Talk:Alstom Movia R151

Orphaned references in Bombardier CR151

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bombardier CR151's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cost":

• From Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CRRC Sifang C151C: CONTRACT 151C - Land Transport Authority
• From Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang CT251: CONTRACT T251 - Land Transport Authority
• From Alstom Metropolis C830C: CONTRACT 751C & 830C - Land Transport Authority

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

@SecretSquirrel78 As I understand, Bombardier Movia is a family of metro train built by Bombardier Transportation. CR151 is a trainset manufactured by Bombardier for SMRT.

This will make the original lead make sense as we are talking about this particular trainset and hence the lead is correct.

The Bombardier Movia CR151 is an electric multiple unit to be introduced on the East West line and North South line of Singapore. These new trains are part of the North South and East West lines' core systems upgrade and renewal programme.

Current lead

The contract to supply 66 6-cars trains under turnkey R151 was awarded to Bombardier Transportation on 25 July 2018 in a ceremony in Tuas Depot.

Is the contract called "Bombardier Movia CR151"? If not, this lead sounds like it is describing a contract.

R22-3877, 1.02 editor : care to share any insights?

Xaiver0510 (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@user:Xaiver0510 the trains itself doesnt have a name. but the family model which the train is based on is called "MOVIA". And obviously and commonsensically, how can a government stat board (LTA) name a contract after a listed company name?? the name of the contract is called "Trains for North-South / East-West Lines" (you can easily google it up but sadly you did not) and the contract reference is R151. R151 isn't be the train's name. the government calls various models of the train as "first-gen trains" or "third-gen trains" source:https://www.mot.gov.sg/news/COI%20report%20-%20Executive%20Summary.pdf cheers.

@SecretSquirrel78, I am trying to avoid an edit war on the article itself and hence move the discussion here beside replying over edit summaries. That is not helpful. Please watch your tone as I did a quick google and hence I asked is the contract called as so as I could not find anything on it. I am assuming good faith here and ask in case I missed anything. Seems like that I did not miss anything. Your suggested lead implied that the contract name is the article title. I was trying to defer to those who regularly edit trains related articles and trying not to assume anything. Below are constructive discussion, yours is not. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

In my honest opinion I do not think that the R151 should be called "Bombardier Movia R151" but instead "Bombardier R151". The train is not confiremed to be from the movie family yet so I suggest that we hold the desicion until more information is available. I would have done a ce of the article but unfortunately I am tied down with school work and NDP rehearsals and unable to edit much for now. Also, there is no official name for trains in Singapore do most people call them. Y their contract numbers, while others refer to them as x-gen trains. In Wikipedia's case, we use contract numbers so this model is the R151. Please do care to sign on talk pages so people can know who you are. Thanks -1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 10:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@1.02 editor:, glad to see your response! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

How about this as a lead? (Using the lead from the Kawasaki Heavy Industries & CSR Qingdao Sifang CT251 article as an example.)

The trains manufactured by Bombardier under Contract R151 (CR151) are the upcoming six-generation electric multiple unit rolling stock to be introduced on the existing East West and North South lines in Singapore. The stock will replace all 66 first-generation trains, which have been in service for over 30 years, well past their life span. These new trains are part of the North South and East West lines' core systems upgrade and renewal programme.

So what do you think? Feel free to make any changes. Heolkpop (talk) 11:41, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I was having a quick browse through similar articles and thought it will be good to follow them also. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I do agree with Heolkpop's idea of a lead, but I would also make several alterations. The lead should look like this:

The trains being constructed by Bombardier under Contract R151 are upcoming seventh-generation electric multiple units for the North South and East West lines of Singapore's Mass Rapid Transit network. The trainsets will replace all first-generation trainsets in service on these lines, and they have been acquired as part of the North South and East West lines' core renewal programme.

Details on the contract can be provided in a separate 'History' section.

@1.02 editor: The trainsets seem to be Movia ones, according to article

R22-3877 (talk) 14:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@R22-3877: Sounds good to me! Do go ahead with the changes! --Xaiver0510 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

@R22-3877: Yours seems better. Go ahead with the changes! Also, since most agree with this lead format, should we also amend the same for the rest of the rolling stock articles (C151, C151A, etc.)? Heolkpop (talk) 02:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Heolkpop:, will be a good idea to keep them consistent. Do go ahead.

Title?

This is perplexing. Right now Bombardier seems to be being kept as a subsidiary. If it were to be branded as Alstom it would likely fall under metropolis. Maybe keep it as both? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've boldly moved the article back to its previous title. R22-3877 (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@QuarioQuario54321 Care to provide source indicating Alstom is keeping Bombardier Transporation as subsidiary? Because Alstom website listed both Metropolis and Movia family separately in its Rolling Stock solutions page where Movia C30 (Movia Stockholm C30) which was awarded and delivered way before the acquisition was announced and completed. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename to

The article should be titled Alstom Movia R151 as the CR151 contract is currently reserved for the trains for the Cross Island Line. Coshatiuav (talk) 09:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Unless it is official, there will not be a name change. In fact, who did change the article title to Alstom Movia? That has been changed without consensus.

Pinging @Pentagon 2057 @R22-3877 and @Seloloving ZKang123 (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Regarding the contract for CRL trains, the contract was posted up yesterday, but I will wait for the contract award before making any page moves or creating any new articles. For the page move, it was made here[1]. R22-3877 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

About the matter of the Alstom Movia or Bombardier Movia question, it is worth noting that the R151 trains bear the Alstom builder plate and not Bombardier’s as seen in an official LTA livestream of the train preview on Facebook SBS9834C (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Coshatiuav: I would suggest against any move until the contract for the CRL trains has been awarded. By the way, if you want any article to be renamed, you can always just move the page or request a move. R22-3877 (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Depending on who wins the CRL contract, a move may not be needed at all. If Alstom wins the CRL contract, perhaps the two pages can be combined similar to what is done with the C851E. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 08:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: after looking at the government website, the contract number for the CRL trains is CR151, hence the train name should become CCR151. I do agree that the addition of letters into the contract numbers makes it unnecessarily complicated though, and i would be open to changing the naming convention of the trains at large. Pentagon 2057 (T/C) 11:01, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 September 2022

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

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Alstom Movia CR151 → Alstom Movia R151 – Recent source publication from train operator stated Alsom Movia R151 to refer to this newest batch of trains ZKang123 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@ZKang123: Ping nominator. Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Support: No reliable source has actually named the trains until recently and Alstom Movia CR151 was largely a community invention. Seloloving (talk) 15:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Alstom Movia CR151 (R151).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Alstom Movia CR151 (R151).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Number in service

It's becoming increasingly clear that this tug of war won't get anywhere. A good chunk of the editors involved insist this figure remain up-to-date – with absolutely no additional sources, mind you – whilst the minority seem to recognize that this goes against the WP:Verifiability policy... unless I'm missing something. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 06:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Imo, this is rather a discussion for Template talk:Infobox train rather than here given that the root causes starts with the infobox implementating these original research parameters, maybe the implementer expected it to be sourceable information however I don't think that there would be any solutions to such given that it is also unrealistic that we would have RSes reporting on such figures, not that I have heard of such regardless of countries, other than announcement of x amount entered into service and thereafter radio silent or once in a blue moon with passing mention on all sets entered into service on y. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 07:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps. Parameters like those are always nice to have, though – if they can be readily sourced – but nowadays it seems like the unsourced content and original research they attract is trouble than it's worth. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@XtraJovial I see that you remove |numberservice= in this revision. If you intend to enforce this, it would be worth adding hidden text to "notify" editors and prevent revisions history cluttering with reverts and/or potential other content-type edit war. I just reverted one such edit and I believe there would be future occurrences. Additionally, I believe we should consider standardizing this change across all Singapore MRT train articles if it's feasible to do so. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Good idea; thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 13:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)