it ain't a proper noun? -- Jerry Crimson Mann 18:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MTR is a proper noun and it's operated by MTR Corporation Limited. As formerly the name is named as Mass Transit Railway, however this name (Mass Transit Railway) is no longer used after the privatisation of MTR Corporation. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request to move this page, and not the page on the Corporation. They are two different things altogether. MTR is an abbreviation, and is not a proper noun.--Huaiwei 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused by your claim that "MTR is not a proper noun". That makes absolutely no sense. Aren't we discussing the move from "MTR" to "Mass Transit Railway" instead of "MTR" to "Mtr"? Enochlau 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just noticed this error moments ago, so pardon me for that.--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Support: as above--Huaiwei 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. MTR is how it is called and branded. Nobody uses its former full name. Compare this with BAA plc. — Insta ntnood 18:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As the comments mentioned above. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 18:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:PZFUN/signature 19:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
- I would strongly appreciate if reasons may be given. I am sure the admins would appreciate it too.--Huaiwei 19:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Weak oppose. Initialisms should be capitalized; surely you don't propose that it be referred to as "mtr" instead? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This move request is to "Mass Transit Railway", and not "Mtr".--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand, but your justification for the move is "MTR is not a proper noun; according to Wikipedia's naming conventions, article titles are not capitalized unless they are proper nouns", in which you complain about the title's capitalization. To then suggest "Mass Transit Railway" as an alternate title because you feel the current title is incorrectly capitalized seems to me to be a non sequitur. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I already alluded above, I nominated the move based on a wrong reasoning (which I copied without thinking from your nomination for SARS, which you would probably have noticed.--Huaiwei 11:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Huh...I either didn't notice that or saw it before but forgot by the time I wrote the comment. Based on the change in premise, my original objections no longer apply; however, now that I have read through the discussion, I find myself convinced by the others' arguments—vote changed to weak oppose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I find the evidence presented below, in particular Shinjiman's table, to indicate that a page move should not be effected. Enochlau 23:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already discussed the inapplicability of Shinjiman's table in detail. He was talking about MTR Corporation, and not on this article at all. I am asking for the rail system's page to be moved, and not of the corporation in question.--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a "stool-stirring" act I'd say. This is the original name! -- Jerry Crimson Mann 07:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Original name of? Proof? Mind defining "stool-stirring", btw?--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose': MTR is more common with Hongkongers and toursits alike and almost everyone. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 07:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Common" names arent always the most appriopriate for wikipedia, especially when it comes to claiming ownership over abbreviations.--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huaiwei, I'm being neutral. Not taking any sides at all. Official documents and website use MTR not Mass Transit Railway. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 12:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why do you bother to vote if you are being nuetral? Official documents and website do use both MTR and Mass Transit Railway as evidenced below.--Huaiwei 13:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - You've got the wrong meaning, as in I'm not siding anyone here. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - (Whoops, I had written this before, but I somehow reverted myself, stupid rollback link) As Terence voted oppose instead of neutral, I think what he means is that he is trying to be objective? Which is what we really need at the moment? Enochlau 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm suppose to be on a vacation --Terence Ong ^|Talk 08:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I would still expect votes to be clearly explained thou, be it for or against.--Huaiwei 11:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There is a not-small-proportion of HKers who don't even know what MTR stands for... novacatz
- As above. There is a not-small-proportion of the world's citizens who dont know MTR only refers to a HK subway system too.--Huaiwei 12:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a valid argument per se. I can also say some people did not know what is a subway, but they prefer Metro or some name else. This argument is pointless I think, and the name change itself is unneccessary. --Xavier Fung 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but oppose, for the above reasons. - Mailer Diablo 05:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, MTR is a common word with daily use in Hong Kong. Tourists will also recongise the 3-letter combination as the famous means of transport here. Moreover, the company itself is called MTR Corporation. It is not appropiate to change the name. --Xavier Fung 12:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, why do people argue that the MTR Corporation cannot operate a Mass Transit Railway, and must only operate an MTR?--Huaiwei 12:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - You say "operate a Mass Transit Railway". Do you mean that there are more than one Mass Transit Railway? If so, why don't you start a new page titled Mass Transit Railway to place what you mean there?
  - According to MTR website, it said the MTR Railway when it recongises its railway operation. MTR becomes the brand name after the listing of the stock. --Xavier Fung 17:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - MRT Corporation was listed. Are you able to list a rail system? The MTR website may refer to its as the MRT in most instances, but that is common when it comes to abbreviations. It clearly also mentions Mass Transit Railway in other places, something some of you seem to be avoiding admittion to.--Huaiwei 04:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Despite the fact that they are both referred as MTR and Mass Transit Railway, I still don't see the neceesary points to support your motion. Why is it so important to change such recognisable name? Is it just better to create a page of Mass Transit Railway and make it redirect to MTR? It's just a pure conjecture, with the "rules" of Wikipedia in mind, without considering the actual usage of the loanword and the effect of the MTR brand name in the community and around the world. --Xavier Fung 06:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        If I need to restate some of the points raised in reaction to your points above, the MTR is an abbreviation which may refer to multiple objects. Unless it is as prevalant as the BBC for instance, we should avoid monopolising common article names for specific items which are far less relevant to the wider masses. How would we like The Underground, The Tube, Métro, SkyTrain, MRT, etc, all becoming articles perculiar to just one rail system, even thou The Tube is quite well known in English to refer to the London system in particular, while the Métro is quite clearly the one in Paris? I cannot find a single rail system monopolising a common name, and that includes some of the most established subway systems around the world. On what basis, then, should MTR make an exception? Is the MTR an extablished word in English to refer only to one rail system, and has it become more extrenched then the Tube or the Métro? Recognisable? To who? Demonstrate it please.--Huaiwei 07:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Verifications please?--Huaiwei 18:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Don't think it'd be its present official full name. — Insta ntnood 18:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You just provided support to the fact that MTR is an abbreviation for Mass Transit Railway. You even have a Mass Transit Railway by-law [2] clearly indicating that "Corporation" = the MTR Corporation Limited while "railway" = the Mass Transit Railway.--Huaiwei 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before the rebranding, MTR is actually an abbreviation. And MTR is not an abbreviation after the rebranding. See [3] for details for the introduction of MTR.--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 18:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time	Name		Operator
Before rebranding	Mass Transit Railway	地下鐵路	Mass Transit Railway Corporation	地下鐵路公司
After rebranding	MTR	地鐵	MTR Corporation	地鐵公司
After privatisation	MTR	地鐵	MTR Corporation Limited	地鐵有限公司

Rebranding of the Corporation dosent mean the system itself is also renamed. The sources provided by instantnood above validates my point.--Huaiwei 18:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a key difficulty in differentiating between a corporation's name and that of the rail system. This article is clearly about the rail system, and its name is not neccesarily affected by the name change of the company. [4] gives no validation that MTR no longer stands for Mass Transit Railway, and even gives verification that it does so, for I clearly see "The principle business is to operate mass transit railway system".--Huaiwei 19:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The company, nor anybody else, is still calling the metro system with its former full name, except the by-law and the ordinance. Is your next target the HSBC? The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation still exists as a subsidiary of the group. What about the BAA plc, the BBC and the CNN? — Insta ntnood 19:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets show some level of acceptable maturity and look at this issue matter of factly. The ordinance, the by-laws, and even the corporate website clearly show that MTR still refers to the Mass Transit Railway. This is a fact all of you fail to show otherwise. Even if the general public refers to it popularly as MTR as claimed, it violates the naming convertion's guidelines on proper nouns, the same way SARS was recently moved to Severe acute respiratory syndrome for the exact same reason even thou most people would say SARS too. Secondly, HSBC, BAA, BBC and CNN are all not relevant here, simply because of them are legal names of 'corporations. The same thing for DBS Bank, PSA International, and so on, none of which are abbreviations since a rebranding exercise. Once again I ask: is this page about MTR Corporation Limited, or on the Mass Transit Railway system?--Huaiwei 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is BBC no longer called The British Broadcasting Corporation? Is CNN already the official whole name of the company (while its website says " © 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. ")? — Insta ntnood 19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure I said they are legal names of corporations. So what if the BBC = British Broadcasting Corporation, and CNN = Cable News Network? Does that mean MTR no longer = Mass Transit Railway?--Huaiwei 19:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds a bit like double standard to me. BBC, CNN and DBS Bank, or The British Broadcasting Corporation, Cable News Network and Development Bank of Singapore, which are the legal names? — Insta ntnood 20:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards? Actually, DBS does not stand for the Development Bank of Singapore, so I am wondering where your "double standards" stems from as well. If you wish to move the BBC and CNN, by all means. I was clearly questioning your comparison of MTR as a subway system with that of the names of corporations, because you also appear to have difficulties diffrentiating between the MTR and MTR Corporation. The later should not be moved because it is its corporatised name, but the former is still an abbreviation.--Huaiwei 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've just contradicted yourself, Huaiwei. If CNN's legal name is "Cable News Network", then why don't we move that then? Enochlau 23:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone stopping you from moving it? Where is the contradiction you claim exists?--Huaiwei 12:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there's some logic to why BBC is at BBC and CNN is at CNN. But maybe everyone's just plain wrong. Enochlau 22:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity), Use the most specific terminology available is the most apporiate method to express this group, and also that If this is objectionable often a more general name is more neutral or more accurate. Like in the promotion posters [5] the term MTR is used instead of Mass Transit Railway and the trem MTR is more general than Mass Transit Railway. Additionally, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names), is to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. the trem MTR is only used in Hong Kong, unlike the term Mass Transit Railway, it is ambagious in other cities. --Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 19:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mass Transit Railway is quite obviously much more specific than MTR, the later of which could mean anything listed here. That you actually need a disambiguation page already tells you it is actually objectionable not to use the specific name, and to use the general name hence becomes less nuetral and more inaccurate. This convention you cite supports the page move, in actual fact. Next, the naming conventions to avoid abbreviations apparantly overules that for common names, as the example of SARS above shows. Your claim that "MTR" is only used in HK is not only disputed by MTR (disambiguation), a simply google search would have also demonstrated the inaccuracy of that claim. No other article presently shares Mass Transit Railway. Even if so, a disambiguation page would then solve the problem very easily the same way it works for this current article title.--Huaiwei 19:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer it to be MTR, or should it be MTR (Hong Kong)? The official website uses MTR not Mass Transit Railway. Once again, this is all personal views and I'm neutral. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 07:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When is the end of this "discussion"? Cut off the soliloquy. -- Jerry Crimson Mann 13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just over a day, at 18:06, 16 December 2005 :) A friendly local admin will come around and clean up the mess... can't be me though :P Enochlau 13:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]