Talk:MTR/Archive up to August 2007

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move Part Deux 10:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, the system is called MTR, however WP:NAME states that acronyms should never be used unless they're used exclusively. Therefor, I have requested that this page be moved to Mass Transit Railway, -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "support" or "oppose" followed by your reason and then ~~~~

[edit] Support

• Support rename to MTR (metro). This is based on the statement above that Mass Transit Railway is not the correct name and a need to dab this title and move the dab page here. It would be hard to justify a rail system in one country as the primary use of a TLA page. Vegaswikian 22:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, possibly to MTR (Hong Kong) or MTR Railway (the official website occasionally uses this term) instead thou. Irregardless of final choice, "MTR" alone simply is not feasible, unless there is evidence that New Yorkers [1], Linux programmers [2], foodies [3], audio buffs [4], etc, etc, etc, are all thinking of the HK rail system when they see "MTR".--Huaiwei 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Or MTR Train Service which is the page from the company home page. Vegaswikian 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
    • or Mass Transit Railway (Hong Kong), the clearest, most to-the-point article name.--Huaiwei 17:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I came here to close this discussion. However the consensus seems to be to keep the article as it is and that seems like the wrong conclusion to me. So instead I'm leaving a comment here. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) couldn't be clearer, "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form". MTR should be a disambig and this page should be MTR (Hong Kong) or similar - the article can still use the term MTR. Mark83 18:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

• oppose. As the reason Instantnood has stated. Also Hong Kong English speakers rarely address the system in full name or "metro". It is appropriate to remain the title in its well-known acronym MTR -- Sameboat - 同舟 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Names which are less commonly used may still be appriopriate for at least two reasons in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions, in particular be precise when necessary and prefer spelled-out phrases to acronyms. In Singapore, hardly anyone talks about the Mass Rapid Transit in full either, and it is even common for folks to pronounce "MRT" as a "word" (something like "mert"). That still dosent mean we are going to monopolise the article MRT (or even Mass Rapid Transit), so is there any convincing reason why MTR should?--Huaiwei 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no other disambiguation of MTR in wikipedia. If someone is searching for MTR, they are most likely searching for the metro system. And besides, from reading the first paragraph, you would get an idea of that it is a metro. Herenthere 23:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Compared to the other stuff on MTR (disambiguation), this one probably wins out in terms of importance by far. enochlau (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are they any hard evidence to demonstrate this? Notable amongst rail buffs and in HK, maybe, but the entire world?--Huaiwei 12:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not going to argue with you, but yes, my assertion is rather unprovable but if you just look at the other entries on the disambiguation page, they really don't stand out to me as being as important on a relative scale. enochlau (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • This is not an argument, but a request for facts. I can form entirely different opinions from you by looking at that disambiguation page, but that is entirely besides the point, for its not merely about what I think. I am merely asking if you have any evidence to show obvious notability of the HK subway over all other possible uses of this acronym anywhere in the world.--Huaiwei 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • How exactly does that scale rank the Museum of Television and Radio commonly call MTR? Vegaswikian 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As Enochlau. Willkm 09:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose until another disambiguation of MTR is needed, which is not yet. Insanephantom (my Editor Review) 11:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, no one refers MTR by its full name. Even the MTR Corporation itself. No other disambiguation of MTR yet on Wikipedia, I agree with Enochlau. Terence Ong 15:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you have evidence to show that "no one", including MTR Corporation, refers to MTR by its full name? If there is a lack of other articles called MTR, why the existance of MTR (disambiguation) then?--Huaiwei 17:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
    • comment Searching the website of South China Morning Post. The result for MTR of 20th January 2007 straightly addresses the acronym. For Mass Transit Railway, zero result. -- Sameboat - 同舟 05:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • That's quite an interesting way of denying the existance of a phrase. Have you tried typing "Mass Transit Railway" in google and discover how many of the search results refers to the HK subway system?--Huaiwei 11:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Really? Not all in the first few pages refer to the HK rapid transit system. The Mass Transit Railway name was only used in the past, not anymore. Terence Ong 12:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No one insists all entries have to refer to the HK system. On the other hand, you clearly claimed no one is doing so. Logically, this means not a single google search entry on "Mass Transit Railway" should refer to the HK system. As for your claim that the full name was "used only in the past", could you provide sources to verify it?--Huaiwei 12:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

• MTR Corporation is the name of the operating company. Mass Transit Railway is apparently the name of the metro system. Given that MTR has other uses, the question here really should be is MTR the primary usage. Asking this question about this article is likely to produce a biased result since the other uses are probably not going to see this notice. Vegaswikian 22:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have wondered the same thing about MTR. Same disagreement with the New York City Subway. Its official page is titled, "New York City Subway", and the operating corporation has its own page, "Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)". I personally like MTR-simple, short. But I think that if it is renamed, then it should be like MTR (Mass Transit Railway). BTW, ppl I've spoken to in HK say it is, "Day-teet" or "Day ha teet low". Try using those Chinese words in EN wikipedia! :) Herenthere 23:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No, if you were to stick brackets after it, it would probably be something like MTR (subway) - the stuff in brackets is the generic category that it belongs to, e.g. John Smith (politician). enochlau (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• And the correct name is? Can someone who opposes the move or knows the details state what the name of the system is or even if the system has a name. Yes MTR is used, but what it the name? From the company page they seem to say they run several rail service lines. Vegaswikian 01:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "rail service lines"? MTR is the name for the encompassing network of those "lines" including the AEL, KTL, TWL, TCL, IsL, and TKOL. MTR stands for Mass Transit Railway; it is available in the first sentence of the article. Herenthere (Talk) 22:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So why are you opposing the rename? This is an acronym that is very common. It is not clear that there is a world wide primary use. In fact in California and New York it is clear that it has a very different meaning that is clearly the primary use. Use the full name for the article since it can not be proven to be the primary use. I hope that the closing admin is able to weight the points made here and not just count the 'votes'. Those opposed even agree that the name is a Chinese one without a good English translation. Maybe the name should be "Day ha teet low"? Since MTR is a made up name not commonly used by the locals, how can it be the primary use? This seems to be the position expressed in some of the oppose votes. Vegaswikian 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although "day teet" is the official Chinese name for it, the English name for it in Hong Kong is MTR. The name MTR is commonly used by businesses in HK to describe promotions, directions, etc. True, it is a Chinese name, but the purpose of a title of an encyclopedic entry is to provide the most concise description of an object. MTR is used more often as a name rather than Mass Transit Railway in any stories/forums/news etc. Besides, convention is MTR. Someone from Hong Kong or London would find it odd why an article would be dedicated to the New York City Subway since a subway in England or HK is an underground walkway. Changing MTR to any other form would be like changing the NYC subway to something like the New York City Underground Railway-> long. Herenthere (Talk) 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but the primary difference between the NY and HK systems is that one is using the article name New York City Subway, while the other is MTR. We are not comparing apples with apples here.--Huaiwei 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I am a local and English speakers use MTR, not day teet or Mass Transit Railway(I can never remember or wish to remember the long form.) MythSearcher^talk 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I kinda met Chinese speakers in HK, but, yea same point. Perhaps we should leave this renaming issue for a later time, when more ppl can join in. Herenthere (Talk) 20:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am hardly surprised by this observation, and you will note no one is denying the fact that the term "MTR" is widely used in HK to refer to the railway system. But what remains unverified, is whether it is widely used on a global scale, such that it can monopolise the said acronym over all other possible meanings of the said term.--Huaiwei 14:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Here's another attempt to get consensus to move the page. Here are some replies to some arguments used:

• MTR is short and simple. - Yes, maybe it is, but WP:NAME prefers spelled-out titles unless the acronym is used exclusively (eg laser) and that the spelled-out title could be considered surprising.
• This is more common than anything else listed on the dab page. - It is common that people living in different parts of the world or from different fields to believe that an acronym is most commonly applied to a specific item. For example, because I live in Canada, I generally associate CBC with Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Although it might seem to me that Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the rest of the world, CBC isn't the most common.

My proposed compromise is that the page be moved to MTR (rapid transit system) as this distinguishes this use of the acronym from the rest and still reflects the use in Hong Kong. — Selmo ^(talk) 03:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by a comment and then ~~~~

[edit] Support

• Support. The current setup may "be fine" for those looking for other meanings to the abbreviation MTR, but this continues to violate wikipedia policy, and forces all users to artificially believe that the term leans more to one entity than it really do. That this is the third time a move request is made is telling enough. Note practically all oppose votes in this and previous move requests are HKers, or have a keen interest in that city, and all fail to demonstrate the fact that the rail network in HK does not have exclusive use of this abbreviation. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and popular votes most not be seen as a valid reason to circumvent wikipedia guidelines or policies.--Huaiwei 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing in the article states that the railway has exclusive use of the term "MTR". So there's no need to demonstrate this. That's why there's an ambig link at the top. And there is disagreement on how often the term is used to refer to what. We're also supposed to do things by consensus at WP - that's a great WP policy we shouldn't violate. At best, we've basically came to no-consensus. And this third poll even seems to be heading toward supermajority. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If you read the relevant policies and guidelines, having a "ambig link at the top" is used when the exclusivity or widespread, global-usage of an abbreviation is already proven. This continued disability to prove notability means the current setup remains inappriopriate. The onus is on those insisting on monopolising a term to prove its notability. Concensus building is critical to wikipedia, but one should not take it literally to mean majority views count in all aspects of wikipedia. Wikipedia:Consensus clearly states that formal decision making based on vote counting is not how wikipedia works, for Wikipedia is strictly not a democracy. A supermajority proven to violate wikipedia policy and having their views overturned is not a violation of Concensus policy. Users keen to keep the status quo will have to go beyond merely optaining a "no concensus" result, because a violation of guidelines can easily overrule it, as is clearly evident here.--Huaiwei 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, the burden of proof is on the editors who want to move an article. But all we've reached, at best, is no consensus on whether or not the current name is justified. Consensus on the current name and consensus on if the current name violates WP policy goes hand-in-hand. You may say that the current naming is against policy, but apparently there are plenty of others who disagree. And WP:Disambiguation for disambig top links specifically states: "A user searching for a particular term might not expect the article that appears. Therefore, helpful links to any alternative articles with similar names are needed." The current setup of this article is perfectly valid. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Please cite the relevant policy or guideline which supports your reasoning concerning burden of proof. The rest of your comments dont quite make sense, and it hints to me that you are attempting to tie in other policies and guidelines to claim their violation to support your stand. It dosent work this way. And please be mindful that "plenty of others disagreeing with policy" dosent change that policy. In fact, how many of them are actually capable of convincing us that no policy or guideline has been breached? Conveniently ignoring the concerns raised dosent mean disagreement. The citation you quote form WP:Disambiguation dosent address the issue at hand at all. It merely explains why WP:Disambiguation exists, and that is for articles which already demonstrate common usage. Not every user who checks up BBC may be expecting the British broadcaster to appear on screen, hence the existance of the top links, but its proven that the vast majority of user around the world do, hence the British broadcaster's use of the abbreviation "BBC". That is what the citation is actually saying (and not saying). Are you able to apply the same to MTR?--Huaiwei 23:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - While it is true that the current title of the MTR article may imply that Wikipedia is favouring a point of view of another. This is hardly the case. Just because this article has gone through three move/renaming requests does not support this premise, as Huaiwei has implied. The first move request in December 2005 was initiated on the basis that MTR did not adhere to WP:NAME, the second move request in January 2007 per WP:NAME again, and finally months later after the second discussion, in March 2007 we are discussing it again per WP:NAME, again. The closure of two former requested moves with a consensus to not move the current MTR article to another name clearly shows that WP:NAME is not a viable policy to be cited in initiating another move - yet it is continually cited. Granted, the requested moves are initiated by different editors in both instances and that process is important. However, there are times where policies can be ignored where adherence to policy does not benefit the Wikipedia project - and this appears to be one of those times. The Ignore Rule Policies is furthermore supported by WP:SNOWBALL, where it states that "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." It would appear that this third process of undergoing another move/renaming request is one of those instances. It is quite clear though arguable that the consensus is either going to be not moving/renaming the current article (as indicated and supported by previous discussions) or no consensus achieved at all.
    However, the above reasons may still not satisfy some editors - so in addition to my oppose rationale below here is some additional support. Per naming conflicts policy and convention referring to the section on "How to make a choice among controversial names" when applying the the three key principles. MTR meets all three initial principles as being common use of a name takes precedence, the common name does not take precedence over the official name, and MTR is the term used by the official name to describe itself. Furthermore under guidelines to determine common or official usage: MTR is the name that is most commonly used in English and it is used by the subject to describe itself. My argument is supported by a Google, CNN, BBC News search results test where the MTR in question dominates the search results (Keyword MTR). Four out of the first ten Google search result hits are referring to the MTR this article is about.
    It is also interesting to note that the article BAA remains named BAA while a quick Google search returns a highly varied result listing in possible uses of the acronym BAA, moreso varied that the results returned through MTR.
    In addition per WP:NCON, it is stated that the onus is on the editor proposing the move to prove why the move should be made - not those editors opposing the move. Luke! 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • First of all, BAA happens to be a disambiguation page, so I arent sure what this illustration is trying to archieve. Practically each and every policy or guideline you cite actually does not directly support your stand. WP:SET is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Wikipedia:Naming conflict does not explicitely state that its the onus of the move proposer to prove his point, except in the line "you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result (but it happens, and also, as said above, the Google test frequently has no *clear* result).", which itself clearly tells you a strong case is only needed if the google test result clearly demonstrates popular usage. A google search immediately shows no such clear result exists, which is contrary to your claim. Type in "MTR -wikipedia" [5], and the HK rail system shows up as the first search result, and does not appear again until another 50 plus entries later. This is obvious non-notability. And since this is so, your application of WP:NCON is null and void. Once again, you fail to demonstrate why MTR should superceed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms). Do not simply pull up all kinds of policies without fully understanding their intent. policies can be ignored dosent mean you can be a vandal, or ignore policies at the detriment of global viewers (and the other way round can be true. I can, for example, ignore the concensus policy if it is obvious that a whole bunch of city dwellers are collectively preventing accurate representation of common usage). WP:SNOWBALL will remain effective as long as the vast majority of participants continue to be geographically biased, which I doubt will remain the case forever. Do we have to wait for that to happen? I hope not. But if users from one city continue to insist on global notability when they cannot substantiate it, then I suppose some proactive steps will have to be taken.--Huaiwei 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The first point to note is that Mass Transit Railway self-references as MTR. Therefore it is fully legitimate to choose MTR as the page name. Replying Huaiwei's search observation above, I believe that Huaiwei did not look into the each entry of the search results of google "MTR -wikipedia" clearly. Did Huaiwei simply look for MTR offical website contents only instead of searching for all references to Mass Transit Railway from the list of results? I'm not accusing Huaiwei personally of doing anything wrong, but his possible lack of knowledge about MTR would easily lead to his misinterpretation of search results, giving the "not appearing again until after 50 entries" conclusion above. --Deryck C. 11:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

• Oppose, per my opinion in the last poll done. MTR is the name used officially by the government and the corporation itself. Terence Ong 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• So what? One of the listed articles on the dab page is a major city. It may be the official name, but it dosen't make it the most common usage. — Selmo ^(talk) 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay... Terence Ong 04:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one's is the major city? I have clicked on every link on the MTR (dab) page and none of them are directly about a major city. The closest is the link to Montreal, Quebec; however, this is just a reference to Amtrak reservations system code MTR being assigned to Montreal and not actually a widely-used abbreviation for Montreal. Luke! 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Montreal is seldom referred as MTR. Terence Ong 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

How would you react to a move proposal from Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) to MRT?--Huaiwei 16:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The current use of a disambiguation link is fine. It resolves the problem that other people might be looking for a different "MTR". Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It does not resolve the problem of readers being sent to the wrong article. A dab should be used when the likelihood of being sent to the wrong article is high. Vegaswikian 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Which I disagree would be high. But readers searching for "MTR" can certainly participate in this poll in disagreement. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 05:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually the response would vary by region. If you are in HK, your answer would be different than if you were in NYC. That's why the dab is so reasonable in this case. You need a very strong consensus to not have a dab for any 3 character article name. Vegaswikian 23:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per HongQiGong. Additionally, per Instanthood from the previous discussion - where MTR is being used exclusively except in the one piece of government legislation creating the former public organization, MTR. Luke! 04:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose and I propose that we speedily close this because the last poll wasn't that long ago. Nothing has changed since then. enochlau (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above reasons given, plus that there is no significant ambiguation problem. --Raphaelmak 08:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. This poll is against the consensus two months ago. The consensus unlikely changes in two months and it is not appropriate to raise similar polls again and again. Ref.: Wikipedia:Consensus — HenryLi (Talk) 07:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• Slight oppose against renaming, strong oppose against the proposed new name - for my opposition against renaming, see my argument above. Moreover, if it should move, the article should be renamed "Mass Transit Railway", not "MTR (anything)". Creating parenthesis disambiguative titles when more appropriate names are available is not a good practice. --Deryck C. 11:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Profile of voters in past and current move request

A very telling table, isnt it? ;)--Huaiwei 12:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Somewhat"? Meaning? I'm not of any HK origin. Terence 14:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The heading says "HK Origin/interest". Read before commenting.--Huaiwei 16:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• What does "somewhat" mean? A person who is not born in Hong Kong but is living in Hong Kong? Please explain. --Raphaelmak 15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• The heading reads "HK Origin/interest". You dont have to be born in HK, or even ever step foot in there to be interested in the place. And that interest can result in a rather warped viewpoint. Anyway, I note the keen interest in my little table here. :D--Huaiwei 16:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• In fact... I'm just a bit puzzled with "somewhat" being used. I hope that the table be changed for "HK Origin/interest" status to be either "Yes" or "No", not that kind of something between like "somewhat". --Raphaelmak 16:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is no scientific means to measure someone's interest in a place, so unless you can cite such an instrument which can do just that, it is unlikely anyone can pigeonhole every single soul into a "yes" or "no" category. On top of that, there is no way I can establish the origins of some individuals, unless they declare it in their user page or their contributions is evident in their edit histories. I respect the basic privacy of individuals not to prod too much into their backgrounds. If you are so interested, you are most welcome to do that. But again, why this keen interested to remove all grey classifications?--Huaiwei 16:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem here is that you've grouped "origins" together with "interest in". Someone being from HK doesn't necessarily mean he is interested in HK-related topics. Take a quick glance at the contrib history of some of those who have been against the move. They edit about as many HK-related articles as you yourself do. So how does that fit into whatever point you're trying to make with the table? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And why should that be a problem? The category includes those who are either from HK, or are keenly interested in it. The later takes into account those who were from HK descent (but has never set foot there), and those who are keenly interested in its development, which may not actually reflect in the number of page edits. You dont need to be from HK, and be interested in it to be classified as such. As already mentioned, the number of edits is only considered in grey areas, which I tend to err on the safe side by marking them yellow if its not a clear-cut case. What other "problems" could you find from this table, or is the revealation too uncomfortable for you so much so that you have to nit-pick at it? ;)--Huaiwei 23:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, it's just a little too convenient that you can arbitrarily assign someone to being "interested" in HK-related topics, or not "interested", while at the same time unilaterally dictating that the number of edits in such articles do not reflect interest, and so do not include that information in your handy little table. Your criteria for what is considered "interested" in HK-related topics seems to be whether or not an editor supports the article move. Very nice indeed. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Before you conclude that my crtieria was slanted based on vote results, perhaps you would like to pull up every single one of those users, and make your own classifications yourself? I would certainly like to know if you can produce a result markedly different from mine.--Huaiwei 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • In addition to what HongQiGong has said above, I would like to point out that on your classification on whether the users are of HK Origin/have interest on HK, there seems to have a problem of biasing. This could be seen by your classification for Terence Ong as "somewhat". I had a look on his userpage and contributions and have come up with the following conclusions:

1. Terence Ong is not of Hong Kong origin; he is from Singapore.
2. Terence Ong does not appear to have much interest on Hong Kong. this can be shown by the fact that his edits on Hong Kong related articles contribute only a tiny proportion on all of his contributions. (So far his HK-related contribs that I could find were his addition into the list of participants in WPHK, which, in fact, was only 19 hours ago (too short period of time to say that he has interest in HK-related articles, and that his participation appears to be a result of this debate); and several edits on this talk page to oppose this and several previous proposals on the moving of the MTR article)

Despite of the above points, you still classified Terence Ong as "somewhat" on "HK Origin/interest". This shows that you bias the option to move the article when you made the table above which is expected to be objective, by putting somebody who is opposing the move into a vague category kown as "somewhat". --Raphaelmak 08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • One more thing to point out. The following sentence is from the guidline of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations).

"Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, and radar are good examples)."

MTR appears to be "almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form". I don't think many people know what the full form of MTR is, like the case of NASA (and in fact people don't really care that). Also I am sure you will agree that the term MTR is widely known and used in that form. --Raphaelmak 08:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

While you are investigating the case of User:Terence Ong, I suppose you fail to notice his inclusion in Wikipedia:HK wikipedians' notice board since exactly a year ago [6], or his self-declaration in Wikipedia:WikiProject Hong Kong/Participants that he is "interested in HK issues"?--Huaiwei 17:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Assume that inclusion is valid. Still cannot be proved as having interested in HK issues, since he extremely seldom edited HK articles. If you don't believe this point, read his contribs. HK related contribs are very hard to be seen in his contribs page. Also the inclusion is already a year ago. --Raphaelmak 05:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

His name was included because he made a vote. And I do agree the above may not constitute true "interest", for otherwise, I would have simply given him a green coding. I have been consistently applying the green label to anyone who is involved in the notice board, the wikiproject, or declared himself as of HK origin. I actually made an exception for Terence Ong, so I am surprised I am being lambasted for being "inconsistent" and using "subjective" means of measure. In fact, I should be fielding those questions to you, for your claims of his "disinterest" is just as subjective.--Huaiwei 09:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is your claims of his "somewhat interest" not as subjective as what you so called the subjectiveness of my claims of his "disinterest"? As long as he "somewhatly" has interest in HK articles, it means that he has interest in HK articles, is that not? For example, if I say that person A is "somewhat" a Hongkonger, that means he is a Hongkonger! However I have pointed out that his interest cannot be proved just by that inclusion. Therefore using such a vague term to describe the person in question's interest in HK articles is simply bias. I demand you, as creator of the table, to clarify this as soon as possible. --Raphaelmak 10:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I arent sure if this is a case of linguistic difficulties, conscious filibustering, or just plain blur, but let me just reharsh what I have already said in "simplified" form:

• The column says "HK Origin/interest", which obviously means "HK Origin" or "HK interest". Someone classified as "somewhat" can be "somewhat of HK origin" or "somewhat interested in HK". I suppose you need to read Slash (punctuation) to understand what "/" may mean, instead of constantly dragging your feet over what "somewhat of HK origin" entails?
• I defined someone of "HK Origin" if the user explicitely says so in his userpage, or is in this category. Folks with an interest in HK are harder to define, hence I classify them so long that they are listed as participants in here or here. It was by consistent application of the above criteria, that all users were graded. Of course, my choice of the above criteria may be somewhat subjective, but you cannot claim I was subjective in grading each individual user. Feel free to check all the entries if you wish.
• Then we come to the case of some individuals, who arent so easily classified. I arent sure if User:Willkm is ethnically Chinese, so I left it at that, although I am inclined to mark him red. User:Terence Ong, on the other hand, would have easily qualified to be green based on the above criteria, but I am aware he does not edit much HK-related content except for a select few, especially when compared to this contributions in Sg-related stuff.
• These two cases are therefore the only times I had to apply some "subjectivity", but if this makes you upset, then I suppose you must be insisting that I use the same criteria to clasify them as well? I suppose so.--Huaiwei 01:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How is this table helpful at all? It doesn't show anything that is useful to the renaming/move discussion at hand. It merely profiles editors who have been involved in the move discussions and groups them into subjective categories. This discussion should be based on the guidelines and policies not the editors background. I find that this table fails to assume good faith in other editors by not giving them the benefit of the doubt. It assumes that just because of a classification, that editor will side one way in this discussion. Luke! 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you jump the gun and assume bad faith, do note I did not actually make any conclusive comment from my table. I leave it to the viewer to decide for himself. So given the kind of response coming from you, I suppose it has served some purpose already. ;)--Huaiwei 14:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like beating around the bush, but you're actually the one doing that. The table is highly hinting that editors background does have something to do with the survey. You don't give it a conclusion because you know that it will end up with an aggressive argument. You have your freedom to bring more users into this survey to make it fairer. But stop making such victim of fascism clue. -- Sameboat - 同舟 15:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

But that is your conclusion, not mine. Once again, another user sees a result which I did not explicitely state, thus vindicating the purpose of the table. I consciously avoided making any conclusive comments, so as to test your reactions, and bingo, all of you made the exact conclusion on your own accord. Every single "emotive accusation" hailed at me will simply backfire on the accuser. And if I am concerned about "agreesive arguments", I wont be involved in this whole issue at all, which is obviously not the case. You can throw an entire community at me, but if non of them are able to think objectively and rationally, get themselves out of the bottom of their little wells, and perhaps quit perceiving resources like wikipedia as "promotion engines", then the end result will probably be anyone's guess.--Huaiwei 15:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I was very much expecting the kind of defensive and dismissive responses such as the above, and as is very much expected, they all came from the very same individuals participating in the poll, and all from the same location. I believe the table has made things very clear. Geographical representation is heavily skewed, and fail to represent global concensus on global notability. Even if any of the above members can successfully convince us over the case of just one member (whom, btw, by his inclusion in the HKwikiproject automatically tells us something), the overall voting pattern remains overwelmingly undercovered by geography, which is the point of the table in the first place. Is anyone able to dispute this point adequately? Perhaps by arguing none of the above members are from HK?--Huaiwei 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] table of bias

• Disclaimer: I do not make any conclusive comment with my table. I leave it to the viewer to decide for himself. Cheers.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Lol! What do you think of the statement that "Not knowledgeable" may be a result of "non-notability"?--Huaiwei 15:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I just think that this table is very telling. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Sure its telling something, but I still expect my question to be answered.--Huaiwei 16:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, when you're not knowledgeable about MTR, you can have a rather warped viewpoint. We should keep that in mind. And hey, I may not be knowledgeable about DNA, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I was actually asking about the relationship between knowledgability and notability, but since you mentioned something to that effect, I sense some contradiction there. May I confirm if you are claiming there is little correlation between familiarity and notability?--Huaiwei 17:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Why the keen interest in correlation between familiarity and notability? Is the revelation in this table a little too uncomfortable for you so much that you have to try to nit-pick at it?  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Thanks for the amusement, but I still expect my questions to be answered. ;)--Huaiwei 17:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                • I did not actually make any conclusive comment from my table. I leave it to the viewer to decide for himself. So given the kind of response coming from you, I suppose it has served some purpose already. :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • So how does that response fit into whatever point you're trying to make with the table? ;)--Huaiwei 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • It's just a very telling table, that's all.  :-) Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                      • Oh yes of course. Says something about your level of cognitive and emotional maturity as well. ;)--Huaiwei 18:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
                        • All you have done was reveal something that is common knowledge: Hong Kong people will stand against any outside intervention with their own articles, especially about things that they are proud of. Also, note the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules guideline. I believe that strict following of such regulations actually lower the quality of the article. Sure there is no "official" proof that the majority of Hong Kong people, let alone the whole world call the MTR the MTR, but if you travel to Hong Kong, you will find many people prefer to call it MTR, rather than its full name. IF you want proof, do you want us to travel to every household in Hong Kong, and ask, "Do you prefer to call our metro system MTR or Mass Transit Railway"?--Kylohk 10:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                          • Your comment captures the very reason why people would actually find motivation to request for a page move. If local pride and high local usage continues to be cited as the only reason to keep this article where it is, than Wikipedia:Ignore all rules clearly cannot apply. A large bunch of "proud" Hong Kongers laying claim to an abbreviation which obviously can mean multiple things to the vast majority of people around the world is a primary target for those who are concerned about countering systemic bias. Thank you very much for vindicating this move request.--Huaiwei 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                            • OK, let me explain my post. Those posters state reasons to defend the naming of this article to just "MTR". I'm not saying local pride is the reason why it should not be change. It's what motivates them to discuss back, with proper reasoning that it should not be changed. They may state any reason, considered by you to be acceptable or unacceptable. Had they not cared, they won't even bother to think up reasons, and you'd have what you wish. Also, your debating styles tend to be overly harsh and considered by most posters up there to be against the Wikipedia:Trifecta community spirit. It's not what you are thinking you are, it's what they think you are that counts. So I suggest you state everything calmly, and if it gets disagreed on, keep your cool. Also, listing the personal profiles of people who vote against the change is highly provocative, no matter what your intentions are. You may be attempting to reveal bias in those Hong Kong wikipedians, but if it generates so much backlash, then something must be wrong, no matter how you do it.--Kylohk 15:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
                              • Very interesting post indeed. May I ask if this is a debate over the use of the abbreviation MTR, or a debate on the relations between a group of Hong Kongers with me? Correct me if I am wrong, but I am suspecting "personal grievances" and "lost of face" owing to my supposed "combative debating styles" as yet another "valid reason" put up to keep this page where it is? I am sorry, but could you tell us if wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, or an encyclopedia subject to the egos of a bunch of wikipedians? I see the above as a classic attempt by individuals who keep trying to side-step the debate into some kind of a "community crusade" when they realise they simply cannot support their stand with any valid points (as you yourself rightfully acknowledged).--Huaiwei 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
                                • Judging by the way you list out the identities of the people who voted against you, I'd say it was a debate on the relations between a group of Hong Kongers with you. Wikipedia is not a battleground. What you did incited personal conflicts and hatred, and generated a long argument. Wikipedia may be a global encyclopedia, but there should still be a sense of community in it. If something may bend the rules, but are accepted by the community, there is not reason to obey them. That's what the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is for. However, when it comes to a long form of MTR, I don't think there is an "official" long term anymore. When I looked at the MTR website, in the company info, there is no mention of the term "Mass Transit Railway" anymore. Which means MTR no longer officially stands for anything, even if the locals and even the government continue to use the long form as they please. Hence I don't think MTR violates any naming convention. You may think it violates the convention, but in the end, there is no right or wrong. It's the decision of the voters that decide which opinion is accepted. A matter comes to mind, like the SAT examinations. It is a well known test in the United States, and yet not so well known in other countries. Since it no longer has any official longterm, that article name stayed as is. I believe the same should go to MTR. There may be other items that have the abbreviation of MTR, as well as SAT. However, no one campaigned for it to be renamed SAT (examination), so there is no reason to change the status quo.--Kylohk 13:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
                                  • Your judgement is only worth commenting on if you are interesting in keeping this discussion as an ideological or political debate, instead of one which is rightfully about presentation and adherence to policies and guidelines. If the above incited "personal conflicts and hatred", then I am just so sorry for you. If a simple rename request is interpreted as an "anti-HK" movement, then this debate is not for you. We are here to discuss on viable article names, not on whether you are emotionally disturbed or not. Please see below with regards to your ramblings on "respecting majority voting results". And please, demonstrate how SAT is supposedly equal to MTR in terms of global prominence. An entry exam for all universities in the world's largest economy is of equal prominence as the name of a part of a subway system in a single Chinese city? Trying to draw parralel with other entities is a futile attempt at establishing notability. For the upteempth time, please justify exclusive use of the abbreviation MTR as per existing guidelines. No one has been able to do this, and you arent able to do it either still despite the luxury of time given.--Huaiwei 17:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
                                    • The difference between popularity of SAT or VAL and MTR doesn't concern the use of acronym. Most readers will only know the meaning behind the acronym of SAT or VAL if they are in the field of relative knowledge OR they have read the respective article. The rename request doesn't stand for an "anti-HK" movement, its YOUR OWN personslity and your discussing style make it like a fight between HK supporter and HK anti, think about it. -- Sameboat - 同舟 01:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                      • Yes, I was just mere commenting on the civility of the discussion, while stating my own viewpoint on the knowledge of MTR or Mass Transit Railway. There was no ill faith intended.--Kylohk 15:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                        • I certainly hope so, but statements on factual viewpoints and on "civility" need not go hand in hand. Attempting to evoke sentimental responses from the community seems to be a common modus operandi where pure facts and simple logic are found wanting.--Huaiwei 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                      • On "reflection", I happen to belive that I was being very cordial indeed in terms of personal conduct, while on the other hand, I seem to be dealing with a couple of individuals are spend more time debating over "interests and origins" than the topic at hand. May I just ask if my "personslity" and "discussing style" are valid reasons to oppose or support a page move?--Huaiwei 15:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                        • Nope, no one has said that. Just give others the chance to have good faith on you and remove the table of bias please. -- Sameboat - 同舟 16:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                          • A simple table can be interpreted in good faith, and it is your choice to read it either way. I deplore arm-twisting tactics, and I will not remove that table. Shocking censorship attempt indeed.--Huaiwei 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                            • I guarantee there is no coercion, it's simply my personal advice. Especially from the mouth of a title-less Wikipedian. -- Sameboat - 同舟 17:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
                                              • I appreciate your personal advice, although I cant care two hoots if there is any coercion or not. Anyhow, how would you interpret "title-less"?--Huaiwei 17:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.