Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Naming scheme[edit]

Naming scheme for titles should be...

  • Parent article: Manila Metro Rail Transit System
  • Child articles: Manila MRT Line 3, Manila MRT Line 7, Manila MRT Line 9, etc.

For simplicity's sake. Same should go for LRT lines.

Jpg0813, Korean Rail Fan, Sky Harbor, Miles2north thoughts? --Truflip99 (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


•I think it is better to implement said titles as redirects to the corresponding articles.

Jpg0813 04:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm extremely confused, and I bet our readers are too, by this frankly needless need to "future-proof" our articles by referring to them solely as Line 1, Line 2, etc. Common usage in this case dictates that we include the LRT/MRT designation where appropriate, and I think it would be appropriate to do so here. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I think the existing naming works fine given that the titles are basically already expanded versions of the names above. Also given how the names are bound to change based on the documents released by DOTr, I think its best we leave everything at status quo until said naming has been implemented which shall omit the LRT/MRT/Subway naming altogether so as to prevent numerous unnecessary renaming and redirects we currently have. Anyways the LRT/MRT designation is already explained in the respective articles and redirects so I really don't see any point given the expanded existing name is suffice. Korean Rail Fan 12:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree, Korean Rail Fan. Wikipedia exists for readers, not for the convenience of us editors who can very easily make adjustments to names depending on when the conventions in question change. I'm more concerned with ancillary titles – for example, Santolan station (Line 3) is, on its face, ambiguous particularly for non-Filipino Wikipedia readers. While yes, the naming will change, until such a time that the naming has actually changed, it's not our job to preempt the DOTr. --Sky Harbor (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sky Harbor, Using the same argument then, I think my point has been made stronger in keeping the status quo given how the naming "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line x" and "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line x" suffices as evident to how it is already the naming used colloquially albeit at an expanded format. Also doing a quick google search using the LRT/MRT plus their respective numbers, the respective Wikipedia articles come up immediately in the search which thus makes it suffice. With regards to station disambiguators, I believe there has been another talk page that discussed this to change it to similar to the New York Subway Standard such as "EDSA-Taft Avenue Station", etc. wherein names and articles of transfer stations are to be merged regardless of proximity. This would also be followed by the example mentioned wherein instead of "Santolan station (Line 3)", the proposal back then by another user was either "Santolan-Annapolis station", "Santolan station (EDSA)", or something similar. Korean Rail Fan 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Korean Rail Fan No, colloquial means what people say in every day speech. No one is actually out there saying "I ride the Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 to work." They say "MRT 3". Since this is wikipedia, and there are many MRT 3's, the disambiguator would be "Manila MRT 3". --Truflip99 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99 Using that argument then merits us to rename the parent articles to "Manila LRT System", "Manila MRT System", and other articles such as "NLEX" instead of North Luzon Expressway, "SLEX" instead of South Luzon Expressway, etc. It proves therefore that there is a limit to how we define colloquial as this precedent would actually affect so many articles here in Wikipedia that it does not make sense anymore. Korean Rail Fan 06:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Korean Rail Fan Actually no, your argument doesn't make sense. That's the whole point of having a parent article is so that there is ONE article that establishes the acronym so you don't have to keep using the whole (mouthful) name in child articles. BUT, to your point, a lot of wikipedia articles WOULD support the names "Manila MRT", "Manila LRT", "NLEX", etc. Here are a few examples: MAX Light Rail (as opposed to "Metropolitan Area Express"), MTR (as opposed to Mass Transit Railway); and then there's Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) (note the full name) and its child article North South MRT line (note the acronym). --Truflip99 (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Truflip99 Okay, but maybe so as not to break the Line numbering and at the same time be able to implement the proposed change, maybe we should consider "Line 1 (Manila LRT)", "Line 7 (Manila MRT)", and "Line 9 (Manila Subway)" standard instead following precedents on most numbered lines like Line 1 (Changchun Subway), Line 1 (Nizhny Novgorod Metro), Line 8 (Madrid Metro), Line 1 (Athens Metro), and Line 5 (Shenzhen Metro). Also other precedents to this standard include Orange line (Kaohsiung MRT), Airport Express (MTR), Tōzai Line (Kyoto), Green Line (MARTA), U3 (Vienna U-Bahn), Airport Line (SEPTA), and Red Line (Lucknow Metro) to name a few. Given this standard is used by more articles, I propose that these be used instead should we push through with a renaming. Korean Rail Fan 01:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Korean Rail Fan: Again, I think colloquialism should take precedence over order. The fact of the matter is, the Metro Manila rail system is unorganized and those line numbers are not widely implemented (only one source, even though it's credible). Doing so is considered a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. For example, no local news publication refers to the Metro Manila Subway as "Line 9". Also, the official name of the Makati Subway is now MkTR, not "Line 5" (Acutally, the Line 5 project is completely different form the one recently approved). Believe me, I would love nothing more than to rename Philippine rail lines and expressways. But unfortunately, it is not our job to assign names to these systems for the sake of organizing them. --Truflip99 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: I think this still goes through the colloquialism argument. Doing a quick browse would actually make you arrive at third party sources which follows "LRT-" or "MRT-" and not "LRT Line x" or "MRT Line x". Therefore if we are to take WP:CRITERIA clause seriously, the articles should be named even without the "Line" as evident to how most media always states it in common name which is the format previously stated. Given that some articles actually name them in the manner like "Lines 1 and 2" of the LRT, etc. and to comply with the colloquialism argument while harmonizing the names with the actual plans, the proposed naming scheme are the following "Line 1 (Manila LRT)", "Line 7 (Manila MRT)", and "Line 9 (Metro Manila Subway)". Doing a quick browse on the names I have mentioned at my previous reply, most of these lines are more commonly known by names colloquially such as "Changchun 1", "Tozai", etc. Heck even New York City Subway Lines are not colloquially called IND Name Line, or BMT Name Line but merely "Eight" or "Nassau" etc. Given these, I believe the best way to harmonize these points we have is to name them by Line number followed by the parenthesis of the parent common name similar to the precedents of these similar articles while still complying on the common name clause. Korean Rail Fan 07:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Korean Rail Fan: Hi I just wanted to revisit this, as I've been working on getting the Manila LRT 1 article up to GA status. Per WP:COMMONNAME, I think the name of this article and all related articles should be whatever locals call it. Whether that's "Manila LRT Line 1" or "Line 1 (Manila LRT)", but it's definitely not the current "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1". Thoughts? (Happy New Year, btw!). --Truflip99 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: If it needs to be done, then the "Line x (Manila LRT)" I think would be a proper naming scheme, otherwise, the existing names would suffice. Korean Rail Fan 13:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Korean Rail Fan: I have just made my way into this discussion, but I share Sky Harbor's position on this. I'm completely for Manila LRT Line 1/2/5, Manila MRT Line 3/7/9 (closer to the colloquial usage), and I'm leery with Line x (Manila LRT/MRT/etc.), which is hardly recognizable to the ordinary Filipino ear. The complete mess on naming Metro Manila rapid transit line articles has even influenced the way we name the corresponding Commons categories, that we have Manila Line x (e.g. commons:Category:Manila Line 1) instead of what me and SH are agreeing with (i.e. commons:Category:Manila LRT Line 1). --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support this as well. --Truflip99 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TagaSanPedroAko: If we are to do this, I propose adopting the naming compromise we have been talking about here before which is "Line x (Manila LRT)/Line x (Manila MRT)". This way we could comply with both WP:COMMONNAME and that of the naming convention most railway line articles utilize in english wikipedia. It also makes it more cohesive without losing on the colloquial naming especially with new lines such as the Makati and MM Subway. Korean Rail Fan 07:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Korean Rail Fan: I still stand for "Manila LRT Line 1/2/5" and "Manila MRT Line 3/7". I'm getting confused, but we should better put more weight on the common name rule over other subject-specific guidelines, which is the basis of your argument. Again, "Line 1/2/3/etc." is hardly recognizable to an ordinary Filipino, and "Araneta Center-Cubao Station (Line 2)" as the name of the LRT-2 station in Cubao hides away info about which transit system it belongs. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaSanPedroAko: I guess we can agree on one thing that the article naming must change, but I guess we need to allow more time and users to put in their weight over the options given the arguments above. On my end, I will still stand with the "Line x (Manila LRT)/Line x (Manila MRT)" camp given that it still follows the WP:COMMONNAME rule using the subject-specific argument as a secondary motion. Plus again it makes it more cohesive than the first suggestion without going away from the reason why this is being done. (e.g. "Line 1 (Manila LRT), Line 7 (Manila MRT), Line 9 (Metro Manila Subway), Line 5 (Makati Subway), etc.) Korean Rail Fan 11:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This problem stems from the fact that our railways lack a stringent naming convention. But as far as this talk has been taken and by colloquialism, Filipinos usually refer to the lines as "LRT–1" or "MRT–3" per se. And it is true that most railway lines (currently active) pass through and service (Metro) Manila.

A possible implication could arise in existing station pages, owing to an ambiguity as per current naming. This does not mean the prevailing system or the proposed new ones would not be efficient.

It is worth mentioning that the Philippine National Railways does not fit the current naming where the system is numbered. Future projects such as the Makati Railway and the BGC monorail may not follow suit in the numbering either. Additionally, there are many other railway lines in the PH that fell into disuse (inactive, lost such as the Tranvia, Pasudeco, etc.), yet can be notable for their heritage value which are not in the wiki yet.

With this said, either naming system would do fine for now, but further collaboration and consideration are needed. Research, too. Most pages lack sources and there are some wiki pages from other languages with more sources than in English and Filipino. (A good example to compare is the LRTA Class 1100, with few to no sources in the two local languages but with more than five in the Japanese wiki.) —Koressha (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this thread, I see 3 in favor of Manila MRT Line 3 naming scheme versus 1 in favor of Line 3 (Manila MRT). --Truflip99 (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Koressha: Again, it is not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to organize naming schemes and anticipate future ones. The MOS on WP:COMMONNAME is straightforward. --Truflip99 (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in favor of the Manila MRT Line 3. This Line 3 (Manila MRT) might temporarily do so if you want to have a more condensed naming system; however I just stated that the present scheme will do, for now.

Either side has holes that are easy to punch out of vagueness in local system namings. For the current "ancillary titles" it could be remedied by saying "Santolan Station (MRT Line 3)" for example, since you can put up the links below to its parent page. And let me say it again, we have to consider that other lines in the past once existed yet are not yet in the wiki.

I will add here, if we are all in for a unified naming system then what will be the implications of "Manila MRT Line 3" or "Line 3 (Manila MRT)" on the Philippine National Railways page? Koressha (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess based on recent statement by the last user and to correct the last voting tally, it is now at a 2 in favor of the "Manila MRT Line x" and 2 in favor of "Line x (Manila MRT)" format.
Regarding @Koressha:'s ancillary title proposal, I believe someone before mentioned in a different talk page to follow the standard used on the MTA New York on interchange station unifying two articles of interchange station into one (e.g. EDSA/Taft Avenue station, Doroteo Jose/Recto station). I think that is actually a good proposal given that the station articles are not that extensive and based on the NY MTA articles, distance is not an issue. Korean Rail Fan 09:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to restart this again, I disagree with the proposal with merging article of stations at transfer/interchange points, unless they're fairly close and the stations share the same name. We're okay with having the MRT-7 and MMS/MRT-9 North Avenue station listed in one article, but not with those you've mentioned (EDSA/Taft Avenue, Doroteo Jose/Recto). I'll completely say no with merging the Araneta Center-Cubao Station (for LRT-2) with the one by MRT-3, considering there's no direct connection such as a footbridge between the stations.

Again, I think we better go for Manila MRT Line 3/7/9, and Manila LRT Line 1/2, but I think we better keep this discussion open. @Truflip99:, can you consider turning this into a move request, which is the primary reason behind this?

TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename individual lines as "LRT-1", "MRT-2", "LRT-3". These are already redirects so other countries won't claim that "their LRT-1 has first dibs" and other disambiguators aren't necessary. "Manila LRT-1" doesn't really work because nobody calls it "Manila LRT-1" IRL, instead using LRT-1, MRT-2. LRT-3. See for example, A (New York City Subway service). For lines being constructed, call it as it is being called today, with no prejudice on renaming once the people settled in on a name. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck: I still go with the "Manila LRT/MRT Line x" (with possible exceptions for the Metro Manila Subway, Makati City Subway and others based on the most common name we may find through news sources), which is close to the common usage but is a better compromise with the de facto naming scheme for rapid transit lines. I think we keep the LRT-1, LRT-2/MRT-2, and MRT-3 as redirects, and the corresponding articles named "Manila LRT Line 1/2/5" and "Manila MRT Line 3/7"--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't push for it, but "Manila LRT-1" as named, is most certainly not the most common name, at least by the people using it. "LRT-1" is. (Nobody says "I'm riding the Manila LRT-1".) The same is true for the other two (mostly) elevated railways. As for subways, what you said is the most common name for now. Preemptively disambiguating "Metro Manila" are the next best 2 choices ("LRT-1 (Metro Manila)" and "MRT-2 (Metro Manila)", then "Metro Manila LRT-1" and Metro Manila MRT-2"). Also, the MRT does not go to Manila! As for actual systems (which is the subject of this article), it's a little bit murkier. I'd say "Metro Rail Transit" is the best name, since that's occupied already, "Metro Rail Transit (Metro Manila)" or "Metro Manila MRT" are your best bets.Howard the Duck (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already suggested this in an older discussion i just forget where, and i still am all for following the WP:commonname convention for these train lines. IMO calling the train lines by just their line number gives a false impression that these are individual lines of a single system or by a single operator, which the Manila mass rail transit network isnt. It's three different train lines by three different operators with three different systems, plus 2 if you include PNR and the upcoming SMC-MRT7 systems. And therefore the Manila Light Rail Transit System article should go! and in its place, LRT 1 (Metro Manila), LRT 2 (Metro Manila), MRT 3 (Metro Manila), and so on. There is no "LRT System" but two different LRT lines and their own systems! One by LRTA and the other by LRMC. Neither is there one "MRT System", MRT 3 is by MRTC and MRT 7 is by San Miguel Corporation subsidiary. All the system articles must go. Manila LRT should redirect to Transportation in Metro Manila#Mass transit, so should Manila MRT. Or become disambiguation pages that link to the different lines or systems. As for article titles for stations, the present convention "Stationname station" is fine, except we use the train line articles in parentheses for those that require disambiguation, for example Santolan station (LRT 2) and Santolan station (MRT 3). ("Line 1", "Line 2" etc are ridiculous and still very ambiguous). Actually my proposed convention is similar to HTD's above, except it doesnt force the use of hyphens, as not all mentions of these different lines in reliable sources use this hyphenated form, some call it LRT Line 1, and even more call it as just LRT1 or LRT 1.--RioHondo (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I go with RioHondo's proposal, but I'm thinking about modifying it by sandwiching the "Line" between the system name and the line number. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what system name are you referring to? LRT 1 is the name of the "LRT 1 System". LRT 2 is also its own system. These are lines of a mass rail transit network for Metro Manila which are their own individual infrastructures, systems and operations. This Manila Light Rail Transit System article really has to be split and merged to LRT 1 and LRT 2 articles, and then removed entirely for its inacurracy. Again, there is not one system for LRT 1 and LRT 2, neither is there for the different numbered MRT systems.--RioHondo (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RioHondo: Even if LRT-1/2 are would be different systems in technical terms (LRT 1 is a light rail with LRVs, and LRT 2 a heavy rail with EMUs), I would insist that they are under the same system and both lines are under the LRTA, except that LRT-1 is operated under a PPP agreement (with LRMC).
I suggest we could rather go with completely splitting and merging this article instead. MRT 3 and MRT 7 are completely different systems, and the "MRT" in MRT-7 would rather mean "Mass Rail Transit", though I don't really know as of now if it's still the present name. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, they're also using the "Metro" rather than "Mass" designator for MRT-7. This reflects in the project's press coverage: if SMC intended to use 'Mass', they should've pointed that out long ago. Even the DOTr uses this designator.
That said, I would be opposed to any split at this point. Lines 1 and 2 are LRTA-owned, even if LRT-1 is PPP-ed out to another corporation. The MRT lines are all planned to be operated by different operators, but they would reasonably form a single network all coordinated by the DOTr. Just because they're not linked to one another physically nor have the same operator, that doesn't mean they're not a single network: clearly, all the MRT lines seem to be a separate network from the LRT lines. Just look at how the DOTr adresses MRT-4. (I personally disagree with this approach on the part of government, but I digress.)
As for line naming itself, I have always felt that a modified form of the previous naming convention would suffice. Lines would keep their current names. When they're mentioned in articles, they would follow the "LRT/MRT Line [number]" format that we've used. For stations, if we need to disambiguate them, they would be disambiguated with the network they belong to. For example, Santolan station (Manila LRT) as opposed to Santolan station (Manila MRT). This is much more comprehensible to non-Filipinos — heck, even Filipinos who are not aware of our naming conventions — than the current convention where we use "Line (number)" without any other qualifier.
(On that note: I see this convoluted convention we're currently using seems to have leached out to other projects. I, for one, strongly oppose whatever our current convention is on Wikivoyage.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sky Harbor Really? The two LRT systems form a single network and the MRT lines are also their own network? AFAIK, the LRTA is also under the DOTr so in effect these are all DOTR-owned rail systems with all but the LRT 2 under private concession. I dont get why we are treating the LRT as like a separate network from the MRT systems when they are all supposed to form only one network under the DOTr, both LRT and MRT, hence the designation of line numbers that are sequential and non-overlapping across all lines and systems. If the LRT was its own system separate from the MRT, then why wasnt MRT 3 named MRT 1 being "the first MRT" in the country? And the LRT 6 project, the third to be called an LRT, be named LRT 3. So that on one hand, we have LRT 1, LRT 2, LRT 3 etc on your "separate LRT system/network", and MRT 1, MRT 2, MRT 3, MRT 4, etc on the other MRT system/network. Do you know how bizarre this sounds? It's like treating the Circumferential Roads as a separate road network from the Radial Roads, because the C-numbered roads were developed and maintained by a state company say PNCC and the R-numbered roads were privately initiated, eventhough we know very well these are all DPWH owned with only the expressways being under private concession. We don't maintain a Circumferential road network article here, only a Manila arterial road network under List of roads in Metro Manila. Because the Strong Republic Transit System is long gone, and the lack of an appropriate name for this DOTr rail network, the Manila LRT and Manila MRT must be redirected to Transportation in Metro Manila#Mass transit that talks about this single rail network operated under individual concessions. And the LRT 1 (Metro Manila), LRT 2 (Metro Manila) and MRT 3 (Metro Manila) must stand as their own systems forming this DOTr rail network, and not under this superficial segregation between the L and the M, or for roads, the C and the R.--RioHondo (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of hard to read this, but I agree we can go with merging the LRT and MRT system pages with the "Mass transit" section of Transportation in Metro Manila. I agree, the system is badly organized, but going back to the line naming scheme, I believe we better go with whatever we or the local media use. By line in question, the proposed new names will be:
I also agree with Sky Harbor this lingering issue on how to name MM's rapid transit lines have been affecting also things in other projects. I'm convinced this must be addressed immediately. Seeing "Manila Line x" in Commons completely bothers me. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The major difference between the LRT and MRT networks is that the LRT network (any line with "LRT" in the name) is under the supervision of the LRTA. The LRTA has no jurisdiction over all other lines; they fall under the DOTr's direct supervision, with no other attached agency interceding on their behalf. There's a reason why merging the articles doesn't help either: their histories are different, their courses of development is different, and it seems to be evident that only lines built by the Philippine government would bear the "LRT" name. Privately-built lines, on the other hand, all bear the "MRT" name. Hence why I suggested that we keep line names as is, because the system by and large works: we're just using the full name of the network in the title. (There's a reason why LRT-6 is called LRT-6: it really was supposed to be just an extension of LRT-1, and even if the government contracted out construction, the LRTA would still have jurisdiction over it.)
Cities with different operators operating the same network generally have different ways of handling it. Bangkok and Tokyo have two separate metro networks with their own articles (BTS Skytrain/Bangkok Mass Rapid Transit and Tokyo Metro/Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation for the Toei Subway, respectively), and they're doing fine. I don't see why we can't do the same in this case.
Given that Transportation in Metro Manila is supposed to be an overview of public transit as a whole, why would we dump a whole lot of information over there that isn't even remotely relevant to that article? For one, do people need to know about the Flash Pass or LRT/MRT extensions in the overview article? Of course not, unless we're talking about these changes fairly broadly, which would then merit a mention in that article. Note that at the the time I started writing these articles back in 2006, the LRT was its own network with two lines, and the MRT was still only one line. Each network has its own history, its own specific intricacies, and its own "quirks", if you will, that won't be adequately covered by merging them together, making an even bigger mess in the process. I'd much rather prefer to make an overarching Rapid transit in Metro Manila article which summarizes both articles, while keeping the LRT and MRT articles (which, at least for the sake of the LRT article, is a featured article — something that I've put countless hours into just to get it to that level) intact. --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I would have to agree with @Sky Harbor in keeping the LRT and MRT parent article systems separate until such time that DOTr decides to merge them possibly in the future. Now with regards to the name, I disagree with the new proposed naming as using Red Line (Kaohsiung MRT) as an example, the line stretches further into the nearby Kaohsiung metropolitan area at Pingtung County but it is not named as Red Line (Kaohsiung metropolitan area MRT) just because it went outside of the city limits of Kaohsiung.
Ergo, I still stand with my proposed naming system which is as follows:
While I agree that discussions like this needs resolutions that ideally must be done urgently, haphazardly doing so just because it bothers a user without proper consensus could do more harm than good as consensus is a wiki policy as a safeguard for such reason. Korean Rail Fan 13:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe if we have other fellow users involved here, the consensus is will be in favor of "[system] Line [number]" considering the common name argument. Sorry, but no one would be calling MRT-3 "Line 3" except possibly for transportation planners. I would like mithiing but to dump your "future-proof" scheme just because the system is a mess.
I'm in favor of using the "(Greater Manila Area)" disambiguation if the line in question serves areas out of Manila. I also support SH's proposal to create a dedicated article for general discussion of MM/GMA rapid transit.

TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 16:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sky, nothing's permanent in WP. Every article regardless of status or awards(?) it got will need to be updated to continue to be relevant and suit its current definition or use. And the LRT network of two lines run by LRTA back in 2006 is no longer true now. As far as rail systems in the Metro Manila area are concerned, there is only one Manila urban rail network (the existing LRT and MRT lines and others in the pipeline) and one suburban rail network (the NSCR, and other PNR lines) as per the latest(2014) DOTR mass transit plan (see Metro Manila Dream Plan#Urban/Suburban Rail). And it also is no longer true that the LRT lines are all built by the govt or that MRT lines are the only privately-built lines. The Ayala-Pangilinan led LRMC is actually building LRT 1's extension to Bacoor now. I am saying there is no single network for LRT 1 and LRT 2 as initially conceptualized or proposed. They belong to this one urban rail network that JICA has put forward since the 1976 study under Marcos time. And especially this MRT System article that supposedly covers all the rail projects named MRT in the pipeline, whose idea was it that those could be somehow related, let alone become part of its own integrated system supposedly separate from the LRT lines? As again, all the govt documents and press releases ive seen only talks about 1 integrated rail network for Metro Manila under the DOTr and PPP office. These 2 rail transit system articles really needs to be reviewed so bad, as they don't anymore reflect whats happening on the ground. If we need to keep these articles, they have to be rewritten or reframed. Or better yet, serve as the main content of a new article specifically dedicated to this one urban rail network for Metro Manila, a new parent article for all these individual train lines similar to Mass Rapid Transit Master Plan in Bangkok Metropolitan Region, with references to our own Metro Manila Dream Plan article. As for LRTA's role in supervising the LRT 1 and LRT 2, those can be transferred to the LRTA article itself. But to say that the 2 LRT lines operate on a network on its own, or that the LRTA has its own integrated system separate from the DOTr's MRT lines is i think bordering on original research without reliable sources explicitly saying so. As far as rail systems in Metro Manila are concerned, we are dealing with 4 players on 4 lines, 2 state entities and 2 private firms. PNR is its own system, MRT 3 is also its own. LRT 1 by private firm, LRT 2 by state firm. Rail transit systems are according to the firm that operate them. If LRMC comes up with a second line, then that would form part of LRMC rail system, not the LRTA system, and especially not this combined LRTA-LRMC "rail system." But all of them form part of Manila's one integrated rail network.--RioHondo (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Korean Rail Fan: What part of WP:COMMONNAME don't you understand? Just curious. --truflip99 (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm I understand the common name rule fully, what I dont agree upon is the format proposed by the other user. Sure people call it LRT1 or MRT7, but again using precedents from other rail articles, MTR lines are called by their line color by the locals hence the common name. Yet the format is "[LINE NAME] (MTR)" heck even using the Seoul Subway articles would prove that despite the locals calling it simply as "Line x Subway", the line article name is "Seoul Subway Line x" ergo in this case its just a matter of argument on placement and word use. My proposal ergo still follows WP:COMMONNAME. P.S. Try searching at google using the common name and it would still lead you to the article in the search results. Korean Rail Fan 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my bad word choice, but KRF, I'm completely displeased with the renamed Commons categories because it's only for your own favor. However, I still believe we need the opinions of other users here if we want to conclude this. We've got SH, KRF, TF99, me, Koressha, and RioHondo, but while there's no clear consensus yet, I'm convinced most will agree with the "[system] Line [number] scheme.
It may be too soon to merge this and the LRT system article, but I see a need to rework our coverage of MM/GMA rapid transit by merging the MRT/LRT system articles into a single article (Rapid transit in Metro Manila or the Rapid transit in the Greater Manila Area) based on the Bangkok example.
@Korean Rail Fan: Whether you like it or not, the "Line x" you're proposing is too far from the common name the media or MM/GMA locals use. Again, no one outside possibly of the transportation planning profession will be calling LRT-1 or the MRT-3 as Line 1 or Line 3. The "[system] Line [scheme]" is a better proposal, while it is not the colloquial usage, that' what I'm seeing in media coverage and also on official documents. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand TSPA, but I hope its just merely being objective as we are trying to be right here. Anyways with regards to the commons naming, should there be a consensus then it could be renamed. Lets just allow it for the mean time to avoid unecessary redirects. I am convinced too that the "Line x (System)" would go through as the consensus. Korean Rail Fan 18:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Korean Rail Fan: I still believe the consensus will favor the "[system] Line [number]" scheme. I'm getting tired of repeating my and other's arguments all over again and again, but it's clear the "Line [number]" proposal is not the common usage, and that's an attempt to adapt things to a change that's not gonna happen possibly within our lifetime. Keep in mind the mess on MM/GMA rapid transit line naming as what TL99 and RioHondo have pointed. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, we shouldn't be relying on MTR or Seoul Subway line articles for examples because they aren't correct either. Having lived in Seoul, those articles should be renamed Line 1 (Seoul) because that would be a direct translation to the OFFICIAL Korean usage, 1호선. Preferably, the operator name should disambiguate Line 1 from all the other Line 1's in WP, but given that the Seoul subway has multiple operators (as in the case of Manila), main city is the next best option.
In MTR's case, as should be the case for all rail systems on WP, the system map convention should be followed first, which it is. And despite your claim that the WP MTR articles are named "[Line] (MTR)", I only see one that does this: Airport Express (MTR). This is correct because there are other lines in the world called "Airport Express", so it uses the operator disambiguator. But the MTR line articles are still incorrect because "line" should be upper case...
Given these parameters, we shouldn't use "Line 1" because the vast majority of official sources from DOTR, LRMC, LRTA, SMC, etc don't use that. They use a combination of LRT-1 or LRT 1 or LRT Line 1; very very rarely do they use just Line 1. I know you have a source or two with this convention in an unrealized Metro Manila rail plan -- but I emphasize unrealized because those plans are no where near final, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. And I think, among those acceptible, "LRT-1" is the most common
With all of this said, I think the articles should be named: LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3, MRT-7, and Metro Manila Subway. None of the other articles should even exist yet. As an example, there is a light rail project in Portland called the Southwest Corridor light rail project that I can't even start an article for because it hasn't been funded. YET its planning is far more developed than any of the non-under construction LRT/MRT lines. --truflip99 (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1 for Trufflip99.
@Korean Rail Fan: Provided TL99's points, I'm sorry to say but it's very clear no one's gonna favor your proposed naming scheme.
@Truflip99: I have second thoughts on using the LRT/MRT-[number], but I still looking on the "[system] Line [number]" scheme. The colloquial usage is the most recognizable and concise, but the LRT/MRT Line [number] usage found in the news and on official releases may be better and closer to what is out de facto standard name scheme for rapid transit lines.
No problem with merging the articles of the proposed lines into a Rapid transit in the Greater Manila Area article, since the majority of them are stub-ish. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that alternative, as it is a valid alternative. I just 110% disagree with the "Line #" alternative. --truflip99 (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no opposition from me if the lines are named as "LRT-1", "LRT-1 (Metro Manila)", "LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila)" or "LRT 1 (Metro Manila)", with preference in that order. "Line 1" by itself is just unheard of, both in colloquial usage and in actual reliable third party sources that we're using (unless, of course, if it's in second reference to the article). If you said, "I'd be riding Line 3", the person you're talking to will audibly gasp. I'd be wary in using "Greater Manila Area" as that term is undefined, or if it is, it changes on whoever you ask. I'd use the "(Cavite)" disambiguator in that line that will be mostly used in that province. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaSanPedroAko: I beg to disagree as backreading clearly shows that so far Koressha and I in favor of the "Line x (Manila LRT)" scheme while you, TF99, and HTD are so far in favor of the other. To dismiss early on seemingly discrediting Koressha's vote and other possible users to pitch in just because of your opinion is clearly disrespectful of other users. Let us wait further for other users whether already involved or not to lay down their opinions/votes regarding the matter, shall we? Korean Rail Fan 08:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: Then if your arguments on the cited cases are correct, how about trying to create a general discussion on the naming of railway lines in the entire Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains as it would set a precedent which is correct once and for all. Surely interpretation of the WP:COMMONNAME title format is still up to consensus of users ergo the current names of these articles. That is why despite the rule there are still two informal camps of railway line article names that exist in wiki which are "(System) Line x" and "Line x (System)". That way loopholes and debates such as this wouldn't exist. Korean Rail Fan 08:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a project for another time. English language public transport articles are far from perfect on WP but there are plenty of recent GAs and FAs from which you should be taking examples from instead. --truflip99 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Korean Rail Fan: I agree we're the only ones continually talking about this, but saying I'm dismissing your point because of my views is clearly in bad faith. Don't make me tired repeating arguments and evidence against your proposal, but as HTD pointed, it's very clear no MM local will call the MRT-3 "Line 3", and as TL99 pointed, your proposed naming scheme is rarely used by RS and is based on an unfulfilled plan, and using precedents on the Seoul subway and the MTR is incorrect (and also illogical, considering how messy the line naming for MM rapid transit is).

I agree there's no firm project-wide naming scheme for railway lines, but if you're still standing for "Line x", I respect that, but if the overwhelming consensus on this is in favor of the common names, you have to accept the fact. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: I'm completely displeased with what's going on in here, so why shouldn't be this a move request? If this thread is of that type, we should have allowed this to reach the wider community, and consensus can be easily achieved. I've already placed a notice on WT:TAMBAY, but only HTD and RioHondo have joined. I respect KRF's opinion on this, but if we're keeping this discussion out of sight of the wider community, we're only going with exchanging and repeating arguments over again and again. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TagaSanPedroAko: IMO, the proposed deletions of Lines 4, 5, 6, 8 per WP:CRYSTAL should precede a move request. Otherwise, it's just more futile work. --truflip99 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could go for that, but I'm favoring merging them into a article covering MM/GMA rapid transit. If you can, you could start a draft by now.

If turning this into a MR is too soon, I'm thinking about continuing this in WT:TAMBAY if we can avoid an echo chamber situation. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I will just leave here all I can say from the updates since a few days ago re: naming scheme of titles related to railways (particularly in Metro Manila). I guess everyone here is well aware that I) there are railway lines whose ROWs location-wise mostly cover Metro Manila, that II) the whole system scheme is a mess, and III) these lines are integrated in the general transport scheme of Metro Manila.

It is apparent that the main goal is a more comprehensive and logical scheme; however arguments on naming alone might not make sense: 1) the manner where the lines are written seems to separate the PNR from its integration on this "Metro Manila Metro Rail Transit System", where a) this current label is too cumbersome, especially knowing the fact that PNR is an intercity rail, b1) as far as technical definitions are concerned, there are no single clear definitions. Do we really base decisions for the wiki per se the norm or for technical accuracy? Surely this is ground to a case-to-case basis. b2) If this system is called a 'metro rail', that might be assumed to give the idea that all railway systems in (Metro) Manila are 'metro', where i) we have an LRT, ii) there are arguments in the Line 2's specs, and iii) PNR is an intercity heavy rail. It sounds more like a general assumption upon further looking, and it would be best to define clear bases for an efficient scheme. I think it was mentioned in WT:TAMBAY that transit systems are based from who operates it, by RioHondo, which seems to apply, especially in today's situation. I suppose another underlying problem here is that c) the current scheme has several conflicts; this particular wiki bases both on location and operator and is going to colloquialism or accuracy for an apparent band-aid solution... the scheme itself is essentially getting tangled.

2) Going beyond this tedious naming scheme, the contents of the pages seem to lack unity, a) upon lurking in the wiki for sometime, pages containing info of the PNR are sometimes held by another group of people than here in the electrified lines "LRT–1", "MRT–3", and so on. It follows a format different from what cohesiveness was kept with the numbered railway. This main issue is understandable owing to b) the aforementioned fact that the whole transit system naming scheme is a mess, in terms of who operates, their names, and their names clashing with technicalities. c) There had also been lines in the past that once existed, both in and out of Metro Manila (not to mentional regional, provincial lines and branch lines!) But whether these will be considered or not (owing to being in antiquity for now), there is another thing to consider that d) in order to disambiguate "Manila, the city" from "Metro Manila" as a whole, they colloquially say "Manila" and it is generally understood as the city. So if the 'umbrella term' of "Metro Manila Mass Rapid Transit System" be shortened to only have "Manila" (for brevity), would that not cause confusion?

I suppose these implications are best discussed before deciding on a naming scheme as that may result to a waste of time in overhauling everything once something has been decided. Perhaps i) a more effective scheme can be decided altogether [such as those for ancillary titles or for the current so-called "status quo"] or ii) consult those in the position (policy-makers), whichever will make it easier both for the readers and the editors. As much as I see, everyone strives to be transparent and clear here in the wiki, but this is yet another result of the lack thereof. From how this argument went through, everyone wants to, if not "future-proof", then proofing it for the present situation especially talking about readers and colloquialism. Koressha (talk) 10:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I have been a long time lurker here in the Metro Manila Railway threads, since I wanted to voice out my opinion to which I believe would create a major overhaul in the articles, I decided to make an account and support Korean Rail Fan's "Line # (Manila System)" proposal. Not only do I agree that this does allow us to not break on the Line numbering, but also satisfy the need for WP:COMMONNAME. As it still can be understood even if you translate it in Taglish vernacular "Line # ng LRT". The rule only stipulates that the locals can identify it based on how they call it and not assume they are too dumb to even not know that Manila LRT Line # or Line # (Manila LRT) is one and the same. Ergo my vote on this matter.
With regards to the merging of the main LRT and MRT articles, I am for it as like what other users have stated, the system has been already too divided to just quantify them as forming the LRT or MRT systems just because it is named that way despite different operators. Ariamaca (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what WP:COMMONNAMe means. If that was true, then the majority of people who use the LRT are saying "Sasakay ako sa Line 1 ng LRT." --truflip99 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New users really need to read and understand WP:COMMONNAME. Stop throwing around links as if you do know what those mean. The woman on the street will say "Sasakay ako sa LRT-1"/"I'll ride LRT-1". She'd probably say "Sasakay ako sa/I'll ride 'Line 1'" iff the conversation has already established that they're talking about trains. (This is just as a news article about Duterte calls him as "Duterte" after calling him as "President Rodrigo Duterte" in the first reference about him.) And even perhaps after they've established that they're talking about trains, she will, in most cases, refer to it as "LRT-1", and not just "Line 1" per se. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You guys should realize that "LRT-1" is now the common name for both English and Tagalog, and probably for other local languages. "Line 1," by itself, is almost certainly not, in either (or any?) language. We'd just have to settle on what disambiguator we'd use (if any), if dashes are needed, and if it is, what type of dash. Insisting "Line 1," as worded, is "common name" is downright dishonesty unless there's some actual proof involved. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even when I've already gone with moving this to WT:TAMBAY, I concur with TL99 here. Again, to my experience, no one's gonna call the LRT-1 "Line 1" or the MRT-3 "Line 3", and the most common names for Manila rapid transit should include the system name. I still go with a merger of this and the LRT system page into the Rapid transit in the Greater Manila Area (which RioHondo and I support). Sky Harbor supports its creation BTW, but opposes a merger.TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TagaSanPedroAko, you are misinterpreting my position. I am fine with making a new overview article, but I strongly oppose merging articles together to form that article. All three articles can and should co-exist, if you ask me. --Sky Harbor (talk) 22:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you support that proposed GMA rapid transit overview article, but I just forgot to say you oppose the merger for the meantime. I'll clarify that on my previous post. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the discussions in WT:TAMBAY and as a former non-registered editor in wiki, here are my points and positions based already on the arguments made:
I agree with Koressha that this naming hulabaloo is actually unnecessary as of now but if I have to choose between the two I would say Korean Rail Fan's proposal. I think the other users have already made the points I am to make. Line x is also common name as in the vernacular when you ask people "Saan ka sasakay? Sa LRT" then if it aint clear, the person would ask "Line 1 o Line 2" which proves the point that the proposal by Korean Rail Fan is WP:COMMONNAME as if we are to stick to a hard definition, we will call it "LRT" "LRT2" "MRT" "PNR" (Regardless if Metro Commuter or Provincial), etc which proves the point of flexibility.
I am mixed with the merging of LRT and MRT vs status quo as both can co-exist. Sky Harbor made a good point that an overview article with links to the individual LRT and MRT parent articles are fine given that it could explain the mess of the systems as of date. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case there's still dispute on what the common names are, here's what Top Gear Philippines said about the impending lifting of the quarantine: "LRT-1, LRT-2, PNR, MRT-3 to resume operations after ECQ". That's on first reference, not on second reference, or a clarification "which line of the LRT are you referring to? 'Line 2'". They didn't even say what LRT, MRT and PNR meant. You can make this up. It's crystal clear what the names of the articles about which should be. (In hindsight, they should've renamed PNR as "PNR-0", as the O.G. of trains in the country.) Howard the Duck (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while I respect your opinion on what you think common names are, not all would agree with your rule interpretation like in this local case [1] "Sinegundahan naman 'yan ng lines 1 at 2 Manila Light Rail Transit System o LRT sa Twitter". I still stand with my position on the matter. Also, PNR like cross region rail lines (KTX, Amtrak, etc) are unumbered lines as they are not Metro lines. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pilipinas7107: Literally that link you provided states this BEFORE the quote you provided: "Inilabas ang pahayag bunsod ng mga kritisismo kaugnay ng direktiba ng Philippine National Police na nagbabawal sa bottled drinks sa loob ng MRT-3, LRT-1 at LRT-2." I'm starting to doubt the credibility of these "former non-registered editors". They seem incapable of assuming WP:GOODFAITH, not to mention they share an eerily similar use of written English. IP check might be in order. --truflip99 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check. And mate. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked the news article shared by the supposed "non-registered editors" and saw that the official Twitter of the operator of LRT-1 is at @officialLRT1 (DING!), and LRT-2's operator is at @officialLRTA with the handle name "LRT2" (DOUBLE DING!!). I supposed his example of the wording was to emphasize LRT has 2 lines. Indeed, this is not the first reference either line is referred to. The first time the lines were referred to, the author used the wording copied by Truflip99. How can you stand on such shaky reasoning, to the point that's dishonest? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Truflip99: Do you suspect WP:SOCK/MEAT here? That what I'm thinking, and I think we've got a situation like what happened in 2014 with the naming of LRT-2. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People, it's blatant dishonesty. It's sad. You know that we can talk about this the whole millennium and nothing will happen. Make an WP:RM, and if these guys show up, we can ask for an WP:RfCu. The integrity of discussions with actual, real consequences is at stake, and the Wikimedia Foundation makes sure no one screws that up. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RM initiated. Please discuss Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3#Requested move 5 May 2020. Thanks! --truflip99 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
+1. I'm off this time, but I'll chime in. I completely agree with going with a RM: we can't reach a consensus, everyone's (including me) getting tired of this conversation, and there's WP:MEAT behind the unfair attempts to push for the "Line x" scheme. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me, but why the WP:MEAT? It does happen that there will be some to disagree, and these opposing views could be beneficial if 1) the cons (of the prevailing naming) had been nentioned, 2) again, everyone seems to be aware that locals refer to the lines as LRT/MRT and then a corresponding number, but mention only MRT/LRT and it does add confusion; hence, the line number gives it more distinction. 3) I will say it again, what will the implications of naming these line wiki pages have on their parent page (currently labeled "Manila Metro Rail Transit System)? Koressha (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Naming the train line above Rizal and Taft Avenue as "Line 1" means that this is the most prevalent name, both in common usage, and in reliable sources It most certainly is not. This is compared to "LRT-1" where one knows what s/he is talking about. Can you tell me where are you having issues understanding this simple fact? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify this for me? You and your friends' argument is that "Line #" is the most common name of each lines. Is that right? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't noticed this until recently, but the "Line x" scheme was first proposed back in the days we still have Jeromesandilanico and PhilippineRevolution (see Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3). I think my and RioHondo's suspicions are right: that KRF is also that guy behind the LRT-2/MRT-2 naming brouhaha. Looks like we're unmasking a wolf in sheep's clothing. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TagaSanPedroAko: How many checks would you and the other user want to do then? Given the baseless assumptions of sock/meatpuppetry and now proliferating baseless claims linking blocked users to which I have no affiliation from, to malign me and my position this could count as WP:AOBF, WP:POVPUSH, and WP:ROUGEE (seeing this even makes me wonder if you guys instead the ones doing WP:MEAT?) already to eliminate users based on merely competing arguments. Competing arguments must be heard equally as a pillar of WP:TRI and consensus must be respected whether or not it goes to your favor so lets just get back to the arguments on hand instead, shall we?
Also avoid talking about the same RM topic in two different talk pages, to those who wanted to chime in I suggest proceeding to Talk:Manila_Metro_Rail_Transit_System_Line_3#Requested_move_5_May_2020 instead. Korean Rail Fan 06:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to prove you're acting in good faith, show it, but again, ask Juan Dela Cruz about "Line 3", and you'll get a blank stare. If we have a suspicion you and those "former unregistered users" are the same, we'll not be afraid to have admins investigate. Whether it's confirmed or not, accept that the common names are not those with "Line x" that you're pushing.

By the way, I can see instances on "Line x" in official documents, but more often than not, they're for planning purposes only, and the final names would be the basis of the most common names.

I'll head to the RM, but I've already have my arguments there. I've changed my position on the naming and I'm promoting a compromise solution (option 7). Please, no more of the drama, and I've already dropped those accusations you and the newbie guys are the same. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 July 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus ~ Amkgp 💬 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


– Quite simply, the rail systems are not called by their current names, but rather as "MRT" or "LRT". As these need disambiguation, the region where it is exclusively operating right now (and will mostly will operate at in the future) will suffice for this purpose. This is also to align with the train lines and stations which have been previously moved via an RM earlier this year. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC) -->[reply]

This is the "Hong Kong" method, where "MTR" is named as such. I'm also open with spelling out what "LRT"/"MRT" means as per the "Singapore" method where "Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)" is named as such. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contested closure[edit]

Please take note that I have contested this closure for being too early. You may see the full discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 July#Manila Metro Rail Transit System. Pinging Howard the Duck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiwilms (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with closure, as it's been more than a week. FWIW an RM can be started right away in cases of "no consensus" closes. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Howard the Duck and Hiwilms: maybe this is unrelated to the topic about RM, but I can find the problem at the mother disamb page of the exact name. "MRT" doesn't include the topic about Manila Metro Rail Transit System. I don't know where to list that topic (in what section of the disamb page), or if it is existing at a different disamb page. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for flagging that. "MRT" in MRT-3 doesn't mean "Mass Rapid Transit". I've added this article to that dab page. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorming for new title[edit]

I think we all agree that "Manila Metro Rail Transit System" fails every WP:AT criteria. The question is which article title is the best?

I suppose people prefer spelling out what "MRT" means so I suppose we'd be choosing between Singapore and Jakarta. Or people have other ideas. Which is it? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manila_Metro_Rail_Transit_System&oldid=1208766987"