Talk:Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

LTA Map copyrights

Please stop adding copies of the LTA map here unless you write to them and get permission to release it under GFDL. It's copyrighted and Singapore does not recognize "fair use". Jpatokal 07:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does, I've seen it before. The clauses for the conditions of "fair use" for educational purposes authorising reproduction of copyrighted materials for educational purposes were posted in my school office. I read the entire section anyhow, because I was waiting to be picked up that day. Wikipedia being an education source.... -- Natalinasmpf 21:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I think Singapore recongizes Fair Use. See Wikipedia talk:SGpedians' notice board for more info. - Mailer Diablo 18:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is amazing! you can find the Law online: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/ ... go to 'C' list, for Copyright Act, Cap 63, start from Section 35. But we need to translate it to English .... Vsion 23:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds damn familiar. :D Yeah I think I see the same thing in my (ex)varsity somewhere. Vision shd be able to confirm this. haha. But why dont we just try drawing our own map instead?--Huaiwei 14:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

That's what I've been suggesting to Natalinasmpf. :D Hmib 16:37, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You can create the map yourself; but pls do it for the right reasons, not because of some misunderstood laws. We should Be bold when dealing with ambiguous and "everything-under-the-sky" Spore's regulations and protect our rights, as long as we act in good faith and are not communists. .. Honestly, I'm trying to defend myself, having just uploaded a wonderful tourist map of Sentosa. :-P. In any case, I volunteer to upload these controversial material, provided that it is fair dealing in my opinion, (copyrighted non-government photographs do not qualify). In the long run, we need a copyright-tag-template for SG-fair-dealing, to make our claims more convincing (packaging counts!). Vsion 21:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait, what's wrong with being communist? :p -- Natalinasmpf 02:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, the ISD deals with communists. I don't know exactly why, bad history maybe. Deep wound heals slowly. -- Vsion 13:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well yeah, I should know, I got called up by them before, but what's wrong with being communist on Wikipedia? -- Natalinasmpf 14:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh... Then you should be safe, they don't normally let people go. Keep the Viva le Singapour in your user page, just in case. btw, it was very moving when I first saw it. :D -- Vsion 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Takes makes you the second person I know who got called up by them. The other person I know is a liberalist thou..haha! Anyway, I am thinking of using powerpoint to draw the map! Gonna create two..one to scale, and the other not. Anyone able to help with base maps?--Huaiwei 15:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Base maps? Well, I can help with any map, I guess. I suppose the one to scale will be drafted against the outline of Singapore? That would require some cartological research though. Also maybe we can start a Wikiproject for user made maps of the region lol. Maps of streets, the individual towns... Also, why don't you try GIMP? Also what did your friend get called up for? Mine was basically because I spoke way too much about the government on my blog. ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 17:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I've no dealings with ISD, but MSD came and talked to me once. Now you reminded me of that interview; Man! I gotta be careful now. :p -- Vsion 04:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Holy cr@p, you guys aren't kidding are you? Called up by ISD? But you're still alive? Looks like ISD/Gestapo is more pervasive but less lethal than I thought... My classmate who ran the 'PAP!PAP!' blog got called up by MOE for speaking out too much... but never ISD. But I was a lot more outspoken/intelligent than he was, yet I never got into trouble? Must be because I do 'Heil Hitler's as well as 'communist' stuff. What is MSD, btw? -Hmib 05:17, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only secondary-age student to get called up. Must be a trend abong Wikipedians. Careful? Why would I need to be careful? I the Wikipedian community to back me if anything should happen. :p -- Natalinasmpf 05:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be highly unlikely mere wikipedians would be able to help you. Clinton wasn't able to help Mike Fay, remember? -Hmib 21:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia would be able to raise more hoo hah than Clinton ever could. -- Natalinasmpf 02:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Not unless Führer Lee reads wikipedia. -Hmib 03:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Singapore recognises fair use. The signs are in the National Library photocopying rooms. Anyhow, good news everyone: the MRT/LRT maps have been reproduced, by one computer pro and another MRT/LRT fanatic in my cohort. There are two maps, one current one and one into the future, updated information as recent as the downtown extention. Will be plugging both maps into the article soon, like today. —Goh wz 15:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maps plugged into article. The current map takes centre stage, while the future map is located near the Extensions section. Hope the positions of the maps are fine. —Goh wz 16:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For future reference, y'all speculating about public domain were wrong. Direct quote from the New Paper: "Also, its (LTA's) official map cannot be reproduced without permission because it is protected by copyright laws." This also means that Calvin's edited map is, alas, not acceptable. Can the future lines be added to the copyleft map? Jpatokal 14:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Platform sides=

Stations on the East-West line have a shared platform in the center, which can be used to access both directions. Particularly in the elevated sections, you can see that the lines travel together between stations but split up for the center platform at a station. Dover, being built later than the rest of the line, is the only exception. Jpatokal 11:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have partially elaborated on this. I don't think I explained the "splitting up" though, I only mention they run on both sides of the platform island. -- Natalinasmpf 21:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

organization

The article is rather funny. Half the article's content is the MRT history, but contains very little on what the protocol, the tracks, the speed, the number of trains, what the trains are like, the daily experience of a commuter on the MRT...nothing on that? Surely someone should fix this? Rules and regulations on the MRT trains? -- Natalinasmpf 10:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Its waiting for you to do it! :D Haha...I wont have much time till tomorrow when I finish my last exam in my life, then I will be lanuching a major collaborative exercise to make it a feature article!--Huaiwei 10:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

I'm sure all of you have a camera somewhere and could snap some photos. I do too, and would do some of it when I can, but I don't want to be the only person to be doing it. I think if we could have some photos of the machines, the shops in the stations, maybe a crowd or two, more pictures inside the different trains (ie for the rolling stock section), then this could become FAC material. (Of course we still need more on the commuter experience, but I'm on the way to do that.) :D

Haha...the thing is I am rather scared to do it. I am worried I will kana catch and questioned by the staff. And once, I was told not to take photos at the Changi Airport station. Grrrr....--Huaiwei 08:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've taken plenty of photos within the stations and trains before, just that the focal point was only my friends since well, I didn't think about contributing to Wikipedia till the end of last year. -- Natalinasmpf 08:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe coz you are younger lah, so the ppl wont find it suspicious. I doubt they will be that kind to me! :D--Huaiwei 08:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Could we align some pictures to the left please, it looks more flowing and spread out that way. -- Natalinasmpf 11:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Formatting policies dictate that all pictures will be on the right. :D--Huaiwei 11:44, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Slight problem here currently. Something funny happens with the four images on the right about the cars...the "edit" sections end up being skewed and tossed right into the middle of the section! -- Natalinasmpf 21:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I would be going down to capture some photos on the NEL Stations, Changi Airport and Expo Station by Saturday 18 June. Perhaps someone may enlighten me what could most probably needed at this moment. I will be equipped with EOS 300D. Slivester 18:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The LTA Digital Photography Contest

There is an on-going contest right now for transport related images, so take the chance to grap those shots (with a wonderful excuse) of the MRT before they stop us! :D

The LTA Digital Photography Contest--Huaiwei 17:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Good. And there is currently no photo of the exterior of a MRT train in the article, except for a blur glimpse in the first picture. Does anyone have any such photos? I would like to use it also for Chewing gum ban in Singapore. thnks :D -- Vsion 22:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Shall we stick some gum on the door first before snapping the picture? :D Anyway I managed to snap a few pictures at Chinatown station, but believe me...it was harrowing. Dosent help that my camera is quite a monstrous presence, and as far as I see it, the pictures are certainly not competition material :D --Huaiwei 11:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

If you do take some photos of the exterior, bring along some high speed exposure film, ie. to reduce the blur slightly but give it a motion effect. If you could show the view from an elevated position in the MRT down below (ie. Queenstown or something), then I could consider that quite good. Its not hard to be competition material, actually, just add a sense of signifance and flow, focal point, etc. ;-). I suppose you took photos of the fare gates, etc.? -- Natalinasmpf 14:55, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Gums at door not required, maybe on the tracks, especially at clementi. Btw, if you win the competition, the copyright goes to LTA, and this time no fairuse. It won't be much a dilemna though: take the $2,500, and treat all of us! :D -- Vsion 17:40, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyright problems

Spotted some copyright problems with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MRT.JPG and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:MRT_3.JPG which this article uses. What should we do? Should we remove them immediately, or wait till we can find replacements (well do we have some time before we have to remove them because the photographer doesn't yet know about this article?)...? As in, keep them as placeholders for the time being and a benchmark of to replace with there next because it'd be a pity for the alignment otherwise. -- Natalinasmpf 22:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

If you know for sure that the photographer did not release the photos for use here, the only right thing is to remove the photos first. The page can do without those images until replacements are found. Alex.tan 14:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

I have noticed the use of a Singlish word "irregardless" in the section about fares, but I have corrected that. But among other things, I would like to see a better photograph of the "C151" trains (which is small and grainy), as well as more photographs (particularly the exteriors of the trains). Also, I would prefer to see the bit of information on the LRT moved to Light Rapid Transit (Singapore), instead of being put here. This article, after all, is about the MRT system, and the MRT and LRT systems could be considered two distinct and different systems. A.K.R

I actually I prefer to have the LRT considered a subset of the MRT. After all, you don't see LRT systems being interconnected with one another - they have to be done so through the MRT. Anyway, its either on the taxonomy that way. Anyway, it is true the page is getting rather lengthy, we actually might have to split it up. :D -- Natalinasmpf 17:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with A.K.R, and actually, the current form is already a squished version of what was once overly detailed descriptions on the LRT. The LRT systems, although dependent on the MRT, should have the scope for their own discussions, and as Natalinasmpf says, this page alone is already getting too long. In fact, I have to point out the history section is not complete. It lacks any mention to the "MRT man", for example, other then Mr Ong TC. We may have to do the London Underground way in which the history section forms its own article. The MTR page has the rolling stock etc in seperate pages as well.--Huaiwei 19:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm checking out the article on the MTR in Hong Kong, and I'm very impressed at what they have done. Many of their sections have links to the complete main article, such as the rolling stock used, the newspapers available, the Octopus Card, and others. There's also plenty of photographs of just about everything on the system, and the section about the current configuration of the system is well laid out along with the format of the rest of the article, unlike ours, which is centred and includes a geographically correct map that, while good, is not very relevant to the article in my opinion. Also, note that article links to specific MTR lines in the MTR article are colour-coded according to the line colour, something we have not completely implemented yet. I suggest that article-worthy sections, such as history, security, and safety issues have their own full seperate articles along with the respective sections here. Something should also me mentioned about the Today and Streats newspapers. I don't claim to know too much about the MRT system, although I will be glad to do the copyediting work. A.K.R. 8 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)

Hmm...just need to point out that the colour-coded line names isnt acceptable to everyone..it was pointed out as overly glaring when it was nominated for FA! :D--Huaiwei 8 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

'Irregardless' is not a Singlish word. I've heard at least one person who think Singapore is in China say 'irregardless'. :) -Hmib 03:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

collision at Clementi, 1993

collision between MRT trains at Clementi station on 5 Aug 1993, resulting in 150 injuries. The collision happened because a work train that did maintenance work earlier that morning had spilled some oil onto the tracks.

I am very surprised by the above, what kind of oil was that! My impression, many years ago, was that the first train was delayed at Clementi station due to technical problem. The driver of 2nd train was probably sleeping, train went on auto-pilot and crashed into the first one. Otherwise, there should be ample time to notice the stationary train from afar and stop the train in time. sigh... Vsion 01:25, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Summarisation

I think its time we reorganise the article a bit, lots of good photos and content, but as I'm looking for things to copyedit, I think we need to move some larger sections off to their own articles, so that it looks a bit neater, ie. the Rolling Stock part can be summarised, instead of detailing every car, that part can be its own article, and rather, cite them in the this main MRT article, but the details will be in their own article. Especially the history, and concerning the stations. I think this would be better. -- Natalinasmpf 03:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Lets wait abit more. I find the data collected still largely incomplete, and we can see how we shall copyedit it when we have a better impression of how much data we have further down the road? :D --Huaiwei 07:07, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm waiting for Singapore to pass FAC, then I'll start working on this article! Gosh, I have my own information to add as well! Would it exceed 60kb? =P - Mailer Diablo 20:13, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Downtown Extension Does Not Equal Circle Line Downtown Extension

I think that the Downtown MRT Extension is NOT part of the Circle Line and as such this extension should not be represented by the colour yellow on system maps nor should it be considered as being part of the line. Why? Because news articles so far have either mentioned it as being linked to the Circle Line and not PART of the Circle Line. Like how the East West Line is linked to the North South Line, it doesn't mean the EW Line equals NS Line. Furthermore, there has also been mention of this being a 5 station line, or the Downtown extension line, and not a CIRCLE LINE EXTENSION. Lastly, its odd for a Circle Line to suddenly branch off Millenia Station. Creates a lot of operating complications. What do you guys think? [11:30, 19 Jun 2005 Ignoramus]

Hi. We [the creators of the map Seng Teck and Kah Hou, and me] are working the assumption that the Downtown Extension would be similar to the Changi Airport Extension. The Changi Airport Extension took the same colour on the system maps. Moreover, it would be more logical to assume the same colour for the Downtown Extension than to act-smart and plug in some other arbitrary colour.

By the same account, also, I feel that Millenia should just be CC4 and Bayfront DT1, instead of Millenia CC4/DT1 and Bayfront DT2. This is just as Tanah Merah is EW4 and Expo CG1, instead of Tanah Merah EW4/CG1 and Expo CG2.

Therefore, I think for our works on Wikipedia before the LTA says anything more, is to take the Downtown Extension as part of the Circle Line, just as Changi Airport Extension is part of the East-West Line. The lines in the Singapore rail transport system are long, and by induction, the Downtown Extension should not count as a line. —Goh wz 10:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YES that was what I thought initially too but do note that the Changi Airport Extension was always regarded as an extension of the East West Line whereas the Downtown Extension was not referred to as an extension of the Circle Line (Note that they tried to remove this association in all of LTA's press releases) and was only said to be linked to the Circle Line, and not that it was part of it.

The Marina Line (Circle Line Stage 1) was also counted as a line before all the other stages were announced. I expect the Downtown Extension to be lengthened (just as the Circle Line was) over the next few years as other areas of the NDT is not served by the MRT.

Extension could refer to the MRT services (a new line) being extended into the New Downtown rather than an existing line being extended there. After all, they didn't put Circle Line Downtown Extension but just (Downtown extension) into the city.

First of all....great job on the map, although I found it so similar to the original that I wonder if they are going to claim copyright over the symbols and design used! :D As for the extension, I have to agree that it was not actually meant to be a circle line extension of the CCL, but the beginning of a new line. It will most likely be either part of the Bukit Timah or Eastern Circle Line (on this note, the infobox with the list of stations should reflect this too). The Changi branch is also the beginning of a new line, and only for convenience was it coloured green as an interim measure. Notice they changed their codes from EW to CG to reflect this intention. I suppose they realised its irritating to give it a colour only to possibly reverse it later...like the "branch" from Bukit Batok to CCK was once coloured brown? :D

I would think its best to wait for more annoucements before we proceed to colour-label them. I appreciate the super-fast response, but I feel we may risk misleading people before more details comes from LTA. Or how about contacting them about this, although I am quite sure they will be unnecesarily secretive about it as usual...hehe.--Huaiwei 11:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I found this note on one of the popular Singapore transportation site, it's a reply from the authorities, hopefully it will clear up the air on this debate. - Mailer Diablo 08:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MRT CIRCLE LINE STAGE 6 AND EASTERN REGION LINE

FEEDBACK NUMBER: 256157

Thank you for your feedback of 17-JUN-2005.

The Downtown Extension (DTE) is currently envisaged as a part of the Circle Line (CCL) with provisions for future extensions to the future Bukit Timah Line and the Eastern Region Line. As illustrated in the map by The Straits Times (Wednesday, 15 June 2005), these future lines are planned to be extended towards the northwest and eastern regions of Singapore, respectively.

The proposal is to extend the DTE towards the east from Chinatown Station in order to link with CCL MacPherson Station and Kim Chuan Depot. This would also allow DTE and future extensions of this line access to Kim Chuan Depot.

Given the current pace of development in the central area, CCL Stage 6 will only be needed in the longer term to support developments in south-western central area.

Thank you for your interest in rail transportation in Singapore.

Yours sincerely,

PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LTA

I am a little confused here with the defenitions stated in the article as posted earlier however, for while the part which says'envisaged as a part of the Circle Line (CCL)' is clearly present in the letter, another point of note is this phrase here:

'CCL Stage 6 will only be needed in the longer term to support developments in south-western central area'

Therefore, I feel that we might be able to assume that while the DTE is linked partially to the Circle Line (CCL), it is not equal to the CCL stage 6 and is not part of the CCL, but rather will constitute a portion of the future BTL and/or ERL. As for the 6th stage of the CCL, it will be developed at a later date when the area has been fully developed (and possibly may really be a circle with a link to Dhoby Gauht).

But in the meantime, in spite of the greatly commendable efforts put in by the artist (of which I truly envy to an immense extent), I feel that imagining it to be a part of the CCL (and thus sharing its colour) may be slightly ambiguous and presumptuous. True, the term 'extension' might prompt people to draw direct links with the Changi Airport Extension and the Boon Lay Extension, but I personally feel that the word here applies to the future BTL/ERL (in spite of the misleading grammar). While I am defenitely not an authority on the subject, the abovementioned reply from LTA has provided us with a certain degree (subject to argument) of verification. Of course, actual confirmation can only be attained when the LTA clears up its policy of overtly general phrasing, or better still, releases its plans for the future rail scene (in particular BTL and ERL) for the immense benefit of Singaporeans.

This is just my two cents on the issue, but it is still totally up for open interpretation. Once again, I nevertheless would like to show my appreciation for the meticulous efforts of the map's creator. --Junjie 13:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can write in to LTA and see what they say? They probably have the answers. ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would rather think of it as an extension of sorts. Maybe they are building the Circle Line and the Eastern Region Line not as a "line" in the traditional Singaporean context (one single line with terminal A at one end and terminal B at the other), but as a "system" of sorts, much like the LRT system (especially the ones in Sengkang and Punggol)? Remember that the Circle Line is also not a true MRT system in our traditional context, but more like a cross between the MRT and LRT, since it will use MRT hardware but with a configuration that is closer to the LRT, with three-car trains and stations spaced more closely apart. A.K.R. 9 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

That thing about reconfiguring the layout in the C651 trains...

If I (and I believe, many of you) remember correctly, there was a programme of sorts to reconfigure the layout of the trains back in the late 1990s. I have added some information to the rolling stock section about that. Things I'm not that sure of as been enclosed in double brackets ((like this)). If anyone knows more about that programme, please add to it. A.K.R. 8 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)

I can verify that - I believe it's the same as what they're trying to do at the rolling stock of the Bukit Panjang LRT right now. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it's verified, I will take out the double brackets then at the new article you created ;) . A.K.R. 16:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Section On Artworks On The MRT System?

I always felt that there was something "missing" from this article, and while I was looking at the MTR article the other day, I finally figured out what it was. The artworks! Every station on the North-East line and some stations on the older lines (such as Woodlands, Orchard, and some others) have artworks, either in paintings or structures, incoporated into their design. They are quite an intergral part of our MRT system, and it should be worth mentioning them. Also, it will add depth to the article overall. A.K.R. 09:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There was a publication on the artworks in all NEL stations, and althouigh I cant find the broachure now, there is still a notice at every station describing the artworks. I am not too sure if this is so in SMRT stations, but there is enough material for each NEL station to be placed in the individual station pages! :D--Huaiwei 05:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I know at least that the Woodlands station has a piece of artwork- there's one (or is it two? I'm not too sure) huge metallic crystal-like structure extending from the ground floor up through the spaces on the platform level. Tiny inscriptions on the "pillar" supporting it on the ground floor indicates that it is an artwork by some sculptor (whose name I can't recall). Oh, and I'm going to start the stub-section on artworks after this. Hope this will encourage people to contribute. In the meantime, I will go look for information. A.K.R. 09:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The artwork in Woodlands station was actually quite attractive at start, but it seemed now the signs, the beggars and the dust have all but outstand the artwork itself. And now comes the elevator, it is worth mentioning but, not much significance to the commuters anyway. I endorse this move. Slivester 00:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Speculative Picture of future lines

Should it be allowed? It is too speculative in nature and there are definitely some mistakes made. A general outline of where the lines will go is acceptable but speculating the names/locations of the station will add too much confusion to the readers.

Maybe the general layout of the future lines, minus the speculated route details and station names, could be better. Also, there should be a note that these lines are being planned. A.K.R. 05:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC) p.s. You forgot the signature.

Hmm....I am actually ok with it, so long that there is a notice stating which details are speculative and which are not. In fact, we can add more to it. The 2001 Concept Plan of the URA shows even more lines...--Huaiwei 05:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I think something like this could be more acceptable. (not to be used though, as I just quickly made it to just illustrate my point). It omits all but the general route alignment details for the future lines A.K.R. 06:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The map seems to be based on the offical LTA map. Is that allowed? b3virq3b 06:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Not if we recreate it ourselves. Oh, there seems to be a font error for the legend down there. -- Natalinasmpf 07:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's because the map is a heavily edited LTA map and no one has the original font, or do you mean the colours? b3virq3b 08:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Doubt we should do that, until we get any groundbreaking notice of any particular line. Plans are plans, and do change over time rapidly. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It depends on who made the speculation; if the infor is released by LTA or based on comments by political leaders, then the infor should be worthy for inclusion, as long as the source/reference is provided. --Vsion 01:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, all those lines were published before by the URA, as I mentioned above, and they have an even more "speculative" map. There is even a "Thomson line", a "Seletar line", and so forth! :D--Huaiwei 05:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting information you have there. I'm adding a section on that. A.K.R. 17:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The concept plan only gives a general outline. There is no indication where each line starts or ends. The stations' locations are not indicated. This website is meant for facts, not author's fantasy. Whatever data from official source should be allowed. However, whatever extra information that comes from author's own imagination should be treated with extra caution. Adding extra information on the official one will only cause unnecessary confusion, especially for people clueless about this topic.

I think mentioning the existence of these "phantom" MRT lines is worthwhile, as it gives more insight into several future MRT lines are being planned or conceptualised. However, I have also indicated that these "phantom" lines may or may not be built, and if built, is extremely likely to be different than what is being conceptualised. I agree we should be cautious, and not jump to conclusions. The specualtive map is just too speculative, and may not reflect the final routings and route details for the MRT system. A.K.R. 10:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Locator Maps of stations

Boon Lay MRT

Hougang MRT

Jurong East MRT

Hi, I am preparing locator map for each MRT/LRT station, these are some samples. Any comments or suggestions? --Vsion 04:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

ARGH! Beautiful!! :D--Huaiwei 05:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

A bit small, otherwise the quality of the maps and it's accurateness is very well done. A.K.R. 05:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That is obviously a great step! Keep it up. Slivester 23:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Station templates?

I am thinking of adding an infobox for all our station articles. Still wondering the options, but this is one example of how it may look like. Suggestions please? ;)--Huaiwei 07:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Jurong East MRT Station

Code	NS1/EW24
Malay	Jurong East
Chinese	裕廊东
Tamil	ஜூரோங் கிழக்கு
Operational	10 March 1990
Operator	SMRT Corporation
Lines	North South, East West
Platforms	4 (elevated)
Levels	3
Escalators
Elevators
Exits

I like the multi-language. What about average daily number of passengers, is this information available somewhere? --Vsion 07:31, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wah...this will be tough to get man, thou that would be very valuable. The authorities are probably going to think we are planning a terrorist attack when asking for such numbers! :D--Huaiwei 07:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Definitely, but I thought these numbers are made public? A.K.R. 09:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Duno whers is the source for such numbers leh. Although I think the annual sg facts and pictures book has a list of the five busiest stations?--Huaiwei 10:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

If I remember quite correctly, for Singapore, the figures are not made public since the Jurong East - Yishun extension. Can't recall for the reason, but will keep you guys updated. Anyway, for the template, I feel that the number of escalators and elevators rather unnecessary, whereas if viable, maybe a sitemap; but I am fearing that this might yet be another excuse by LTA as a preventive measure against terrorism to remove the presence of such information.

And the "Operator", you might want to leave our the "Corporation", it looks good to me but it seemed that not all commuters actually will term "SMRT" with the "Corporation". Other than that, the template is actually better than other metro articles have.

Perhaps you can include the colours of the line in the template as well. Slivester 00:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all your suggestions! Lets hope we may be able to get some traffic figures (even if they are outdated. We can, afterall, add a date after the figure), and meanwhile, the reason why I added the number of lifts etc is actually to provide a guage of just how handicapped-friendly the station is. Stations with numerous exits also suggest they are more "important". :D I am currently considering adding more information to it without the whole thing looking too cramed, so how about all of u throw in ideas for what to include before we eliminate the obviously redundant?

The colour banding for mrt lines will be looked into. I am considering using a more pleasant looking background soon....and all of u are free to play around with the settings too. As for SMRT Corp, its more like a "filler" for the large blank space...haha, so I am not too perculiar about how it turns out.--Huaiwei 01:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Agree with the "Corp" as a extension to the otherwise short "SMRT". Keep it up. Slivester 09:17, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

LTA Typeface

Referring to the system map, I found some questions with the typeface LTA uses. Above is a little analysis I have done. The nearest of which I can get is Rotis. Slivester 09:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Ambience

I feel that there is a need to note of the ambience while travelling with the MRT or LRT, such as the temperature in & outside of the trains. Slivester 12:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Wah....u got the info for this?--Huaiwei 10:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite?

May I know who was the person who requested for a rewrite of this article? The person didn't state any reason other than telling us to look at the talk page, but I wasn't able to find a specific reason. A.K.R. 06:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think mailer diablo? We need the whole thing rewrittern coz it now reads like a disjointed piece after so much editing work.--Huaiwei 10:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Do we need to update the new work needed in the todo list then? -- Natalinasmpf 16:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)`

Of course. Otherwise, we might end up confusing potential editiors of this article. A.K.R. 11:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Ultimate!!

Did any of you buy The New Paper today? Flip to page six, and there you should see something freaking familiar taking up half the page. Yeah...this:

File:Systemmaps.png

Possible future MRT/LRT network in circa 2030 with the completion of the Boon Lay Extension, the Circle Line, the Downtown Extension, Bukit Timah Line, Eastern Region Line and the Jurong Region LRT. Some of the unbuilt lines' routes and their stations have not been finalised yet and are therefore speculative.

Our dear map has become talk of the town after being circulated in emails according to the article (they apparantly didnt figure where it came from, since they made no mention of this site), and has even been brought to the attention of the LTA, who clarified it is not an official map and is merely speculative. I practically rolled when I saw the last few lines. The article claims it might be the work of vandals.--Huaiwei 14:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaz. Calvin Teo told me that he only knew about it when he saw someone reading it on the train. According to him, he went "Isn't that my map?!". The person just stared at him and continued reading. He went to buy a copy and laminated the page in the library. We were all laughing about how he excited people. b3virq3b 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hahaz. K. House, my user name for wikipedia is Advanced. Yeah I'm Calvin Teo in Wikipedia commons (dunno why I have different user but nvm) and indeed i was surprised when I saw someone reading the article on the train. At first, I thought it was a new line LTA has released or sth. Then I saw my Or North Shore Line (or North Coast Line, my mistake in the map.) An unexpected event I must say...lol Oh and what b3virq3b said when I excited ppl was the childcare teacher in the article. haha and we indeed had a good laugh about the article. Advanced 14:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The New Paper is so in violation of the Creative Commons license, by not attributing us. I suggest we write a letter complaining about this lack of attribution, as well as the slander and libel used on us. Hey, the government likes to accuse the common citizen of slander and libel regularly, why don't we do the same thing? ;-) -- Natalinasmpf 18:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Haha I do feel that we should write a letter to TNP's forum page (is there one? apparantly I dont read it often at all). Helps to give us much needed publicity too! Anyone willing to do so?--Huaiwei 19:24, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Calvin and friends, I suggest you guys take full advantage of this. Yeap, write a letter to TNP and get your names published. It may help you win a scholarship or something. This is really cool! :D --Vsion 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, we need to announce this on the main noticeboard or something, ie. the Village pump, perhaps, and see what they think. I'm considering a "do you know" entry. Do you know, Image:systemmaps.png was recently featured in The New Paper? -- Natalinasmpf 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, if anyone wants to read the article in full, it's available here: " Childcare teacher Iris Sen, 30, who lives at Marine Crescent, found it exciting.". Hey, at least we know our work is exciting people - our project is indeed working! Vsion, I suggest we start churning out our mapmaking projects to full speed? :D I was curious though, it said it has not released the information? But we do know there's going to be a North Coast and whatnot lines, right? Oh, the Electronic New Paper has a comments section in their blog area, that could work. At most, you could email the editor. -- Natalinasmpf 01:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

How about an email like this:

Dear Mr Koh,

We refer to your recent article titled "Map circulating through e-mail shows 'future lines and stations" (23 September, 2005) and wish to clarify some misleading information about the mysterious futuristic MRT map now circulating in the blogshere.
The map is not prankster's work as you hinted. Rather, it is a good faith, pro-bono, well-sourced, NPOV creation of a patriotic Singapore-wikipedian (abbr. SGpedian) as part of the SGpedian-community's effort to write a series of encyclopedic articles on Singapore's transportation system. If you wish to find out more about our community, please visit Wikipedia:SGpedians' notice board.
Btw, you did not provide proper attribution when using the map for your article as required by the Creative Commons license. You could be sued for violating copyright, in addition to the other potential slander and libel charges now under consideration. All these will be forgiven, though, if you could published an article that present our community in a positive light. Good Luck!

Best Regards,
SGpedians

Comment? --Vsion 09:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• • LOL! I do hope you are joking! :D No need to be so hostile lah...haha. Anyway, why not publicise wikipedia, and not just our notice board lah. I doubt they will understand what NPOV is, or even, an SGpedian, when we didnt bother to explain what wikipedia is all about? Wateverthe case, pls feel free to send this ASAP. We cant drag too long! :D--Huaiwei 09:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, and dont forget to mention that the map appears in Rail transport in Singapore! :D--Huaiwei 09:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Please don't send the above! It is a joke really. hehe... or at least an attempt to kickstart a joint-effort to this send-email thing. :D --Vsion 10:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Muahaha....I got a feeling Nata will REALLY send an email like that! :D Anyway I wont have time to write this one until tomorrow....so hopefully the rest of you may propose versions of the email in the meantime? ;)--Huaiwei 10:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear editor:

We refer to the article titled "Map circulating through e-mail shows 'future lines and stations" (23 September, 2005). We feel the need to clarify some details. The image was created by Singaporean users of Wikipedia, a website that seeks to allow access to any person the total sum of human knowledge, and can be found at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Systemmaps.png. The image was created in good faith in order to give readers a visual represention of what these new lines might look like. It declares itself it is not official, but rather our estimate of how the all the new rail lines would look based through the announcements made by the LTA. It is merely an artist's impression. It would be appreciated if it was not accused of being the work of a prankster however, and if the proper source was cited, as we also cited the original map in the image description found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Systemmaps.png. Our aim is simply to document every single element, from food, down to each housing estate, of Singapore in an encyclopedic manner available to the world. Not only does this project allow us to take pride in our nation's heritage, but also potentially increase tourism. We therefore appreciate it if the image was properly credited to us, who made the modifications, in addition to the LTA, which made the original map.

There. How's that? -- Natalinasmpf 13:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh... Well. Good that we get some publicity abt how useful Wikipedia is. haha. and how it finally applies to us Singaporeans... Woohoo. --Ariedartin 16:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am ok with that. Would you like to email them now? Think you have to add your real name thou, if you dont mind about that. :D--Huaiwei 12:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi !! I am really amazed by u guys ! If the unbuilt lines are dotted, it might be better for readers eh ? =]

Haha...anyway has the email been sent? We cant wait any longer!!--Huaiwei 13:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Its Calvin here.. Yeah The New Paper knows where this map came from already. They have even got in touch with me, asking questions of the map, the stations etc. I told them abt this site and stuff, hope they'll show sth abt Wikipedia. Hope you sent the email already lol. Heard their follow-up article is coming up soon, probably tomorrow (Fri 30 Sep 2005) or sth. Wonder how it'll be like. hahaadvanced 02:42, 29th September 2005 (UTC)

Cool! And how did they know about this site and the map's illustrator btw?--Huaiwei 15:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh I never sent it...don't think I need to anyway now that they have gotten in touch of you. I actually drafted something for someone else to send; I don't think it matters now, though? It just felt awkward to correct somebody in a non-wiki way. I am curious how they came across it anyway though? Someone else notified them? -- Natalinasmpf 22:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering though, does a single image qualify for the "this was referenced by a news source", category, even though they didn't mention us per se? I guess we should wait till they follow up, then? -- Natalinasmpf 22:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont read TNP regularly, so I do hope others are tracking this one. How it wish it was the ST which is involved...haha!--Huaiwei 17:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Update: Yesterday's (5 Oct) New Paper has an updated article on this wonderful map... :-) And they attribute it to us now:

He (Calvin) had made the map... and he contributed it to Wikipedia.... He had clearly stated on the Wikipedia webpage that the map was obtained from the LTA website and that it had been edited to show the future lines. He said he had named himself as the editor of the map.

Read the article here while it lasts. :-D (P.S. DARN! I need to brush up on my wikimarkup. :-( ) -- Kimchi.sg | Talk 12:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Very good article, the writer is fair enough to Calvin. But the LTA, Gosh! What were they thinking? Apply for an advertised "job" with LTA, yeah and stifle his talent?! They couldn't even monitor their nichol highway contractors properly, why do they bother about 15-year-old making well-thought out future system map? Calvin should become the Transport Minister or something, and make sure the LTA is more responsive to the people's need. --Vsion 14:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Calvin Teo, I'm afraid this means we need to put the future lines on the map we made from scratch ASAP and delete your first one, due to copyright issues. Congratulations on being in the news, anyway. What did your friends say? :p (Oh Vsion, don't ruin his chances!) -- Natalinasmpf 22:03, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Ok actually I have the psd copy of the editing file of the map, so it is possible for us to delete the original sections of the map, while leaving the future lines there, and redrawing the existing lines so it won't be lta's copyright Alternatively, since I know b3virq3b, the creator of the map done from scratch quite well, we could mabye add the new lines to his map and edit using his raw psd or png file so that it looks more realistic.

Thanks for all the comments..haha! Well, talking about my friends, they were like.. surprised that the map made the news, then started discussing the map and even pasted a photocopy of the article and map on the noticeboard and it sort of.."attracted" many others, they were also asking me for a copy of the article. Btw transport Minister.... seems a bit ambitious right? :p =D -- advanced 14:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi again. Think I'm going to start map making in a week or so after my cts. =D -- advanced 14:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder who posted this picture on the article again. This is totally not appropriate. I know many people have known by now that this is not official BUT let's not forget that this site is used by people worldwide. Let's give them only the facts and not misleading information.

And why should it not be appropriate? Yes, the plans are not official (particularly with regards to station details), but there are concrete facts that most of the various lines mentioned are in the planning or construction stage, or has been mentioned at some point or other. How should this be "misleading", when the file name and caption clearly states their intention? If someone is confused, he only has himself to blame for failing to read. And why should the rest of the world be baffled by a map showing future lines? Plenty of other metro systems have such maps too. Are you mislead while looking at them and think they actually exist now?--Huaiwei 17:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Have you forgotten the hooha created when it was circulated around w/o clarification? Even Singaporeans were fooled. I am not against posting what have been OFFICIALLY announced. However, whatever speculated shouldn't be posted here. Do you like it when you get an encyclopedia where the editors just add in stuff they imagined? I am particularly uncomfortable with stating the operators, guessing the station names, and even the routes which no one could confirmed, particularly ERL. These are basically fan's fantasy. If there is a need to show, host it on another site and add an external link to it. If not, the whole image should be modified and put in only information that is OFFICIALLY announced.

Why would I forget that? The point is people, Singaporeans especially, are circulating the map via email without citing its source, or indicating it was an illustration of future lines which was clearly indicated in the filename as well as all captions which accompany this map. Obviously they will be fooled than, but is it our fault for this? Absolutely not. We hold responsibility for what we present here in our chosen format. We cannot stop anyone from copying and modifying them as this is an open souce environment, but at the same time, this also means we arent held responsible if people choose to abuse and misrepresent it.

But the fact is that this is NOT the future lines. It's only speculated which is not indicated in the filename or whatsoever. This is something that I am disputing and seriously don't think fan's fantasy should belong here.

You continue to have problems understanding what is "speculation" and what is published/announced/under planning/whatever. Have you seen URA's latest concept plan with the "future MRT network" incorporated into it? Or the ones in the LTA's white paper? They, too, indicate MRT routes, and past maps indicated station locations and names too. By your argument hence, they are all illegally misrepresenting information and should be removed? Please write to URA and demand that they remove the huge map with all kinds of mrt lines you wont have imagined in their public gallery. If they agree to your request, do write to us and we will do the same.

What makes you think URA is speculating? They are the government agency and definitely has access to more stuff than us. I am not saying that everything in it will be fulfilled but at least it is more convincing than a fan's fantasy. By all means post what is indicated in the concept plan. I have no objection to that.

Yes, "speculation" in a site like this does raise eyebrows. But that is only so if you assume people are just throwing darts on the wall and marking them as station sites. I can clearly see that the map was drawn using intelligent guesses, and that does have its value. It is the same rational behind the way URA draws up its future rail network map. If you are uncomfortable with it, then draw your prefered dream map and convince us why it is more "intelligent" then the existing one. Otherwise, you have the liberty not to look at it.--Huaiwei 13:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

That's precisely the whole point. Whose version is more 'intelligent'? Who is to decide? Since this is the only version, does that mean it will have to stay even if it's erroreous?

No, this is a fairly decent representation of future lines and stations which are confirmed to be going to be built based on a variety of documents and plans combined. For one, the caption makes it very clear: it's license makes it very clear....why should we stick what has been officially announced? That would not conform to the NPOV policy (we couldn't just take everything the government says at face value, for instance), and a citizen's perpsective is appopriate. We do not need government approval for diagrams in order to post them. -- Natalinasmpf 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Information does not have to be official before it is written in Wikipedia, as long as it is declared as "future". Please refer to Windows Server "Longhorn" and Windows Blackcomb for examples of whole articles - not just a single picture - that is based on "unofficial" information. -- Kimchi.sg | Talk 10:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think y'all are ignoring another issue: the future lines map is based on LTA's copyrighted original map (check the fonts), not the dubiously-legal cloned Wikipedia copy. The very least that should be done is backporting the fantasy extensions into a properly licensed map. Jpatokal 10:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, am working on another copyleft map, which is almost finished. Would be done in a few days. Changes include the presence of disclaimers and notes on the future information shown. Advanced 17:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

New copyleft map done, pls notify me of any errors or ommisions etc, and I'll try to recurtify these problems when I get back from overseas next week. Thanks alot Advanced

Line Template

I'm thinking of making a template something like this. Any comments and suggestions? Terenceong1992 05:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dosent this dublicate the station template a little?--Huaiwei 12:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Kind of. Then I think I won't do it, since this is a duplicate. Terenceong1992 13:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

MTR has this kind of duplicate too. --Terenceong1992 08:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

REPETITION OF INFO

When someone updates the main MASS RAPID TRANSIT page, the corresponding info in the main article eg. Facilities is NOT UPDATED. It is dumb to have to update two separate pages for the same info. The main page is just a cut and paste from the MRT page. Is anyone going to, or allowed to shorten the MRT page so that updates can just be put into the main page whereas the MRT page serves more as a outline instead?

Please sign with four tides like this (~~~~). The article is going to be summarised. --Terence Ong ^|Talk 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I duplicated it, for a reason. Patience please. - Mailer Diablo 23:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)