Talk:MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila)

Post-RM discussion

So..what now after this disjointed change in article titles here? What do we do with Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System? Are those still these individual lines' main topics they can link to? Should they also be renamed following this development here which should have been the other way around? To Metro Manila LRT and Metro Manila MRT maybe? Or LRT (Metro Manila) and MRT (Metro Manila)? Or do we link these line articles instead to Public transportation in Metro Manila for lack of a better Metro Manila article specifically for rail tranport? Maybe merge those two systems under a Metro Manila title? What is now the direction for these train lines? And when the lines start serving Rizal and Bulacan, what is the next course of action here? This is what happens when movements are uncoordinated here. We don't even know which articles would fall under which main category or main article anymore based on their titles. LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila) under Category:Manila Light Rail Transit System? Btw, this (Metro Manila) parenthetical disambiguation actually makes it look like the name of a metro system where these individual rail lines belong, so okay that might actually work. How do we organize from here? Need to hear from people actually involved in these articles' creation. Thanks.--RioHondo (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System should probably still exist, then an RM has to be initiated for those (if it hasn't already) so that it'll align to this one. Next, create Public transportation in Metro Manila, and better yet Rail transport in Metro Manila. Once these lines start reaching places outside of Metro Manila, create Rail transport in Bulacan, Rail transport in Rizal and Rail transport in Cavite. Bulacan can be created right now because of PNR. For the latter two, it can still be tackled in LRT (Metro Manila) and MRT (Metro Manila) once it happens. Or, your pet article Rail transport in the Greater Manila Area can be created. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Whatever happened to our very vocal supporters of this title and topic shifts to this new convention? @truflip99 and @TagaSanPedroAko, there's work to be done here, and it's a lot! This is your proposal, now work on it Lol! Jk. I know @Sky Harbor said to leave his GA articles alone. But with the current situation, i think we all need to adjust. In any of the articles that will be created, 90% of it will come from SH's articles im sure. So we need to know Sky Harbor's plans for this. First, if he is amenable to align his articles to this convention, and second, if the LRT and MRT systems are still composed of individually operated lines only sharing the same name, and third, how to treat these individual lines in the articles to be created. Are they still lines of those LRT or MRT systems? Or lines of a wider Metro Manila rail network that would be the scope of the main Metro Manila rail transport article? Or both? Or what? I am confused. Lol--RioHondo (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you know WP:OWN. If you don't want your work to be mercilessly edited (and vandalized!) don't edit on Wikis.

As for your question if the LRT and MRT systems are still composed of individually operated lines only sharing the same name, I would say that the LRT-1 is more similar with its cousin the MRT-3 than its brother the LRT-2. (I don't even think the unfinished MRTs have anything to do with MRT-3.) They even ran an LRT-1 train on the MRT-3 tracks with no issue (I guess there weren't any passengers?). I would still probably say on keeping the separate LRT and MRT systems articles, but make it an overview, with the details going to the individual line's articles, and creating a rail transport in Metro Manila article. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm generally off editing nowadays, but I'm giving out some points:

• Keep the Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System, except they'll be renamed Light Rail Transit (Metro Manila) and Metro Rail Transit (Metro Manila). I still look for a merger of these since I read their articles again (they're rather pawful), as long we can convince SH to agree with that provided RioHondo's reasons they're all distinct lines under different operators, and are forming one large MM rapid transit network.
• Create those longed-for Rail transport in Metro Manila or Rapid transit in Metro Manila. Possibility of a GMA rapid transit overview article shouldn't be removed, as long we can expand the article about the urban region to make it like the examples of Greater Tokyo, Greater Jakarta, Greater London, Greater Toronto Area, and so on and so forth (it's rather a shame the GMA one isn't presented on the same way as those; it's more of population stats than an overview of the urban area and everything within it).
• For lines reaching out into the provinces, better mention them in the transportation section of the provincial page. Further details should go into the GMA rail transport article and the main transportation overview article, if we go with my proposed revamp and expansion of the GMA region page as I said earlier.

-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

• On the Greater Manila Area article, well, for one, it can't agree on what the definition is. The Legarda press release it is used as a reference shows that it is defined as "Metro Manila+the provinces that border it, basically one of the definitions of Mega Manila. I see that the other definition that it is "built-up sprawl" has been eliminated there. There was a time when "GMA=NCR". The government has no definition for what exactly constitutes GMA, well, nothing that I have seen yet. Is the definition in this press release definitive? That's the reason why I'm apprehensive on using "GMA" as a way to disambiguate things because it is undefined. No one knows what it is.
• Either way, this discussion has to happen elsewhere, like on actual talk pages of the articles that are to be edited. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's what we get when we have unclear definitions on what we want to push, right? ;) {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 13:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

It's rather a pain that we still let readers see references to "Line x" on MM transportation-related articles. We have did away with that on the station navigation box (Template:SRTS), but "marami pa tayong kakaining bigas" (we still have more rice to eat). I think we move now with renaming the existing system articles as well as eliminating straggler references to "Line x" on station names. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think I was the one who ditched the "Line #" nomenclature there. Those who were insisting on this really took it too far. In the IATF's meeting on downgrading to GCQ, I think it was the transport secretary who kept on calling the train line above EDSA as "MRT-3". Even the official Twitter accounts of the government kept on using "MRT-3". That will make the "Line #" nomenclature livid. "MRT Line 3" looks okay, as it still says what "system" it is (so your brain will tell you that the next phrase "is about trains") and "Line #" is still there, something those pushing for the "Line #" nomenclature wanted. I hope this puts to rest the issue as all sides get something that they wanted out of the result.

I suppose RMs should be created for Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System and have those moved to LRT (Metro Manila) and MRT (Metro Manila) to match what we have here, plus the other stations that are badly disambiguated as "(Line #)" such as EDSA station (Line 1) (The more I see it the more I imagine methamphetamine) to "EDSA station (LRT)" to match the result that we have here. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

(I screwed up linking the EDSA LRT station, which tells you how poor of a choice "(Line #)" to disambiguate things is. You'd have to put the "system" along with "Line #" to make it work. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

Ooops. I'll see what I can do in a matter of hours. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm already creating the RM for the stations containing references to "Line x", except I got a tablet suddenly shutting down while I'm still listing the stations to be moved into the "just right" titles with the correct disamb. Now, HTD, I think you handle that job, with a link to this thread and the RM.

BTW, I'm still up for a RFC to create a standard naming convention for Philippine rail stations, except I'll have to do more homework. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I've created an RM at Talk:Roosevelt station (Line 1)#Requested move 29 May 2020. Any other discussion re: station names should go there. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I think we also clean up the links for Template:Rint for Manila, since they still link to the long names (now redirects since RM). I'm also thinking of returning to the use of system logos instead of line numbers, except for those proposed/under construction or have non-free logos, but the by-line-number approach can still work as long they link to the correct articles. It true that marami pa tayong kakaining bigas :-). TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Question Why was LRT 6, MRT 4 and MRT 7 moved to this Metro Manila disambiguation? Afaik, the RM involved only the first 3 lines. Im actually thinking of doing away with the Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System articles entirely and merge those two articles to Rapid transit in Metro Manila. Or Urban rail network in Metro Manila. Cos as far as i know and i think i already said this here, these LRT and MRT lines are only officially integrated on paper from the 2014 Metro Manila Dream Plan#Urban/Suburban Rail, Strong Republic Transit System and other earlier government plans, NOT these two separate LRT and MRT systems that remain questionable as to their actual connections to individually operated lines. Again, these lines are only integrated in master plans and nowhere else. There are no actual rail systems based on name, so that LRT 1 should use LRMC system logo not LRTA's which only works for LRT 2. We can even go as far as naming the main article Rapid transit in the Greater Capital Region (Philippines) or Urban rail network in the Greater Capital Region (Philippines) using the terminology written in those plans themselves for this region surrounding Metro Manila. And i would suggest turning LRT (Metro Manila) and MRT (Metro Manila) into disambiguation pages instead. Let's see here.

• LRT (Metro Manila) (disambiguation page) or below links grouped in an entry at LRT (disambiguation)

• LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila) (Green Line)
• LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila) (Blue Line)
• LRT Line 6 (Metro Manila) (Cavite Line) --> this proposed line is entirely in Cavite btw, this shouldnt have been moved at all. LRT Line 6 (Cavite) would be the more accurate title.

• MRT (Metro Manila) (disambiguation page) or at MRT/MRT (disambiguation)

• MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila) (Yellow Line)
• MRT Line 4 (Metro Manila) --> This is a shared infrastructure proposed for Metro Manila and Rizal. Why did the closer tinker with articles not included in this RM anyway?
• MRT Line 7 (Metro Manila) (Red Line) --> Again, u/c line in M.M. and Bulacan moved by closer when this wasnt included in the RM either.
• MRT Line 8 (Metro Manila)
• Metro Manila Subway Line 9 --> do we need to align this article to the convention too? It's an underground MRT isnt it?

Now, what we see here are inaccurate titles or disambiguation for three lines, 5 if you include LRT2 and LRT1 extensions. Do we proceed with correcting those titles first? Do we decide on a single applicable title or disambiguation now for all lines? Or shall we stick to Metro Manila and just imagine it as referring to the Greater Capital Region in the master plan? If SH wants to keep his system articles, they would have to be rewritten in past tense, as yes maybe LRT 1 and LRT 2 were integrated and operated by a single player in the past, but certainly not the case now.--RioHondo (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

You'd have to discuss this somewhere else (such as on each individual "system" article, but I guess moving "LRT Line 6 (Metro Manila)" to "LRT Line 6 (Cavite)" without an RM should probably be done right away as this shouldn't not be a controversial move.

We should probably discuss what's the best disambiguation for MRT Line 4 and MRT Line 7 once these are operational. My stand here hasn't changed, on using "(Metro Manila and Rizal/Bulacan)" as disambiguators, if consensus leans on adding these LGUs by the time that it is operational, instead of just using "(Metro Manila)". More people identify as being a "Rizal resident" than someone from the "Greater Manila Area". Howard the Duck (talk) 06:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Update: I just moved LRT Line 6 (Metro Manila) to LRT Line 6 (Cavite). Howard the Duck (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm currently working on replacing references to "Line x" on multiple articles, but I'm going to sleep, and I can leave the job to any of you. I made my comment on the station rename, that KRF's "Line x" is based on a now-shelved proposal by DOTr to simplify the line naming scheme (by getting rid of the MRT/LRT system designators) due to the PPP arrangements being done on each line. Hopefully, MM, Central Luzon, and CALABARZON will now be under GCQ. Stay safe guys! TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 08:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm also embarking on replacing references to "Line x" on Wikivoyage. I fixed already the "Get around" section" for wikivoyage:Metro Manila, but there's a lot more. How bad it is to make WV readers wonder as well.

For Commons, I think we rename the corresponding categories to be in line with our present article titles. Can do that for the route icons for WV as well. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"Line #" is everywhere!

I tell you, they're even at places where you least expect them like List of crossings of the Marikina River for "Line 2". It's terrible. And we'd have to edit all of them. And there's no easy way to spot these. It's a complete waste of time to extinguish these. All because they got "consensus" from a discussion that's not an RM. Ugh. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Aw, I'm still seeing straggler uses of Line # not only here in Wikipedia, but in Wikivoyage and WikiCommons. By the way, most of them are already cleaned up.

On Commons, I've already submitted a request to rename the lines' corresponding categories, but I haven't seen any comments (can't you comment on that?). I'm also up to revert KRF's versions of the route icons for use in Wikivoyage. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Even worse, it's hard to undo what KRF have done on the route icons for WV use. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

They're in prose, like in the actual train line articles. I dunno when "Line 2" naming started, but it appears that it's been called "Line 2" even in the planning stages. Now, I dunno what the line was called by that time, so I can't edit that out. That's how bad it is. Absolutely terrible. And they renamed this without a proper RM! Howard the Duck (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Stations list with collapsible transfers

Hi, I made a concept of the article's stations list (see the Ayala to Taft Avenue entries) where the list of transfers are collapsible and categorized by the owner/the type of the service. This is to make the list of transfers less cluttered, especially with stations that have a lot of transfers.

I would like some feedback on the concept so far before I consider rolling it out to the main article and other articles. Thanks! Ganmatthew (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)