Talk:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This 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.

Contents

FAC version

After a one-month rewrite, I'm now sending it to peer review before FAC. Don't revert/restore old sections, discuss them here if you feel an absolutely need to do so, and copyedit this article for any spelling/grammar. - Mailer Diablo 23:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

While we are doing this, I strongly recommend anyone to go to the library and get a book recently released by the LTA on Singapore's public transport. It has tonnes of info we can add into this article, especially on its history. Remember our history section is still not mentioning a thing on the "MRT Man"! :D--Huaiwei 11:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup, I did that already. It's "The Journey - Singapore's Land Transport Story.". The main purpose is not really to add new stuff, since what should be here is already here, it's more to verify the facts and figures. And if we do it'll be on the history sub-page, this is rather big! (32k already) Not too sure what you're referring to on the MRT man though, may have missed that. :P - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Shacks....again I forgot the name of that MRT man! Do you have access to the book now, I hope? There was extensive literature on him in there if I remember correctly. We cant do without a mention of him in this article...seriously.--Huaiwei 15:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, I guess I have to make another trip before...on the day before I send it for FAC. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, we need to formalise and edit our sub-pages, so they can stand as articles on their own. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 12:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Right, let's do that while this is under peer review. - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
We need more photos for the stations. :D --Terence Ong |Talk 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This article cant really take too many station photos liao lah. I dare you guys to snap the patrolling cops of the MRT unit for our security section! :D--Huaiwei 12:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Then why MTR have so many photos. --Terence Ong |Talk 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Coz the text there is longer, allowing for more space for more photos? Anyhow the number is just one small concern. I hope we can have better quality ones. I dont see how much value a tonne of badly-composed photos lacking in detail can contribute to this site anyway. :D --Huaiwei 16:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Too many photos is better than having a shortage of photos. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We may like to improve the template like
[edit] Hong Kong MTR stations Hong Kong Station
Kwun Tong

Whampoa Garden | Ho Man Tin | Yau Ma Tei ■ | Mong Kok ■ | Prince Edward ■ | Shek Kip Mei | Kowloon Tong 1 | Lok Fu | Wong Tai Sin | Diamond Hill | Choi Hung | Kowloon Bay | Ngau Tau Kok | Kwun Tong | Lam Tin | Yau Tong ■ | Tiu Keng Leng ■
Tsuen Wan

Central ■■■ | Admiralty ■ | Tsim Sha Tsui 1 | Jordan | Yau Ma Tei ■ | Mong Kok ■ | Prince Edward ■ | Sham Shui Po | Cheung Sha Wan | Lai Chi Kok | Mei Foo 2 | Lai King ■ | Kwai Fong | Kwai Hing | Tai Wo Hau | Tsuen Wan
Island

Kennedy Town | University | Sai Ying Pun | Sheung Wan | Central ■■■ | Admiralty ■ | Wan Chai | Causeway Bay | Tin Hau | Fortress Hill | North Point ■ | Quarry Bay ■ | Tai Koo | Sai Wan Ho | Shau Kei Wan | Heng Fa Chuen | Chai Wan
Tung Chung

3Fortress Hill | Exhibition | Tamar | Hong Kong ■■■ | Kowloon ■ | Olympic | Nam Cheong 2 | Lai King ■ | Tsing Yi ■ | Sunny Bay ■ | Tung Chung
Airport Express

Hong Kong ■■■ | Kowloon ■ | Tsing Yi ■ | Airport | AsiaWorld-Expo
Tseung Kwan O

4Tin Hau | North Point ■ | Quarry Bay ■ | Yau Tong ■ | Tiu Keng Leng ■ | Tseung Kwan O | Hang Hau | Po Lam | Tseung Kwan O South
Disneyland Resort

Sunny Bay ■ | Disneyland Resort
1) Interchange with KCR East Rail   2) Interchange with KCR West Rail  
3) Taking up Island Line stations east of Fortress Hill   4) Taking up Island Line stations west of Tin Hau

Lines and stations that are proposed, under planning or under construction are shown in italics.

. --Terence Ong |Talk 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Erm...I am not so sure if the colour parade is exactly good for this article. Come to think of it, why do we keep using the MTR article as a "template", when London Underground is also an FA article? I actually consider the London article far more all-rounded and more professional-looking as a whole.--Huaiwei 03:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Will be hopefully applying for FAC after the coming weekend. Let me know if you guys need more time though. - Mailer Diablo 15:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I wanna get that LTA book leh. Also I hope we can get a better map drawn.--Huaiwei 16:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We need more time actually. The History of the Mass Rapid Transit article needs attention. You may like to take a look and make it better as it is important for MRT's sub-pages to be of same standard of the main page. Which library has the book? The national library? --Terence Ong |Talk 16:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Dont worry so much about the sub-pages as it isnot actually an FAC requirement. But we do need to check if important information are missing, so that we can cut back on the not so important ones. The book can be borrowed from the national library indeed. I feel like buying one copy thou. :D--Huaiwei 16:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well I've got the 'MRT Man's' name already - "Lim Leong Geok", son of Lim Bo Seng. CEO of PMRTA. Don't worry, I'll add two more citations and whatever's nessecery later on, before sending it off to FAC. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Wah I finally got hold of the book a second time. :D--Huaiwei 12:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

good article

I suggest we nominate this for Wikipedia:Good articles before trying for FAC. Then at least we have something to be satisfied about. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 08:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, overseas now on a vacation. Luckily cafes provide computers for free internet access. :P If we can pass through good articles then we go for FAC, but anything is fine with me. --Terence Ong |Talk 09:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I thought we don't have to, because we're sending it for FAC once the peer review is finished. I'm quite confident it should make it through. :P - Mailer Diablo 15:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Wayyy too much blue links

There is quite a lot of (what I feel) is unneccesary linkage in this article. several paragrahs have 4+ links. Excessive linkage makes an article hard to read and looks unprofessional. something to consider ....novacatz 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't find this necessarily so. On the other hand, links give the article a sense of "concreteness" and I actually find an article without links harder to read with lots of links...this is Wikipedia; having lots of links to other concepts is typical of any good Wikipedia article. How is it unnecessary? Natalinasmpf 17:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Apart from linking to years (which IMHO is always a bit redundant), the level of linkage looks about right to me. Linking is the strength of wikipedia, having terms like 'rolling stock' and 'third rail' linked means if they're unfamiliar terms, you'll quickly become an expert. Can you give an example of a paragraph which is over the top? Stevage 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyediting Work Done on This Article

After I noticed that the first undone task on the to-do list is copyediting, I took the liberty (and the task) to do some copyediting work. I rewrote some sentences and/or split them up to make them read better, and corrected some language nuances here and there, as well as providing some minor info (why nobody bothered to mention that the single-trip versions of the EZ-Link card is called Standard Tickets?). However, I know that there are still some problems with this article - duplicate links are everywhere! I am unable to track all of them down with ease, so I do appreciate it if somebody is willing to check on this article for such links. A.K.R. 16:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just realised the fares section made no mention on transfers between lines, btw. Not all rail systems allow one to go into and out of the entire network via two gates. Even nearby KL dosent have it!--Huaiwei 16:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Article too long?

Remember we made so much effort to "manage the size" of this article? I am beginning to wonder if we are kinda over-zealous about it. :D If one tries to copy the text into word and do a word count minus the captions, referencing, and other text not in the main article, it presently amounts to just under 3,500 words here. In comparison, the MTR article has over 5,000, while the London Underground one has over 5,600.

  • Did we over-summarise?? :D--Huaiwei 19:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we did fine. The other two articles were promoted on the basis of around this length. It was after on the frontpage that they now end up with > 5,000 words. - Mailer Diablo 07:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • We are already over the preferable article size limit; let's not stretch it any further. Also, in terms of summarisation, it looks fine to me. A.K.R. 12:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not that long actually. It's just fine. We need some polish up like more images for station articles as most of the MTR and Underground stations have. --Terence Ong |Talk 15:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Alright then. I am being way too concerned about this article due to the FAC I suppose? :D--Huaiwei 08:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Fruit of the Labour!

It's going for FAC now! Let's hope that our efforts have paid off well! =D - Mailer Diablo 04:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Extending a journey

I note the following line was added recently:

...extend a trip mid-journey, and pay the difference as they exit their destination station.

What this actually mean, because it is not clear if it involves leaving the fare gates or staying within it?--Huaiwei 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • They go to the station master. - Mailer Diablo 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Er? You mean someone can get out of a station, go shopping, then come back and ask the station master to let them in and pay for the two trips as thou they are one? If this is so, I didnt know, and I will be quite happy to know it! :D--Huaiwei 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Date formats

There has been attempts by quite a few to remove links to "solitary years" in dates, and this request suffaced again in this FAC nomination. I removed a few in the beginning of the article, but that was reverted. This is getting confusing...--Huaiwei 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Date formats are fixed and now fine...Leave as they are. :) - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

usage by commuters

This was raised up on the FAC page. We should emphasise the fact that yes, all of this is built for commuters, but we should also state the reactions/successes of it. I presume this could be appended easily. It could also be something covered by each section, especially fares in relation to ridership, history of any ridership, as well as a breakdown of ridership in general, peak hours, etc., who the demographics of riders are, where are the busy points, etc, perhaps this could be later mentioned in the individual station articles. -- Natalinasmpf 22:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

merge safety and security

Frankly, these two are very similar, and could be merged (including their subarticles). This might also resolve NPOV issues in the long run, especially since there's something more substantial to write about as an introduction (in response to the protest of the use of "ensure" in the FAC submission). -- Natalinasmpf 01:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

They may sound similar, but the underlying concerns are quite different. The rise of terrorism as a global threat has perhaps led to an increase in security considerations, even if it can also be said to "ensure safety" of commuters be it due to accidents or a terrorist attack. I would think there is likely to be much scope for expansion in both pages in their own right. Saying the MRT Police Unit was formed and that bins has been moved to the entrances due to "safety" concerns seems to be an inaccurate statement. Saying the CCTV system was implimented and the considerations in adding barriers to prevent falls due to "security" concerns are kindoff off-the-mark too, although one can say there is a small overlap between the two.--Huaiwei 12:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Right now their sub-pages are a bit scanty. They could benefit from a merger. -- Natalinasmpf 02:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
They have to be short because we cant expand on this article much further without breaching rules over its size. Main articles exist for both topics for further expansion.--Huaiwei 03:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but they really are quite the same - they are both dedicated to safety. Terrorism is a much different problem than people sticking their fingers into sliding doors for example, but the benefit is ultimately the same. They can both expand on the same page, given that the ultimate mission of safety is still similar, and that terrorism is just an extreme safety problem. -- Natalinasmpf 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats generally true as I alluded above, but these articles are centered on the means of arriving at a seemingly common aim, and the means are quite obviously diferent. How do the "please mind the gap" annoucements contribute to security concerns on the MRT, for instance? The only major overlap I could think of is the CCTV system, which even then has been clearly indicated as a safety rather then security requirement, although its use for the later has suddenly become evident in recent years.--Huaiwei 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

future lines

It is mind-boggling why the graphic of future lines is placed there since it is not done by SMRT itself? "Artist impression"? I remember reading on the New Paper that it was done by a secondary school boy (not that I don't trust his abilities or anything, but while he may be talented, you must admit he isn't "professional"). Can a stronger disclaimer be placed in there?

This has been discussed at length before. Anyhow if it was done by SMRT, it wont have appeared in wikipedia at all.--Huaiwei 12:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

okay, my bad. some suggestions: "in the future by 2015" change to just "in the future" "scheduled extensions" to "speculated extensions" Cmyk 12:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Or just "An artist's speculation on future extensions of the MRT network in addition to the current three lines." 202.156.6.54 12:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
"Speculation" seems to suggest that those lines are pure works of fantasy by one artist. The fact is they are mentioned and drawn in numerous publications of the said authorities, including that of the LTA and the URA.--Huaiwei 12:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

relcatioh of data section

This was relocated:

Stations are divided into two areas, paid and unpaid, which allow the rail operators to collect fares by restricting entry only through the fare gates, also known as access control gates. These gates, connected to a computer network, are capable of reading and updating electronic tickets capable of storing data, and can store information such as the initial and destination stations and the duration for each trip; fares are calculated on the basis of this information.

To me,I thought it belonged better on "facilities" as it just helped tie in or transition between the sections better. -- Natalinasmpf 02:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

History of the Mass Rapid Transit

Isn't anyone going to remove the attention sign. Or should we do a major edit to the article? --Terence Ong |Talk 04:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we need to fix our sub-pages, prevent redundancy, and update them with the new information and language (from the copyediting) on the page. And the reorganisation of details, too. -- Natalinasmpf

  • That sign is not going. It's in bits and pieces that need a lot of fixing. A lot is missing from the article to be exact. - Mailer Diablo 20:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Malay name

I added the Malay name of the system as "Sistem Rel Ringan", which I acquired from the web. However, I do wonder if this is wholely correct, so I would call for all to help ask around and verify this. Thanks!--Huaiwei 12:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"Sistem Rel Ringan" literally means "Light Rail System". Not sure if it refers to MRT or LRT thoguh.... Hayabusa future 10:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Then that would be refering to the LRT right? Do you know the correct name for the MRT? Or is it simply the same as the English name?--Huaiwei 10:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the correct name for it, but it's not "Sistem Rel Ringan" for sure, as according to Berita Harian (BH) [1] it refers to the LRT. A probable translation for Mass Rapid Transit will be "Sistem Transit Massa." Anyway I tried searching within BH, but from the results it seems like they always call it "MRT". Hayabusa future 11:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wanna say this article looks great too. Seems to be destined for a "featured article" status already. :-) Hayabusa future 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah...so perhaps we can rename it as Sistem Transit Massa for now since we know for sure Sistem Rel Ringan is wrong? I did some searches, but its notoriously difficult to look for Malay names. I keep experiencing the same difficulty when it comes to adding Malay names for many other sg-related articles too. If only google has Malay language searches!--Huaiwei 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

User:Fauzi has helped to correct the Malay name as "Sistem Pengangkutan Gerak Cepat". Thanks for the assistance, Fauzi! ;)--Huaiwei 18:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Justing helping out. Pretty new in this wiki editing so I thought I'll learn a few things by doing this. Anyway, "Sistem Pengangkutan Gerak Cepat" is usually heard of or seen in the local Malay-language media. You can google this phrase and you will see what I mean :-) For other sg-related Malay definitions, you can ask me. --fauzi 19:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thats great to hear. ;) Anyhow, isnt sistem = system, which would mean the above stands for "MRT System"? If we only want the Malay phrase for the "MRT", can we drop the word sistem?--Huaiwei 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not so sure.. without the "sistem", it would mean something like "Rapid Carrier" or "Rapid Transporter". I guess it would work, but I have never heard it being used that way before. --fauzi 09:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh in that case I will leave it as it is, since I am no expert! :D--Huaiwei 13:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

C751B Cars

Apparently, not all C751B cars have LED & LCD displays installed in them. I was on one two days ago and it didn't have LED or LCD displays installed. Quite shocking actually, thought all C751B trains already had them installed. The space where the LCD screen would have been has this white board thing (looks like a piece of cardboard). Its either SMRT ran out of money to install them in this train (haha, as if) or its a new train. After all, the place where the LED would have been doesn't have any drill holes in it, meaning nothing was ever installed on that surface & meaning nothing was ever removed. Should this very minor minor detail be written in the C751B page? Its nothing major, just thought you might want to know. Ignoramus

I suppose it must be a new train or they are doing something else. :D --Terence Ong |Talk 05:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe you will like to provide the carriage number so that we can check it out? Russianroulette2004|Talk 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

How about a section for SMRT/SBS Transit/LTA experimental programmes?

Like the bum rests of C651 trains, luggage racks of C751B trains and tv screens of C151 trains which were all experimental programmes, how about a section devoted to it?

Other experimental programmes include 1. New GTM Card Reader being tested at some GTMs at City Hall Station. You don't insert the card to top up the value at this GTM, you simply place it on the reader. (Should this be added to the GTM section? This is minor so I don't know if it deserves to be added) 2. The Passenger Information System & terrestial TV monitors @ the Woodlands Extension Stations. In 1996, there were tvs at each station showing tv programmes I think. Not only that, these stations were the first to feature LED screens at concourse level showing train arrival times and enhanced flip dot displays at platform level showing next train arrival time. 3. Music being played at stations in late 1990s to 2000s. 4. ezlink mobile top up service. One small machine for passengers to top up their card by tapping on it. After that authenticate that transaction thru the mobile phone that is. There are more but I can't really remember now. Ignoramus

Or should it all come under a new section called "technologies in the MRT"? Btw...do remember to sign your comments.--Huaiwei 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of technologies, some time ago I edited List of current systems for electric rail traction and added the specs for our trains. Perhaps we can add in the specs for the future Circle Line if we know anything about it. --fauzi 10:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Possible additions

1. I think people would be interested to know how fast the trains move in the lines owned by SMRT and SBS.

  • All in the specific articles. SMRT 80kmh, SBS 90kmh, Average 45kmh. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Suggest the points be made in this article as well, since they're quite basic level info like overall ridership, length of lines. Akikonomu 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

2. Under safety on MRT, can mention the red plunger system and the fines for abuse.

3. Again under safety, article has not been updated with the spate/surge of accidents in the 2000s, mostly involving people 'falling' into the tracks while running to board the train.

  • There were calls for platform screen doors to be installed at above-ground stations after several incidents in which passengers were killed by oncoming trains when they fell onto the railway tracks at above-ground stations. However, the authorities rejected the proposal, because of doubts over functionality and concerns about the high installation costs. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I understand. I was suggesting more detailed info on the falling incidents (dates and stuff), like what we have on Safety on the Mass Rapid Transit. Akikonomu 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Under security, it is not mentioned that the CCTV system, until very recently, had no recording function. Fact was only revealed when SMRT said it is impossible to review footage of the early 2000s 'falling' accidents.

5. Fares and tickets: People would be interested to know that the tickets have a time limit to them, unlike the RT systems in some other cities.

  • Tickets for single trips, coloured in green, are valid only on the day of purchase, and have a time allowance of 30 minutes beyond the estimated travelling time. Tickets that can be used repeatedly until their expiry date require a minimum amount of stored credit. - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Recent adoption of (so far) silent video displays in trains (NEL only?)

7. Privacy issues: will people want to know how long the records of their train journeys are stored in the MRT database, especially under the EZlink card system? Given that (again, numbers need to be found) a fair proportion of EZlink users opted to link their IC identifications with their cards, this might be a Big Brother type issue. (I recall the introduction of the cards gave discounts of $2-3 if users opted to link to their identification)

  • I'm considering the issue on EZ-Link itself. You can help edit and improve the article, too! - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Akikonomu 03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments! :) - Mailer Diablo 08:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Woo! Actually the more we think about this topic, the more we will realise "something" is "missing", and I suppose that is normal, since there has to be a limit somewhere as to what we can squeeze into it. For example, I just realised it makes no mention on the government's dillema on introducing competition between the two rail operators, and how there was talk on the possible exchange of resources which may lead to SMRT operating the entire MRT network. Still, maybe we can put that in Rail transport in Singapore instead (since it also touches on the LRT)? Hmm....--Huaiwei 04:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

  • My day job consists of editing, copywriting (esp. clarifying and shrinking lines), and laying the smackdown on style guidelines. I'll be glad to help once the points are all basically there and you want someone to look through and polish. Just drop a note in my user talk page Akikonomu 05:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Considering we may have only a few days before the nomination ends, you might wish to consider doing the editing now. If that is not possible, we can always do it after the nomination anyway, for FAs arent exactly the end of the road, and they can always be improved further. ;)--Huaiwei 06:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the "missing elements", yeah, we have to remind ourselves to concentrate on the commuter experience and any uniqueness (as that is what attracts the reader), not just the grand new facilities the government builds. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 05:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

After FAs is not the end of the world. :) Like what Huaiwei and Natalinasmpf said, we can give the uniqueness to readers about our MRT. I really hope this article will be promoted. We need lots of improvements to this articles. :P --Terence Ong Talk 07:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm uniqueness...
    • Single trip contactless smart card tickets are unique I guess. Most metros stick to contactless smart tokens or magnetic cards for single trip tickets. Not only can much be said about this being unique, you can give plus points and bad points about this system too like how in a good way, the LTA can save money and maintenance fees in that it only has to maintain one fare collection system with no moving parts & no need to collect used tickets from each fare collection gate. But the bad point is that this system inconveniences the passenger.
    • Right from the start, passengers can view system maps knowing that every rail station is listed. Not every city lists all its rail stations, no matter how small they are, as long as they are run by different operators.
    • The thing about plasma displays on platforms (as opposed to LED displays) is already mentioned earlier, as is the thing about one card for everything since the 1990s, without passing thru multiple gates etc.
    • The different yellow lines on the platform. In the mid 1990s trials were carried out to test out different types of lines to see which one would guide passengers best in getting people to line up properly to board the train and to facilitate people getting out. THIS IS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL.
    • Can't think of more in just 10mins. More will pop up in time...

Ignoramus 11:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Re : "ensure" safety issue

Image:Ensure-safety-sbs.jpg
Letter to The Straits Times, published on website on Dec 24, preserved as a record for debate. (STI has a 3day online website expiration policy)

More history of SMRT

Wrong year, and missing citations (probably check the sg e-Hansard if it was discussed in Parliament). Ngiam Tong Dow mentioned in an interview/talk this year that the USSR offered in the mid 1960s to build an MRT system for Singapore for $1 bn. The decision by Parliament to plan to build the MRT at $5 bn was made in the late 1970s - not in the 1960s as is written in the article. Akikonomu 05:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

egads, I hate having some people hijack this section.

The reference is this: Ngiam Tong Dow, address to the Economic Society of Singapore, 15 January 2004. Very few of us will know that the USSR government offered to build Singapore an MRT in the mid 1960s. According to Howe Yoon Chong, who was Permanent Secretary (National Development) then, we could have had the MRT system built for less than $1 billion if we had accepted the Russian offer. When Singapore decided to build the MRT in the late 1970s, it would cost us $5 billion. Akikonomu 03:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A url link please?--Huaiwei 20:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The entire speech was reproduced in the ST Commentary page, probably on or around their 16 January issue. I don't subscribe to ST online, so I can't find it. However, the article was also printed by Business Times, at http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/storyprintfriendly/0,4568,105455,00.html - which again works only for subscribers. Akikonomu 02:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Bah! Needed the link to counter-check and for referencing purposes. You dont have the article title, auhor and page number by any chance?--Huaiwei 06:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"Lessons from 40 years of policymaking in Singapore" in Business Times, 16 January 2004. No author since it's a direct transcript of Ngiam's speech to the Economic Society. The Zaobao 16 Jan article is "前高级公务员严崇涛：政府地价政策不合理, 导致经济竞争力丧失" by 郑英豪. The ST article printed excerpts from his speech on 16 Jan as well, in "Ex-top civil servant speaks up on policy misses" Akikonomu 08:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I've found the BT article and copy it to my user subpage User:Vsion/Ngiam Tong Dow. It was copied from the forum page [2]. Quite interesting. :D --Vsion 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That could go well with our history sub-page, I suppose? :) - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some other section

Given the failure to address challenges to the accuracy and neutrality of the article, I've added the appropriate templates to the page. Monicasdude 23:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

My perception is that you are doing this out of spite. There are a lot of worse articles out there, (you should really see some other really patronising articles!), and you didn't even bring this up at peer review, nor did you add the tags while it was FAC. I don't even see what you are contesting on this talk page. -- Natalinasmpf 23:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Many have gave positive feedback, and constructive criticisms. You said please stop talking about me and resume discusssing the article. It is basically trying to cover up, you cannot admit that. Your character is mysterious. I will remove the weasel tag. What nonsense is that, this is basically harassment. This is Wikipedia please? --Terence Ong Talk 03:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you explain in further detail. Stop ignoring my comments. Your behaviour is unsactisfactory. You first remove my comments on your talk page. What are you going to do next? --Terence Ong Talk 07:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/s/Talk%7EMass_Rapid_Transit_%28Singapore%29_Archive_2_f329.html"