Talk:MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila)

MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 18, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 7, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
July 7, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
October 5, 2014	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Trains: Rapid transit Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 29, 2006

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

Southeast Asia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Systems Mid‑importance

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the field of Systems.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3.

Renaming this article

There is already an article called Manila Light Rail Transit System that is similar to this one but different enough -- perhaps this article should be renamed to List of Manila Metro Stations or something like that. I'm too new to know the "official" way to do this... -- StopTheFiling 17:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between the MRT and the LRT. I think. Hey, what is the difference anyway? Why aren't they all just called "MRT"? :p TheCoffee 18:06, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LRT-1 (Yellow Line - Baclaran to Monumento) and MRT-2 (Purple line - Santolan to Recto) are run by the LRTA while Metrostar/MRT-3 (Blue Line - Taft Ave. to North Ave.) is run by MRTC. Edward Sandstig 23:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MRT-3 is run by the DOTC. The MRTC is in charge of maintainance works. --Akira123323 ^{Say what? |} ^{Track record} 10:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Would you happen to have data on when the transfer portion of the BOT agreement will take effect and if the system will then be part of the LRTA? Edward Sandstig 11:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm do not have anything on that yet. I would have to check the agreement between the DOTC and MRTC, but I can't find any records of that online. I might have to check with the DOTC or the MRTC on that. --Akira123323 ^{Say what? |} ^{Track record} 10:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line map

While I appreciate that this article includes a map of this transit system, it would be a useful improvement if this map included the routes of the Manila Light Rail Transit System. -- llywrch 02:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love that too, although the LRT isn't exactly involved in this system, especially since they are not related to each other. Besides, that type of map is in the LRT article. --Akira123323 ^{Say what? |}

GPASS has been phased out

Can someone change some sections in this article, namely the GPASS section. GPASSES was phased out on 2008 when Globe's contract expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.159.192 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

third or second

The current version of this article starts in the introduction with: The Metro Rail Transit (MRT-3) is Metro Manila's third rapid transit line. It forms part of the Strong Republic Transit System, which includes the Manila Light Rail Transit System. The line operates under the name Metrostar Express and is colored blue on rail maps. This part of the lead section is actually misleading because it is historically the second line in metro Manila to be operated. It is the third line in the government project SRTS, but this remains somewhat unclear at the moment. Maybe it's better to move the word third into the second phare, about SRTS to avoid this misinformation. Leodb (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing confusing or misinformation or misleading in it. We are not ordinal numbering the train lines based on which one operated publicly first but rather which numbering the government uses. What is now Yellow Line (Blue Line under PGMA) is exactly that - the third Mega Manila train line, no more and no less. We stick to that - MRT-3, LRT-3, Line-3 if you want to follow the old naming scheme. --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 03:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to New Official Name

This article needs renaming to the new official color and name: "Yellow Line" as per Secretary Roxas http://business.inquirer.net/43411/dotc-lists-priority-projects-for-ppp --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 03:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming them to this would just confuse readers as there is a former color scheme which was implemented during the Arroyo administration and which people are more familiar with. I suggest that we just include them into the articles as they coincide with the other names/colors given to them. Yet if we need to rename them I suggest that we use the titles "Manila Line 1, 2, 3, and 7" which bases them on grammatically correct and reader-friendly naming.Jeromesandilanico (talk | Contribs) 14:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC+8)

But that's the problem, the new color scheme is the official name. They are already using it. In North Avenue and Quezon Avenue stations, they're posting: "MRT-3 Yellow Line". (They're probably using Ivan Pavlov conditioning technique, in this case: "MRT-3 Yellow Line", a few months later "Yellow Line MRT-3", then a few months later just "Yellow Line".)

The historical color-scheme (LRT-1 was historically Yellow [since 1984]; MRT-2 Purple [since 2003]; and MRT-3 Blue [since 1999]) was only caught on by few people. Most still use "LRT", "LRT-2", and "MRT" (not even the ones used officially by the government = LRT-1; MRT-2; MRT-3). In any case, we can not use both the historical color-scheme and the 2012-color scheme as it will be very confusing, and we can not use the historical color-scheme either if the government is implementing the 2012-color scheme (we'll end up seeing numerous edits once it catches on).

A generic name is the best option but is it allowed (in wikipedia)? Creating our own generic names which users won't be familiar with anyway? (You and me are familiar but that's you and me, not everybody else, not the future generations - they'll edit it one day.) I don't know, I'm more inclined in following the official name, less problems that way and future-proof (unless a new president decides to play with train coloring books again). (PS They're repainting all stations and train units, so eventually we won't see the historical colors as we know it from our generation.)

--- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 08:35, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that renaming the train line according to the new official color scheme would just confuse readers. Even MMDA Chairman Francis Tolentino seems unaware also of the new colors from this recent article from the Manila Bulletin dated 10 July 2012 A NEW CITY, A NEW METRO MANILA, A NEW FUTURE. It also doesn't help that the LRTA website hasn't followed this new scheme yet. The best option is to wait it out until the admin has "officially" launched this new brand complete with new magnetic cards, posters and press release. RioHondo (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming to a "Generic Name"

It has come to my attention or even to many of us that there is a new color scheme being implemented by the Aquino administration among the 3 major train lines in Manila especially in the MRT-3 where even the tickets show the new color scheme which is the yellow line and it confuses people with the line originally colored yellow line which is the LRT-1. Yet we all know that LRTA which operates LRT-1 and MRT-2 dosent follow this scheme yet which makes things even more complicated and confusing.

In line with this may I suggest to rename the articles as following
Manila LRT Yellow Line -> Manila Line 1

Manila Purple Line -> Manila Line 2

Manila Metro Rail Transit System -> Manila Line 3

And so as the line under planning

Manila Red Line -> Manila Line 7

I believe that doing this would be less confusing to the people and we could just indicate the line colors both current and former in the article rather than in the name itself. Any other suggestions or comments are welcome as long as we achieve this as finding a "generic name" is, in my opinion, an urgent matter needed to be solved. Jeromesandilanico talk | Contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC+8)

Agree with the move to a generic name. Although may i propose the following names instead to be more precise:

Manila LRT Yellow Line -> Manila LRT Line 1

Manila Purple Line -> Manila LRT Line 2

Manila Metro Rail Transit System -> as is, no need to rename. Manila MRT is already a redirect.

Manila Red Line -> Manila MRT Line 7

There may be changes in color scheme, but they remain LRT and MRT: 2 separate rail systems operated by 2 separate entities. Cheers! --RioHondo (talk) 06:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes your naming scheme I think is much better though i think extending the name of Manila Metro Rail Transit System into Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 would be better as to also indicate its Line number just like its counterparts in the MRT-7 and LRTA lines 1 and 2. If there will be no other contest to the naming schemes of RioHondo, I move that exactly one week after this discussion all articles mentioned above be renamed to the Generic Names given to them as to implement them as soon as possible is a priority.

Off topic though can you please reprimand/sanction/block this user Veluz330 (talk) as he keeps on changing the content of the articles like changing the official acronym of LRTA Line 2 from (MRT-2) to (LRT-2) as despite the latter being the one colloquially used the former must prevail as it is the official name even imprinted on LRT-1 stored value tickets and even on official LRTA documents. And even if he was already reprimanded, he just deletes the reprimands i gave him in his talk page.
Jeromesandilanico (talk | Contribs) 17:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC+8)

It has been a week since the naming scheme suggested by RioHondo was suggested and agreed upon and as per invitations to contest and suggest of one week has been reached and no other users tend to disagree, therefore I now moved the articles to the naming set by RioHondo with some minor modifications in which for LRT-1, MRT-2, and MRT-7 instead of using only the acronym, i expanded the acronym to its meaning and for MRT-3 I just added the Line 3 on the last part of the name.

So the following articles are now named as the following:

Manila LRT Yellow Line -> Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1

Manila LRT Purple Line -> Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2

Manila Metro Rail Transit System -> Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3

Manila Red Line -> Manila Mass Rapid Transit Line 7

Any objections or concerns are still welcome and if majority of the users find the new generic naming unacceptable, I am willing to revert it back to the way it was. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 09:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new color scheme has not yet been implemented in full, and I am at a loss as to why these pages ought to be moved in the first place. As I have repetitively raised in the Strong Republic Transit System talk page, even if the new scheme has been implemented on the MRT (and not even completely at that), the fact that the LRT hasn't implemented it ought to mean that we shouldn't preempt the system's full implementation. For now, I will revert the MRT move, as it is a separate system and the line number is unnecessary. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 05:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the fact that the MRT-3 management is using the "Yellow Line" name on the new stored value cards of the MRT-3 is already a factor to be considered as it causes confusion as despite the LRT-1 name being more known than the SRTS naming, somehow it already has caught on to the people too. And to make things worse LRTA isnt implementing yet the new color scheme which causes double jeopardy in the "Yellow Line" naming. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing here is that the MRTC only uses the line color on tickets, and in relatively minor station details. Everything else: the station signage, the train livery, even the station interiors are still predominantly blue. How are we confusing people therefore if the system was proposed, and has not yet been completely implemented, when in particular the LRTA, as I brought up earlier, doesn't even use the new scheme at all? This is where I disagree with Laibcoms' sentiments above: people should be used to the fact by now that the lines in question have these pre-existing colors, whether or not people use them in common speech, and Pavlovian conditioning techniques towards the new colors (and even the old colors as well) notwithstanding. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, renaming to the generic name is still the best solution to this whole color mess. And this introduction of new color tickets is the signal we've been looking for that its implementation has started indeed. It's basically just reverting them back to their pre-Arroyo/Strong Republic names where you basically just have people calling them simply as LRT and MRT (which btw are still more popularly used and more recognized by commuters to this day). And when I say generic, we have to also disregard the line numbers created by SRTS so that the MRT is not MRT-3. In fact it's supposed to be MRT-1 as it is the first MRT line. So as i said, there is no need to rename the Manila Metro Rail Transit System.--RioHondo (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Skyharbor: Well like the signanges in LRT-1 (new/arroyo admin) are in blue despite it being called the "Yellow Line" back then so don't expect that they would change the color of the signages to yellow, the trains on the other hand could be pending as we all know this will cost a great amount in changing the livery of the trains yet you could see inside the trains the addition on some trains of the "yellow handgrips" as part of the change and even in the station in the old analog clock docks you could see the "MRT-3 Yellow Line" posted in it. In the station interiors check it again you could see that most of it are now painted yellow as part of the change so you couldn't say that its still blue, yes it may still have blue but its just used to contrast yellow like in LRT-1 the roof isn't yellow but blue yet it was called "Yellow Line" back then. So in short in my opinion, a "Generic Name" is the best possible solution as not all lines changed to the new color scheme.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To RioHondo: the line number is the number designation used to the line route to distinguish it, whether it is MRT or LRT it wouldn't matter, so it couldn't be MRT-1 and besides the truth is that Line 3 should be even LRT-3 instead of MRT-3 because the "MRT" designation as known worldwide goes really to heavy rail train lines like MRT-2.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind that the MRT is not a real mrt or that Line 2 actually came later than Line 3 so their line numbers should have been switched. But for the purpose of "renaming to a generic name", we are only naming them according to their owner/operator. LRT 1 and 2 being owned and operated by LRTA which calls its trains LRT, and MRT being owned and operated by MRTC which calls its trains MRT. It's that simple. --RioHondo (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using Metrostar Express

Dear Editors, kindly cite reason why it is still reverted old logo and old brand as there is no source URL or press release explicitly stating continuous usage the "Metrostar Express" name and logo. Please go to DOTC MRT3 at North depot and ask the management. Our readers are confused with these reverts you are doing despite changes in all signage in all stations and press releases. --Exec8 (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i know you think that the "MetroRail Yellow Line" is the new logo of the train and branding but this is merely the corporate name. You might want to see the Metro Rail Transit Corporation article and see for yourself the logo that the "MetroRail Yellow Line" intended to replace. Plus do you need me to create a screenshot showing the metrostar express logo still in use in the dotcmrt3.gov.ph website? The mere use of that logo means that "Metrostar express" is still the train's branding but the management decided to show the new corporate logo more visibly instead. So the "new logo" would be best to be put into the Metro Rail Transit Corporation article rather than the Manila Metro Rail Transit System. One thing, they do not need a press release of whatsoever just because they still use in some way metrostar express because there was no change on it, the only change was the corporate logo.

P.S. I have been in and out of the depot recently and that is what they told me. Plus I ride the system everyday.PhilippineRevolution (talk) 04:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source provided on the continuous usage of the old logo and old brand name in new signages, new press releases. Please explain explicitly with source URLS why the new logo and name should not be used.--Exec8 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have no reliable sources to prove that the MetroRail yellow line is the new branding instead of the new corporate logo.

For my part here is a sceenshot (https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2914/13941436769_e4c68d214c_o.jpg) of the dotcmrt3.gov.ph official website that shows the usage still of the "Metrostar Express" logo which implies that the line is still dubbed as "Metrostar Express" and that "MetroRail Yellow Line" is merely a corporate logo replacing the old corporate logo of the MRTC and that they have merely made the corporate logo more visible than the branding logo.PhilippineRevolution (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving this discussion, take a look at the current site of the MRTC at http://www.mrt3.com. The Metrostar Express name is still prominently used there. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 06:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think putting back the "Metrostar express" name is fine, but since a control struggle between the government (DOTC-MRT3) and the private investor (MRTC) is evident in the two different websites alone http://www.dotcmrt3.gov.ph and http://www.mrt3.com, omission of the logo must still prevail. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 07:09, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3"

Hi! It has come to my attention that the current name "Manila Metro Rail Transit System" alone is incomplete as even during its opening (see erap ticket of the MRTC) the line has a Line 3, 3, or -3 on its official name, the MetroRail Yellow Line logo, and official wordings in documents to name a few. I do believe that adding "Line 3" to the article would be necessary for one is to match up with the official naming since first operation and two to better incorporate it among other lines such as Lines 1, 2, and 7. This subject will serve as a consensus if such rename would be pursued or not so to all major contibutors (Mithril Cloud, Skyharbor, Exec8, Philippinerailways/NewPhilippinerailways, Riohondo, Jeromesandilanico, etc.) plus other contributors, please feel free to cast your vote on the subject matter here so that we may reach a consensus.

And to start the voting, my vote for the rename is an Aye or I agree to the rename.

Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current page title should be used for the overall system, like the Manila Light Rail Transit System page while the info already on this page should be moved to a “Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3” page like with Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 7 UhFrenchFries (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting the change here. The only problem is that MRT 3, 7 and 9 are owned by different organizations unlike LRT lines 1, 2, 4 and 6. Raku Hachijo (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the full swing construction of the MRT-7, I agree that this should be done. Korean Rail Fan 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MRT runs at 40kph

Is it necessary to put 40 kilometers per hour since it is the current operating speed of MRT due to problems on the rail tracks from the original 60-65kph? SkyHigher (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

There are many controversies involving the MRT-3, like the maintenance providers, but they are still not present on the article. Can someone add any information related to controversies surrounding the MRT-3?--TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manila Metro Rail Transit System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122003116/http://dotcmrt3.gov.ph/about.php?route=7 to http://dotcmrt3.gov.ph/about.php?route=7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Manila Metro Rail Transit System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the Stations table to include rail/bus transfers

Would it be OK to include bus transfers in the table of stations? Right now only rail transfers are listed. I started doing this in the articles Transportation in Metro Manila and Public transport in Metro Manila. City buses are still a major means of transport in the metropolis. I don't have data about how many people actually transfer from rail to bus or vice versa, but putting it out for the public to know wouldn't be bad, right? Couldn't we add this information in all light rail Line articles to be consistent? Thanks. -- Miles2north (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A major issue with this is that city bus (and jeepney) routes in Metro Manila are not numbered, and we don't have a clean way of mentioning routes unless we mention every single route that runs through an MRT station. That said, I am in favor of listing bus connections, but I'm counting on there being a cleaner way of doing so first. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 23:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this? I used the Common Station as an example, but each LRT/MRT station will have a different list of course. Looking at the list of buses plying EDSA, you can pretty much see why EDSA is such a congested road, almost all city buses go through there. What is LTFRB thinking? --Miles2north (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the format, Miles2north, but if we can make it collapsible that might be better to reduce bloat. Also, consider using Sakay.ph for jeepney routes. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 19:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers Nearby

Source: LTFRB; Google Maps. Note: Rail lines and facilities in italics are proposed and/or under construction.

Rail	City Bus	Jeepney	Provincial Bus	Notes
Line 1 Line 3 Line 7 Line 9 Metro Manila Subway	Alabang - Malanday via EDSA Alabang - Navotas Terminal via EDSA Alabang - Novaliches via EDSA Alabang - Novaliches Terminal via EDSA, Mindanao Ave Baclaran - Malanday via EDSA, Ayala Ave Baclaran - Malanday via EDSA, McArthur Hwy Baclaran - Navotas Terminal via Ayala Ave Baclaran - Navotas Terminal via EDSA Baclaran - Navotas Terminal via EDSA, Ayala Ave Baclaran - Norzagaray via EDSA, Marilao Exit Baclaran - Novaliches Terminal via EDSA, Mindanao Ave Baclaran - Sta. Maria via EDSA Baclaran - Sta. Maria via EDSA, McArthur Hwy Coastal Mall - Navotas Terminal via EDSA FTI - Navotas Terminal via EDSA Letre - Pacita Complex via EDSA Malanday - Muntinlupa via EDSA, Monumento Malanday - NAIA via EDSA, Buendia Marilao - Muntinlupa via EDSA Navotas Terminal - Pacita Complex via EDSA Novaliches - Pacita Complex via EDSA, Malinta Exit		MMDA North EDSA Provincial Bus terminal

Requested move 5 May 2020

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 according to option 3 which is most widely supported. I appreciate that this will not please everyone, but I hope it can be accepted as a good compromise. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:COMMONNAME; this is the most prevalent use of the lines' names by primary and secondary reliable sources, and the public. The use of the dash in the name is unique enough to avoid the need for parenthetical disambiguation and will prevent the need for disambiguation with articles such as LRT Line 1 (Greater Jakarta LRT), LRT Line 2 (Greater Jakarta LRT), and MRT Line 3. truflip99 (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part 1

Support, most common name in WP:RS and to the people who use it, but use endashes – instead of just hyphens. It would still be red links. 2nd choice is preemptively disambiguating with "(Metro Manila)" to these three. 3rd choice is using "LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila)", "LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila)", "MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila)", (MRT Line 3 is a disambiguation page so for consistency's sake undisambiguated article names cannot be used). 4th/5th choice is "Light Rail Transit Line 1," "Light Rail Transit Line 2," "Metro Rail Transit Line 3," with or without "(Metro Manila)". Check out the summary below:
- 1st choice:
- 2nd choice:
  - Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → MRT–3 (Metro Manila)
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT–1 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT–1 (Metro Manila and Cavite) once Cavite stations become operational.
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 → LRT–2 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 → LRT–2 (Metro Manila and Rizal) once Rizal stations become operational.
- 3rd choice:
  - Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila)
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila and Cavite) once Cavite stations become operational.
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 → LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila and Rizal) once Rizal stations become operational.
- 4th choice:
- 5th choice:
  - Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (Metro Manila)
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → Light Rail Transit Line 1 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → Light Rail Transit Line 1 (Metro Manila and Cavite) once Cavite stations become operational.
  - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 → Light Rail Transit Line 2 (Metro Manila)
    - Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 → Light Rail Transit Line 2 (Metro Manila and Rizal) once Rizal stations become operational.
- I suppose this cover all bases and every variety and every option of disambiguating at the present time. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Howard the Duck: What's the point of the en dash? Just curious. --truflip99 (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - MOS:DASH#In article titles Howard the Duck (talk) 04:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although i support the use of common names as per earlier discussions, i just realized now that we might get into trouble with those plain names of LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3, etc, because of potential ambiguity. While those ATs are available now, other similarly named LRTs and MRTs around the world might opt to turn them into disambiguation pages in the future. See Mass Rapid Transit for example. All of those are potential contenders for the numbered MRT lines. I think adding the location would be the most stable option. It's a choice between Manila LRT–1/Manila LRT1 and LRT–1 (Metro Manila)/LRT1 (Metro Manila). Personally, id go with the former, given that some of those lines are expected to go beyond Metro Manila like LRT2 (Rizal) and MRT7 (Bulacan). It is also common practice to name infrastructures or construction projects in or near Metro Manila with the advertising name Manila. Obviously, we cant use Philippines disambiguation as Cebu and Davao might also get one.;)--RioHondo (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently, no train line extends outside Metro Manila. I would strongly oppose adding "Manila" outside parenthesis. No one in normal conversation talks "I'm riding the Manila MRT", although I would be interested in scholarly work where people will be more formal and talk about "the Manila MRT system". I'd recommend on crossing the Zapote bridge once we get there. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LRT2 to Rizal (Cainta and Antipolo) is actually nearing completion. The whole QC to Bulacan (San Jose del Monte) line of MRT7 will open in 2022. And LRT1's construction to Cavite (Bacoor) is also underway. We are seeing all of these extensions outside Metro Manila in the next few years (or sooner as govt turns to BBB as stimulus spending post covid19). Better to settle with the most stable ATs now than be bugged by the same problem in the not so distant future. How about a third option? LRT–1 (Greater Manila Area) or LRT1 (Greater Manila Area)? Hmm. Maybe not. A fourth option would be to use their operators as disambiguation. Ex: LRT–1 (LRMC), LRT–2 (LRTA), MRT–3 (MRTC), MRT–7 (SMC). But, if Metro Manila was included in the name, and not as a parenthetical disambiguation (ex. Metro Manila LRT–1) then it would still be correct to say it reaches places outside Metro Manila vs. LRT–1 (Metro Manila) that suggests outright that it is exclusively in Metro Manila. Get my drift? That is why i suggested for the simpler Manila LRT–1 because the Manila here is just for disambiguation purposes. It is wrong to use it in this (Manila) form as this isnt just Manila's, but so is using (Metro Manila) as these arent exclusively in Metro Manila. Anyway, what is clear is that these common names of LRT and MRT minus their locale or operator are ambiguous and that we only need to decide the most appropriate dab form for them.--RioHondo (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making Greater Manila Area happen. It's not gonna happen. I'd rather prefer "Mega Manila" if this was the case, as that term is more in use than "Greater Manila Area", plus the latter has an actual definition, unlike the former based on "built-up areas". (Is the La Mesa watershed not in Greater Manila Area?) These stations are nearing completion, but at this point in time, it isn't. At this point in time, the disambiguatory "(Metro Manila)" is the sole option. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dismabiguating using operators isn't probably a good idea either. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggeration. The NEDA/JICA transport roadmap for Metro Manila (Metro Manila Dream Plan) where this is all based from uses the term Greater Capital Region, not Mega Manila to refer to this area. We should only go with actual govt names and definitions which is a lot closer to the common name GMA/GMMA, in use since 1941 and redefined by state planners until 2014, than to the unscientific, media/pop radio coined term Mega Manila. Actually, the concrete structures of the LRT2 Rizal line are like 95% complete last i saw it on Marcos Highway. And the article discusses the Cainta and Antipolo stations with pictures even. It's only a matter of months before it starts running (the latest press release i saw from last month says the Rizal extension will be finished by Q4 2020). Again, my suggestion is to include Manila or Metro Manila as part of the name and not as a parenthetical disambiguation which suggests that it is located exclusively in Metro Manila.--RioHondo (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFICIAL, we don't necessarily official names, unless it is heavily used. "Greater Manila Area" is commonly used, not enough, even more so with "Greater Capital Region". Usages of "Mega Manila" to refer to Metro Manila and all the provinces bordering it are widespread, and certainly is more widespread than GMA and GCR combined. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the accusations of WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT to those opposing your positions in the other article plus creating a different thread of the same arguments in Talk:Manila_Metro_Rail_Transit_System#Naming_scheme. Reminder of the WP:GF rule especially if the allegations and proper IP checks are done and such moves of creating multiple threads of the same topics just to get their intended version of consensus.

Given all these, for the sake of record, I shall carry over my proposal as the 6th choice here:

6th choice:

Arguments carried over from Talk:Manila_Metro_Rail_Transit_System#Naming_scheme in support of the 6th choice:

@Koressha:

I am not in favor of the Manila MRT Line 3. This Line 3 (Manila MRT) might temporarily do so if you want to have a more condensed naming system; however I just stated that the present scheme will do, for now.

Either side has holes that are easy to punch out of vagueness in local system namings. For the current "ancillary titles" it could be remedied by saying "Santolan Station (MRT Line 3)" for example, since you can put up the links below to its parent page. And let me say it again, we have to consider that other lines in the past once existed yet are not yet in the wiki.

I will add here, if we are all in for a unified naming system then what will be the implications of "Manila MRT Line 3" or "Line 3 (Manila MRT)" on the Philippine National Railways page? Koressha (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ariamaca:

Hi I have been a long time lurker here in the Metro Manila Railway threads, since I wanted to voice out my opinion to which I believe would create a major overhaul in the articles, I decided to make an account and support Korean Rail Fan's "Line # (Manila System)" proposal. Not only do I agree that this does allow us to not break on the Line numbering, but also satisfy the need for WP:COMMONNAME. As it still can be understood even if you translate it in Taglish vernacular "Line # ng LRT". The rule only stipulates that the locals can identify it based on how they call it and not assume they are too dumb to even not know that Manila LRT Line # or Line # (Manila LRT) is one and the same. Ergo my vote on this matter.

With regards to the merging of the main LRT and MRT articles, I am for it as like what other users have stated, the system has been already too divided to just quantify them as forming the LRT or MRT systems just because it is named that way despite different operators. Ariamaca (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pilipinas7107:

Saw the discussions in WT:TAMBAY and as a former non-registered editor in wiki, here are my points and positions based already on the arguments made:

I agree with Koressha that this naming hulabaloo is actually unnecessary as of now but if I have to choose between the two I would say Korean Rail Fan's proposal. I think the other users have already made the points I am to make. Line x is also common name as in the vernacular when you ask people "Saan ka sasakay? Sa LRT" then if it aint clear, the person would ask "Line 1 o Line 2" which proves the point that the proposal by Korean Rail Fan is WP:COMMONNAME as if we are to stick to a hard definition, we will call it "LRT" "LRT2" "MRT" "PNR" (Regardless if Metro Commuter or Provincial), etc which proves the point of flexibility.

I am mixed with the merging of LRT and MRT vs status quo as both can co-exist. Sky Harbor made a good point that an overview article with links to the individual LRT and MRT parent articles are fine given that it could explain the mess of the systems as of date. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, while I respect your opinion on what you think common names are, not all would agree with your rule interpretation like in this local case [1] "Sinegundahan naman 'yan ng lines 1 at 2 Manila Light Rail Transit System o LRT sa Twitter". I still stand with my position on the matter. Also, PNR like cross region rail lines (KTX, Amtrak, etc) are unumbered lines as they are not Metro lines. Pilipinas7107 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ongoing IP check and if it proves that there is no WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT, the accusations and the creation of another talk page for the same topic to elude users with opposing opinion, may constitute WP:AOBF. Korean Rail Fan 15:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This almost certainly fails WP:NC. No one almost certainly uses "Line 1" to refer to the train line above Rizal Avenue and Taft Avenue, in first instance, at least. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Korean Rail Fan: Please note the following: "While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. A new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining." In other words, you may not post in a RM discussion on behalf of other users. At the same time, those user accounts (with the exception of Koressha) have so far existed solely for this discussion, which is the definition of WP:MEAT. So yes, you/they are acting in bad faith at the moment. I've omitted those entries, they should remain in the separate discussion thread. --truflip99 (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of a certain Jerome and PhilippineRevolution who were obsessed with calling LRT2 as MRT2 only because it was technically a metro rail and not light rail. That was many years ago. Interesting. Could they be him?--RioHondo (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose LRT-1, LRT-2 and MRT-3 are ambiguous. Move articles instead to Metro Manila LRT–1, Metro Manila LRT–2 and Metro Manila MRT–3.--RioHondo (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't 2nd choice resolve ambiguity? The common name for the train line above EDSA surely not is "Metro Manila MRT–3" (I'm riding the 'Metro Manila LRT–3' on my way to work" almost certainly never happened. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But LRT 2 is not entirely in Metro Manila. Neither is MRT 7, and soon LRT 1. It's like going with Metro Commuter Line (Metro Manila) for PNR Metro Commuter Line when we know its not entirely a Metro Manila line. Laguna where its southernmost stations are located is not part of the Metro but it is served by this Metro Manila's commuter line. That's what i meant.--RioHondo (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you do realize that your suggestion still uses "Metro Manila" despite some not being "totally" in Metro Manila, and simultaneously failing WP:NC, right? All of these train lines primarily serve Metro Manila (there's no dispute about that), and using "(Metro Manila)" for disambiguation purposes doesn't really define where the train tracks are, right (well most of them)? This suggestion is actually worse since you'd include "Metro Manila" in the actual name of the line, instead of good ole "LRT/MRT", defeating the purpose of emphasizing that "it's not entirely in Metro Manila". Howard the Duck (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. We've had these articles under Manila for the longest time even when we know it's not a city of Manila transport infrastructure. It goes beyond Manila, like this article on MRT-3 itself does not even go anywhere near Manila at all. Lol. But it is understood as a disambiguation, part of the title, whereas if this was at Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 (Manila), it wouldnt have lasted not a single day. Lol. There is no problem with Metro Manila LRT 1 reaching Cavite, the problem is if this was named LRT 1 (Metro Manila) using the same analogy above. There is also no problem with New Manila International Airport being in Bulacan, but New International Airport (Manila) or New Luzon Airport (Metro Manila) is a different story.--RioHondo (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"New Manila International Airport in Bulacan is what looks like the official name (and most probably be the most commonly used one) of that airport in Bulacan; compare to "Ateneo de Manila University". Your suggestion of "Metro Manila LRT–1" means that "Metro Manila LRT–1", as phrased exactly like that, is the most common name/official name of the train line above Rizal and Taft Avenues. From what I can tell, it's not the official name, it being "Light Rail Transit" and some combination of "Line" and/or "1" (there no actual names of places involved!) nor is it the most commonly used one, as again, no one says I'm riding the "Metro Manila LRT–1" IRL except perhaps if she's speaking to someone in Singapore and needed context. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Manila Metro Rail Transit System" the official name of this MRT-3? How do you explain this AT that does not even serve Manila? Another example, Manila–Cavite Expressway is the name of a tollway connecting Cavite and Paranaque, not Manila. No issues there, but try moving it to Coastal Road (Manila-Cavite) and check for people's reactions. Lol. Anyway, that's how i see the parenthetical disambiguation is for. To indicate locations as a form of disambiguation, as opposed to adding the location as part of the name, which suggests nothing, but maybe the general area of the project in question.--RioHondo (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is that in any of these three existing train lines, the official(?) or even most common name is not "Manila Light/Metro Rail Transit (Line) #", as phrased, with or without "Line", it being "Light/Metro Rail Transit (Line) #", with or without "Line". "Manila–Cavite Expressway" is both the most commonname and (probably?) the official name of the said road. For the train lines, news sources and usages IRL omit any location of where it is.

(I based the official name on what the government agencies operating/supervising the lines are called, the LRTA and MRTC (noticeably not (M)MLRTA or the (M)MMRTC), and none of them has a place name on them. I may be wrong on this.) Howard the Duck (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is KALIBAPI's party color the same as Nacionalista Democrata Pro's? Lol. I was supposed to continue writing but got stuck here. Lol--RioHondo (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Disagree with ambiguity since no other system is contesting it. Articles like NS Line and Loop Service perfectly exemplify this. The en dash sufficiently distinguishes them. --truflip99 (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too risky. Ive seen many articles on numbered LRT and MRT lines here. It wont take long before someone initiates another RM to convert those into disambiguation pages.--RioHondo (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RioHondo: Are you sure? An attempted search only produced KL, Jakarta, and Palembang. Kindly list. --truflip99 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i know, even one article with the same brand (or very similarly named) is enough reason to disambiguate per WP:D2D. Here you already gave 3. Numbered LRT and MRT Lines are very common brands, in fact they are generic names used in most rail project studies or as alternative names to rail lines of most LRT and MRT systems anywhere. Brazil's LRT systems also use numbered lines. And many others with no wikiarticles yet but only mentioned in their LRT or MRT system pages. LRT and MRT arent Philippine inventions or technologies and line numbers are all disambiguated wherever in wikipedia you look.--RioHondo (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I would support second choice (e.g. LRT–1 (Metro Manila)). --truflip99 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as even San Pedro pointed out below, this parenthetical Metro Manila disambiguation does not apply to all lines as LRT2 and MRT7 are not exclusively in Metro Manila. The accurate location would be (Greater Manila Area) consisting of MM and surrounding provinces. Like your example for LRT Line 1 (Greater Jakarta LRT) or Windsor Link Line, Greater Manchester. But HTD seems to have issues with the term Greater (even when according to the dab page itself, it is a standard name used in geography and politics for region surrounding an area) and prefers Mega (an arbitrary name created by marketing companies with no real academic definition but has a grandiose or catchy ring to it). Again, the only accurate titles that use the WP:COMMONNAME LRT or MRT are LRT 1 (Greater Manila Area), LRT 1 (Operator) or Metro Manila LRT 1. The last one outside parentheses does not suggest location but included as part of the name as disambiguation, which is also in line with the naming convention for Metro Manila Subway.--RioHondo (talk) 09:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "GMA" is not a well-known term. I'd rather use "LRT–1 (Metro Manila and Cavite)" and "LRT–2 (Metro Manila and Rizal)" if you refuse to use "Mega Manila", and once the stations open. For now, "(Metro Manila)" shall suffice. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Also include the MRT 7 and the Metro Manila Subway. I go with the 5th choice, provide the proposal to merge the MRT and LRT system articles into the Greater Manila rapid transit article being planned. TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 06:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To add to HTD's suggestions:

Manila Metro Rail Transit Line 7 -> MRT-7/MRT-7 (Greater Manila Area)/MRT Line 7/Metro Rail Transit Line 7/Manila Metro Rail Transit Line 7 TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, ~~but leaning to oppose~~ There would be problems when we include Metro Manila in the page titles. The term Manila could already refer metonymically to Metro Manila and the surrounding urban area. Including Metro Manila would restrict the scope of the articles to the defined region only, which is not the case, as some lines that are under construction or under planning are already expected to serve areas outside of the defined region. Also, shortening the names of the articles to include the abbreviations LRT or MRT would actually provide more ambiguity, as metro systems in some other countries are known simply by this abbreviation. I do not know if this is also included in the scope of this RM, but there could be some debate as to whether Line 2 should be classified as an LRT or an MRT line. Sadly, our country's government had a history of mixing up the classification. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 5th choice will resolve that issue, and my suggestion last 09:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC) will sort out train lines that extend outside of Metro Manila's borders whenever it happens. I've made amendments to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th choices about this. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the next question is what will happen if LRT-1 reaches... I dunno, Batangas? Move it to "LRT–1 (Metro Manila and CALABARZON)". I don't think the MRT-3 will reach Infanta, Quezon (the logical terminus?) so I suppose the farthest it can go is somewhere in Rizal. If it goes around Laguna de Bay, you can also use "LRT–2 (Metro Manila and CALABARZON)." The MRT-3 is above the circumferential road so I don't think it'll stray out of Metro Manila. MRT-7 can be renamed into "MRT-7 (Metro Manila and Bulacan)". Howard the Duck (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Batangas and Infanta, Quezon would be too far already. I think including just Metro Manila would do, as the line extensions would reach just the immediate periphery of Metro Manila. I'd go for the 3rd or 5th options, but should LRT and MRT be spelled out? We're looking at a metro system that is arguably integrated only on system maps. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with just "Metro Manila", as this is the original proposal. This is for disambiguation purposes only, and does not have to mean that the entire line is restricted to that area. (I do concede though that it can be interpreted that way.) This was an adjustment due to the discussion above. Either "MRT" or "Metro Rail Transit" is okay, but my personal preference is just "MRT" as that is used by the people and the sources, but "Metro Rail Transit" is not that far behind. This also one of the choices above. This would also not cause astonishment to someone when s/he arrives at the article ("Ah yes 'MRT' does mean 'Metro Rail Transit'," as compared to say "Line 1"). Adding a place name in the article name outside of parenthetical phrases isn't a good idea as no one says "I'm riding the (Metro) Manila MRT–3". Howard the Duck (talk) 10:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuhay; I stand mostly neutral for now. The LRT/MRT is the norm in local conversational context because 1) locals know that these train lines mostly, (if not all) serve Manila 2) these railways thus serve as one of the common alternatives to travel around Manila and its surrounding cities, hence Metro Manila, but the numbering systems give clearer emphasis on the differing transit. I suppose we talk about each aspect in a name; ergo I will list them location-wise which I prefer for the new name if ever. Hopefully this and other considerations will be discussed one-by-one.

1) Manila is a) used by the O&M handling Line 1 as per company name, 2) everyone knows this is the city of Manila within Metro Manila, and 3) I think 'Manila' alone would constrain the line in the 'city' of Manila alone.

2) Metro Manila is a) presently, the placeholder name to aptly locate these metro lines 1, 2, and 3, is b) may I say, it adds uneccessary length even so affixing "and Cavite/Rizal" (and to note, I had seen these articles even before and the titles are quite tiresome to read). If it were merely the tranvia, simply Manila can easily apply. And may I quote LSGH:

There would be problems when we include Metro Manila in the page titles. The term Manila could already refer metonymically to Metro Manila and the surrounding urban area. Including Metro Manila would restrict the scope of the articles to the defined region only, which is not the case, as some lines that are under construction or under planning are already expected to serve areas outside of the defined region. Also, shortening the names of the articles to include the abbreviations LRT or MRT would actually provide more ambiguity, as metro systems in some other countries are known simply by this abbreviation. I do not know if this is also included in the scope of this RM, but there could be some debate as to whether Line 2 should be classified as an LRT or an MRT line. Sadly, our country's government had a history of mixing up the classification.
— User:LSGH 09:49, 07 May 2020 (UTC)

4) the Greater Manila Area is a) succinct in narrowing an area, but b) unfortunately this is a more technical term, as the local media would rather use the latter below.

5) Mega Manila is a) more widely recognized and colloquially known as the area surrounding Manila; however b) this defines a larger area which includes areas that do not have rails such as Mimaropa, and presently Calabarzon. c) Central Luzon and Calabarzon had railroads with varying statuses today. d) Projects are aimed to extend some lines and these are currently ongoing.

The wiki pages exist anyway to fill out what supplemental information would be best to fully inform the user, especially for Filipinos who become more accustomed to using other (rail) transit systems other than our own.

Other notes, 1) if I were asked, I would go with Mega Manila because a) even if not every region (within) has rails, after all majority of former and active iron roads go across here, and b) the commonality of this term fares better than that of Greater Manila Area.

2) I support Korean Rail Fan's proposal because a) I really do as how aptly the name could carry, b) the existing choices and their (KRF's) proposal are 'nearly' the same banana, and c) ok, please reread my former statements instead of repeatedly tagging WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NC; I believe there is a better way to name such articles (that abides with these guidelines!), and that the current names are bound to change anyway. And lo, I use "Line x" in referring to the railways because such arguments in technicalities (or merely stating LRT/MRT alone) had resulted in confusion and unfortunately, ad hominem rhubarbs.

Nevertheless, I am open to better options; however I suggest you may consider each aspect in the name (location, transit system, line number) ~~as this thread is getting equally cumbersome, even going to and fro different pages and threads, not to mention WP:FORUMSHOP.~~ Koressha (talk) 02:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree with Koressha here. 3rd choice onwards basically pose the same issue with WP:COMMONNAME. --truflip99 (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think naming to "Line #" resolves the issue that we won't be renaming these articles for a long time. For the longest time, LRT-1 was simply known as "the LRT" because it's the only elevated railroad around. When MRT was built, there's no need to add numbers, as people can distinguish betweeb LRT and MRT with no difficulty.

Then LRT-2 was built, then okay, let's use LRT-1, LRT-2 and MRT-3. I still believe these names, or spelling these out are the WP:COMMONNAME for these train lines.... so back to my point. At some point in history, the government used colors to distinguish the train lines. LRT-2 was purple, MRT-3 was yellow, PNR was orange, I forgot what LRT-1 was. (I think I got the colors mixed up. I'm sure though the LRT-2 was the "purple line".) Earlier, they used "Metrostar" and "Megatren" brandings for MRT-3 and LRT-2, respectively. So if I understand that naming these to "Line #" solves the issue of having to rename these lines every time, that's not the case, more to the fact that IT. IS. SIMPLY. NOT. THE. COMMON. NAME. FOR. THESE. LINES. 03:09, Howard the Duck (talk) 8 May 2020 (UTC)

As I stated in the first paragraph, that the LRT/MRT are the local norms but it's also untrue that it's easy to distinguish which line is which especially in Line 2. 1) LRT–1 was formerly orange as Metrorail, became yellow in SRTS but since LRMC they adopted green, 2) to clarify my statement, neither the line number alone would suffice nor the LRT/MRT designation. Koressha (talk) 03:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose combining "LRT/MRT" designation and the Line number, just like "LRT-2" or "Light Rail Transit Line 2" solves all of this, right? Howard the Duck (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think not; I mentioned location, number, and designation. Not in any order that I can think of yet. Koressha (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Unless someone is really bad at reading (or counting), someone can very easily distinguish between "LRT-1" and "LRT-2". In fact, this is how people distinguish between the two LRTs! I suppose you can add the place, but "LRT-1" isn't called "[Metro] Manila LRT-1", unless probably for real technical people who have to call these things on their official names. You can argue this for "EDSA MRT", but it's arguable people use either "MRT" or "MRT-3" just as much. You can add the place where the train operates as a parenthetical phrase for disambiguation purposes though if needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 03:30, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO spelling out those LRT and MRT acronyms are out of the question here as it defeats the purpose of common name under WP:AT. "Metro Rail Transit" may also not be as common or recognizable as you think it is as even the company running it thinks MRT stands for Mass Rapid Transit-->

as per their corporate logo Lol. Having said that, i believe it is safe to say that there is consensus to use just "LRT" and "MRT" for these lines. We just have to work out the most appropriate disambiguation for them. Between technical and colloquial toponyms, there is clear advantage in using the former 1) because it is neutral even when it is not as common, 2) WP is an encyclopedia where encyclopedic or technical terms are to be expected, 3) it has become a standard way of naming transport regions as per examples in Jakarta and UK, and 4) we wont be accused of building a "brand" for them with this colloquial, expressive (even poetic) and highly contextual or "local" term Mega Manila. Our readers are not just Philippines based. Most readers are first time readers and users of these trains, like tourists and foreign workers (lots of them) needing info on public transport here. Regular users like the locals dont anymore depend on these articles, do they? Lol. Epic or monumental names like Mega Manila and Urban Luzon should be left to the companies and their advertisers to decide, but for wikipedia purposes, we only go with what's neutral. Meanwhile we have not heard from these articles' creator and AT architect Sky Harbor, pls chime in here. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 07:22, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Light Rail Transit" and "Metro Rail Transit" may not be recognizable on its own to locals, but if in context, such as having "(Metro Manila)" with it, a reader should realize "ah, that's what 'LRT' means!", or if "Line 1" is with it, a local may realize "ah, this is LRT-1!" Non-locals could care less if MRT-3 is named "MTR-3" or "Manila Metro Line 3" or something else as they would need context no matter what. (This is like dealing with non-English proper names as article titles, or non-English translations in leads. I just skim it over until I find the proper context on what "Sinn Féin" is.

If people listed to the radio (Let's face it, more poor people are radio listeners nowadays, as people with disposable incomes use Spotify), is familiar to what "Mega Manila" means. Compare this to "Greater Manila Area". If we're using the principle of least astonishment, "Mega Manila" pwns "Greater Manila Area". Curiously, "Mega Manila" isn't a proper "place" (just as legislative districts are). The best solution to this is, if you'd be inclusive in the future, "Metro Manila and Rizal/Cavite" is the best choice, over "Mega Manila" and "Greater Manila Area", and the operator, in that order. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a Filipino thing? I don't know why you think the plain descriptive term greater can be astonishing. Between that and your Mega Man, we know which is an anomaly. Umm, let me introduce you to its cousins Greater Dublin Area, Greater Tokyo Area, Greater Toronto Area, Greater Bangalore, Greater Beirut, Greater Boston, Greater Bristol, Greater Budapest, Greater Buenos Aires, Greater Cairo, Greater Cleveland, Greater Dhaka, Greater Glasgow, Greater Helsinki, Greater Houston, Greater Jerusalem, Greater Kota Kinabalu, Greater Kuala Lumpur, Greater Kyoto, Greater London, Greater Los Angeles, Greater Manchester, Greater Mexico City, Greater Moncton, Greater Montreal, Greater Orlando, Greater Perth, Greater Philadelphia, Greater Rio de Janeiro, Greater San Antonio, Greater São Paulo, Greater St. Louis, Greater Tehran, Greater Vancouver, Greater Victoria. The list goes on. You have issues only you understand here TBH. This is not even WP:OFFICIAL anymore, not even technical given the very long list, but STANDARD. Reserve your Mega Man to the Megatren or Megasardines teehee! JK! As for Metro Manila + province, I dont know if that will work as there might be issues with Precision (it being too precise) and Recognizability (people not being familiar with these places outside Metro Manila, or with the train lines actually serving areas outside Manila, only we are experts here ;) per WP:CRITERIA.--RioHondo (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could've listed 1 million more Greater <Place> Areas, and it still doesn't detract the fact that a Filipino cannot define "Greater Manila Area", much less have heard about it, at least in this millennium. WP:RS don't use it heavily. Standard? LOL, nope, at least when you're asking WP:RS, where I haven't seen a news source describe the LRT serving (or will serve) the Greater Manila Area (or even Mega Manila). I suppose you can dig up a few though.

I actually tried a Google News search, and it did had hits: Mostly Philippine News Agency ones, but they can't even agree to it. One says "the project seeks to provide enhanced mobility and connectivity from Cavite to Greater Manila Area" implying someone from Cavite will ride the LRT-1 to go to the "Greater Manila Area" which looks like "Metro Manila" (considering LRT-1 will be on Cavite and is currently in Metro Manila, that's the conclusion that you'll arrive at on that statement). Another says "These buses operate along commuter routes within the Greater Manila Area which have high passenger demand", which implies Metro Manila and nearby communities. Different definitions! (Just as what I have been saying!) Another government source says "the east extension project is set to ease commuting woes for those coming from the eastern Greater Manila Area," again implying Metro Manila and someplace outside it. Does "Greater Manila Area" include eastern Metro Manila too? Different definitions! Finally, a non-government source says "If neighboring provinces that comprise the greater Manila area are taken into account. The way you'd read it, "greater Manila area" (notice only "Manila" is capitalized) is defined as places outside and excluding Metro Manila. Different definitions!

WP:OFFICIAL only refers to article titles, that is what you'd name it without regard to other factors such as how to disambiguate it; disambiguating it is a totally another matter already. Either "(Metro Manila)" or "(Metro Manila and Rizal/Cavite)" works just fine, the last option if you'd have to be more precise... in the future. For now, "(Metro Manila)" suffices, if disambiguating is indeed needed. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because you have not written these articles and have not come across NEDA and JICA documents that talks about this Greater area in details. Plenty of RSs in Metro Manila Dream Plan too that you wont consider. The disambiguation in parentheses is not part of the title anyway so why should common name apply to it? Take it out from those parentheses then we'll discuss lol. Better a succinct parenthetical disambiguation than a "common name" that is inaccurate.--RioHondo (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS have to be written by third party sources. Government planners writing about what the government is planning to do is not WP:RS. Now, state media writing about what the state planners are planning to do, you can stretch that as "third party", but not as much. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Option 6, but only because it's the option I'm the least unsatisfied with. Otherwise, I oppose.

I should note that this was not how I imagined this discussion to be: my primary issue was with using line names for disambiguating stations, when it should've been disambiguated by system instead. When I first wrote these articles over a decade ago (the LRT, in fact, was one of my first articles on Wikipedia; you can dig through my edit history if you want), I had in mind that "Manila" would be a handy disambiguator, particularly for overseas audiences. I'm of the opinion that the Manila-versus-Metro Manila debate is something that most foreigners are oblivious to, and that "Manila" on its own was sufficient to disambiguate the LRT and MRT from other, similarly-named systems elsewhere. The proposals seem to miss the forest for the trees here: the goal is to be as informative as possible to the widest possible audience. We don't do that if we're going to overly complicate the naming of both the system and the lines by dragging to the mix the issue of how Manila's urban area is structured. (Also, just because a line extends to Bulacan or Cavite or Laguna, it's still part of the Manila system. So why are we even proposing things like "LRT Line 1 (Metro Manila and Cavite)" to begin with? The Shanghai Metro's Line 11 crosses the border into Suzhou, but no one's going out and calling it "Line 11 (Shanghai-Suzhou Metro)" now, are they?)

Now, let me address the issue of merging the line and system articles, since it's been brought up throughout this conversation. I strongly oppose any merger of the system articles, but it's perfectly fine if we have an overview article created on top of it which summarizes both systems in a single place. Let me be clear: we are not in the business of preempting the Philippine government, particularly when it comes to how it runs the urban rail network in Metro Manila. Yes, there's one metro plan (after all, the Metro Manila Dream Plan is, by virtue of its name, a plan), yet the government has continued to run two distinct metro systems. We can argue 'til kingdom come that the DOTr supervises everything, and that yes, the LRTA is an attached agency of the DOTr, but you cannot deny that the government has, since 1999, treated the LRT and MRT networks as separate entities. You see this on signage, you see this in the media and government reports, and heck, you even see this in practice, when even tickets weren't interchangeable until the introduction of Beep. So why are we preempting the government when even it hasn't treated the two networks as a single system? (I bet you, when Duterte leaves office in 2022, there's a not-insignificant chance that the Dream Plan will be thrown out, if not significantly modified and/or repackaged. Just like the SRTS.)

For stations, let me repeat myself in case I wasn't clear earlier: they should be disambiguated by system, not by line. Hence "Santolan station (Manila MRT)" and "Santolan station (Manila LRT)", not "Santolan station (Line 3)" and "Santolan station (Line 2)", to use them as an example. What the heck is "Line 2" and "Line 3", a non-Filipino reader might ask, when there's no context unless they read the article? In fact, the stations are the primary problem here: the systems and lines seen fine to me as they currently are.

In the many years I've seen developments unfold over this set of articles, I've had the lingering feeling that we've been coming up with solutions in search of problems. This is, once again, precisely that, and I seriously hope we can drag the conversation back toward some sense of normalcy. Otherwise, people are just going to check out of the conversation, and nothing will come out of it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 04:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an RM for renaming the said articles to new ones. If you have an issue with other stuff related to these articles, make another section and do not veer this discussion off course. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest you hiding non-RM related issues, or transferring those to another section/talk page so that we won't have to deal with that on this RM. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Truflip99: Unless proven, you cannot call others that support me as WP:MEAT simply because they are new users who have expressed their opinions in support towards me and assume I did a recruitment behind the scenes. Such claims are baseless not unless you have solid evidence (such as photos of me or any other supporting user) to support your claim. Let us go back to the main topic instead, shall we?

@RioHondo: How many checks would you want to do then? Given your baseless assumptions of sock/meatpuppetry and now linking blocked users to which I have no affiliation from, this could count as WP:POVPUSH and WP:ROUGEE already to eliminate users based on merely competing arguments. Competing arguments must be heard equally as a pillar of WP:TRI and consensus must be respected whether or not it goes to your favor so lets just get back to the arguments on hand instead, shall we?

@Sky Harbor: With regards to the stations, I think that could be a compromise to get some things moving at least. Korean Rail Fan 06:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sky Harbor, Korean Rail Fan, Howard the Duck, RioHondo, Koressha, TagaSanPedroAko, and Truflip99: et al. My comment: I might have no right to comment any potentially controversial discussions on article titles of the Philippines-related subjects, especially after my stupid statements (due to my high impatience) at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Philippine-related_articles#Revisiting_the_comma_convention_for_article_titles_of_municipalities, which almost led me to think of retiring (but thanks to @P199: who urged me not to retire). But on article titles on stations, I agree with Sky Harbor on using the system as the disambiguation, not by the line. On the article titles of LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3, MRT-7, et cetera, I am mostly neutral. Using COMMONNAME rationale suggests the titles must go by the names like LRT-2 and MRT-7, but some might argue it to be prone to ambiguity (due to such articles being directed also towards international readers and not just Filipino readers). I suggest stable article title ~~formar~~format, with concise but firm disambiguation. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't go off-track with the discussion. How to name individual stations should be done elsewhere. This already a lenghy discussion that will result in a no-consensus status quo and apparently the current name is not even one of the choices. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: even now I can see the lack of conclusion and the eventual lack of comcensus here. Although I might be neutral here, if someone might ask what would be my stand, here it is. On LRT-1, MRT-3, etc., my first choice is the Option 1 (ex. LRT–1), since I go by what all Filipinos use. Complying COMMONNAME, but like what RioHondo said, causes ambiguity issues in the long run. And all Philippine-related articles are not wholly managed and read by all Filipinos, including us Tsinoys, and anyone in the Philippines, per Wikipedia's policies on article ownership. Hence I go to the option Sky Harbor partly prefers - Option 6 (ex. Line 1 (Manila LRT), since I find this to be the most stable. LRT-1's gonna extend to Cavite, the u.c. MRT-7's gonna reach to our province, although in a different settlement-type LGU, and the proposed LRT-4 (am I correct?) that will traverse Ortigas Avenue up to (based on some ambiguous sources) Cainta (I might be incorrect, kindly correct me please). As such, using places as disambiguation might be less stable. I go also on stability. Wait, stability is another rationale of @Seav:'s <cityname> only for uniquely-named municipalities hehe 😅 I guess I might have a firm and permenent stand for some issues on article titles, but I will wait for another editor to declare concensus regarding the uniquely-named municipalities. 😅 JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unfortunate sight to see this cumbersome, infinite loop rhubarb.

1) It seems that there is more than the mere titles of our railways; in other words, implications that go down to ancilliary titles and understanding.

2) Again, naming conventions in our transit systems are somewhat disorganized; we want to avoid WP:CRYSTAL but at the same time we would find ourselves conflicted with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CRITERIA.

3) Subtle refutation and aggressiveness are what I observe; (a) WP:BITE and WP:AGF for the allegations versus the redhead users and Korean Rail Fan. (b) WP:DR, that it seems that this false dichotomy of Line # vs [line system] has boiled down into a debate. Lastly, (c) for the instances of WP:ROUGEE, there exists WP:IAR iff that would lead us to the best. Consensus begets compromise.

Perhaps instead of muddling here, how about we discuss each and everything here in this proposed wikiproject? WikiProject:Philippine Railways Since we end up talking about "unrelated" stuff (which, in fact, could directly be impacted by a mere change name), this might be the venue to solve this conundrum. {{u|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 10:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do am very interested on the "6th choice", implying that names such as "Line 2" are the most common names for these train lines, over names such as "LRT-2" and its derivations (full names). I know people are arguing for this know in their hearts that this simply is not the case. Then why? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is even more apparent to the MRT, the "main" article of this RM. No one calls it "Line 3" in the first reference. There's even a section here called "#MRT runs at 40kph". (Sure this was in 2015.) If "Line 3" was and is the most common name, surely this person should've named that section "Line 3 runs at 40kph", but we all know he didn't. Calling the train lines "Line #" is indefensible, as long as WP:NC is concerned. Only names such as "MRT" and anything spelling out what "MRT" means comply with WP:NC. Ultimately debate is on:

Should we use LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3, or spell out what "LRT" and "MRT" mean?
Should we disambiguate, and how? Do we call it "Manila LRT-1" or "LRT-1 (Manila)"? Or use "Metro Manila"? Or use Greater Manila Area right now even though "GMA" is defined differently be everyone, and no train lines are operational outside of Metro Manila? Howard the Duck (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not want to discuss that here as again, we would be spilling away from the mere naming scheme itself. Remember, there are implications (and you are echoing it once again here) and those effects will extend from the mother pages to the ancilliary ones. We cannot only stick to mere rules, as we also need to aim for consensus. {{u|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 12:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand you. You don't want to discuss how articles are named in an WP:RM? Is that right? WP:NC is WP:POLICY. You can't just override it with mere "consensus" (and there is none). Sure, if you don't want to base argument on actual Wikipedia policies, then you'd have a hard time convincing people to your cause. The suggestions, the 1st to 5th choices, are grounded on actual policy. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Howard and Koressha, you both should know (though I would've thought Howard would've known this about me by now) that I'm not a fan of using abbreviations in article titles, and I prefer that they be kept descriptive. I'm perfectly fine with LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3, etc. in article text, but not in the titles themselves. I notice that arguments appealing to WP:CONCISE often appeal to brevity rather than familiarity, and even if it does veer towards the familiarity argument, it often does so in a way that appeals solely to Filipino readers. I get that Filipino readers are often the biggest beneficiary of articles like these, but as I mentioned earlier, I want to stress that whatever naming convention we choose has to be readable to the widest possible number of people. Yes, people by and large call the lines by their abbreviations, but that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be shown in the articles' titles themselves. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, yes. That's why we have 4th and 5th choices above for people who want to spell out "LRT" and "MRT", vs. the first 3 choices, where these are abbreviated. These are more acceptable than "Line #" which will always have to be disambiguated on article names, and will need context on article prose, no matter what. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I may be sold on Option 5, only with the Metro Manila disambiguator (seriously, we don't need to put Cavite or Bulacan in the title when the system is 90%+ in Metro Manila), but I'll await to see how this discussion unfolds. (That said, if we do disambiguate, it would often be in "Line (number) of (system)" in at least the prose I write, and that's with the way the line articles are currently structured. So I get your argument over advantages with moving to a new naming convention, but I probably missed what those advantages are when they're translated into article text.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what I've been saying all along: 1) "Metro Manila" disambiguator is not wrong at this point when there are no stations operational outside Metro Manila, and 2) "Metro Manila" per se disambiguator is still not wrong even if stations outside Metro Manila are operational. That's compromise for people who insist on being "100%" right, even on disambiguation.

Also, for actual article prose, that's a discussion for another day. We're dealing with an WP:RM here. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard, whether you like it or not, RMs will ultimately involve discussions over prose. ;) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spent the last week just reading to de-stress, and having read some transit articles and examined their names, I'm also looking toward the "Manila LRT/MRT Line [number]" scheme (as an option 7). So:

Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 (LRT-1) -> Manila LRT Line 1
Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 (LRT-2) -> Manila LRT Line 2
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 (MRT-3) -> Manila MRT Line 3
Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 7 (MRT-7) -> Manila MRT Line 7

We already have the proposed names as redirects, so why not reuse them if "LRT/MRT-x" as the article name is not favorable to a global audience and we can't agree with the disamb? Yeah, we know LRT-1 will reach Cavite and MRT7 will serve Bulacan, but they still remain part of the [Metro] Manila rapid transit system, much like the example SH provided. -TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the MRT-3 does pass through Manila, right? Howard the Duck (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that, but let's be clear that "Manila" in the proposed compromise scheme would refer to Metro Manila, and not necessarily Manila city proper (don't we Filipinos and foreigners aware of that?). You can argue the most common name don't include Manila, but with all the scuffle that's happening already here, we need to go for a compromise if "LRT/MRT-x" is too short or only favorable to us Filipinos, we can't agree with disamb, and there are a lot of precedents where the locality name is included even where the common name don't include them. --TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even Brits can distinguish between Manila and Metro Manila. Let's not further make our readers more stupid than they should be. Manila talks about the city with Isko Moreno as its mayor. Metro Manila talks about a region where Manila is a part of. I'd agree with using "Manila" to refer to the administrative region if Metro Manila is moved to Manila. There are as many definitions "Greater Manila Area" as there are presidents of the Philippines. Only "Metro Manila", and if people want to be exact, "Metro Manila and Rizal/Cavite are the valid parenthetical disambiguators, unless someone gives good proof that "Manila LRT/MRT" is the most common name of these lines... which of course, it isn't. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if my idea is not good either, I concede. We can go with option 3 ("LRT/MRT Line x") if LRT-/MRT-x is less known to our global readership, but for the disamb, Metro Manila should be fine, even where the Line crosses into provincial boundaries as with MRT-7, and the LRT-1 south extension and LRT-2 east extension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TagaSanPedroAko (talk • contribs) 06:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

I suppose this RM is not a zero-sum game. Your support on any choice doesn't mean you oppose the others. I suggest people here use this summary table:

Description	Proposal	Support	Neutral	Oppose
Abbreviated, no disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → MRT–3	Howard the Duck (talk)		Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Abbreviated, with "Metro Manila" disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → MRT–3 (Metro Manila)	Howard the Duck (talk)		Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Abbreviated, with "Line", and with "Metro Manila" disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila)	Howard the Duck (talk)	Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Not abbreviated, no disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → Metro Rail Transit Line 3	Howard the Duck (talk)		Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Not abbreviated, "Metro Manila" disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (Metro Manila)	Howard the Duck (talk) Sky Harbor ^(talk)
"Line 3", "Manila MRT" disambiguation	Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 → Line 3 (Manila MRT)	Sky Harbor ^(talk)		Howard the Duck (talk)
"Abbreviated, "Greater Manila Area" disambiguation	Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT–1 (Greater Manila Area)			Howard the Duck (talk) Sky Harbor ^(talk)
Abbreviated, operator disambiguation	Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT–1 (LRMC)		Howard the Duck (talk)	Sky Harbor ^(talk)
"Abbreviated, "Metro Manila/province" disambiguation	Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 → LRT–1 (Metro Manila and Cavite)		Howard the Duck (talk)	Sky Harbor ^(talk)

This table is more complicating since it contradicts the purpose of removing a "zero-sum game" by tabulating it like this. Also just voting for a single option to which you support is IMO a better option. Korean Rail Fan 14:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While RMs allows you to "vote" for as many choices as you want, this illustrates on where people stand. Voting on just one option, and there's only one option that will be followed is zero-sum. No consensus will develop, which is what we don't want. If there are several choices that people like, we can restrict our discussions on those instead of talking about hopeless cases. After all, nobody wants the status quo, well, at least no one is voting to keep the current name. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, it is a zero-sum game, as there's only one option that will be used. Well, actually, two as if there's no consensus, it won't be moved. There's consensus to move, just no consensus to what. This table helps us to see where we should compromise on. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

Guys, don't we continue this? The drama has died down, so get ourselves talking again. If LRT/MRT-x is too problematic, then we Go for something with LRT/MRT Line [number].

By the way, I now go for option 3. They are currently red links, so why not use them:

-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support as per nom. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Already gave my two cents and discussions like this dont solve anything TBH. Better to focus on article creation and maybe WP:BOLD moves followed by WP:BRD cos everyone has their own take on this. Looking at the brief survey above, the article creator would only agree with spelling out the LRT and MRT followed by the Metro Manila parenthetical dab (i.e, Metro Rail Transit Line 3 (Metro Manila)) which i both oppose as again, 1) Long names aren't common names, 2) Long names don't even match the operators' name for their system (MRTC calls theirs as "Mass Rapid Transit Line 3" not "Metro Rail Transit" as per their logo), and 3) the Metro Manila disambiguation does not apply to all systems. If we are to decide on a naming convention, it must apply to all.--RioHondo (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Can you elaborate your position on this again? Also, the "Metro Manila" disambiguation applies to all train lines, more so right now as all operational stations are within Metro Manila. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for the last time, you and i both know all these train lines are under construction save for the MRT 3. And by under construction i mean they are not just drawings anymore and it is only a matter of time before we see them going beyond the defined region. Even with the delays due to coronavirus, LRT 2 and MRT 7 will start serving the provinces by the next administration at most, which is only 24 months away. The ground works for the LRT 1 to Cavite has also visibly started. Weve been discussing this on and off since at least 2014 and im not gonna settle with a band aid fix now only to be bugged by the same issue before we even know it. The only way you could use Metro Manila for these train lines is if the word rail/mass transit/LRT or MRT is appended to it, e.g, LRT 2 (Metro Manila LRT) or LRT 2 (Metro Manila rail transit) (since you rejected my proposal for plain Metro Manila LRT 2). The same can apply to Masinag station (Metro Manila LRT 2) if it was ambiguous or San Jose del Monte station (Metro Manila MRT 7) also if it shares the same name with an MRT station in a Spanish speaking city. But never Masinag station (Metro Manila) nor San Jose del Monte station (Metro Manila). Come to think of it, we already have articles on those non-Metro Manila stations this early, and even a photo for Masinag so this parenthetical Metro Manila disambiguation should no longer be an option. The second realistic option like i also said many times up there is to use the operator as dab, e.g, Emerald station (LRTA) or Niog station (LRMC) just like we do railway stations like 10th Avenue station (PNR). In case people dont know PNR is not some generic rail technology being used here like LRT/MRT but is actually the state railways operator. If any of the upcoming railways lines becomes ambiguous, we also disambiguate using its operator e.g, North-South Commuter Line (PNR). What works for stations should also work for rail lines. That's what naming conventions are for. End of story. ;).--RioHondo (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for the last time, you and i both know all these train lines are under construction save for the MRT 3. And by under construction i mean they are not just drawings anymore and it is only a matter of time before we see them going beyond the defined region. Even with the delays due to coronavirus, LRT 2 and MRT 7 will start serving the provinces by the next administration at most, which is only 24 months away. The ground works for the LRT 1 to Cavite has also visibly started. Weve been discussing this on and off since at least 2014 and im not gonna settle with a band aid fix now only to be bugged by the same issue before we even know it.

I can understand this, but WP:NC can only apply to present time. We cannot look into the future. This is like with the old rebrandings of LRT-2 to "Megatren". Even when they were pushing this in the early 2000s, nobody used it. We can only base on WP:NC on the present time.

The only way you could use Metro Manila for these train lines is if the word rail/mass transit/LRT or MRT is appended to it, e.g, LRT 2 (Metro Manila LRT) or LRT 2 (Metro Manila rail transit) (since you rejected my proposal for plain Metro Manila LRT 2).

How so? WP:ATDIS, #3 allows for "LRT–1 (Metro Manila)". To distinguish the "LRT–1" in Metro Manila, the logical parenthetical disambiguator is where it is at. I'd probably agree with your line of thinking if there are more than LRT–1s in Metro Manila, and we'd have to distinguish either on another way. Since this isn't the case, the location on where is it is appropriate.

The same can apply to Masinag station (Metro Manila LRT 2) if it was ambiguous or San Jose del Monte station (Metro Manila MRT 7) also if it shares the same name with an MRT station in a Spanish speaking city. But never Masinag station (Metro Manila) nor San Jose del Monte station (Metro Manila).

This is cute, but is outside the scope of this RM. I'd argue though that for Masinag, Masinag station (LRT) works quite well. Unless there's also another Masinag LRT station somewhere that we'd have to distinguish those from each other. Are there any?

The second realistic option like i also said many times up there is to use the operator as dab, e.g, Emerald station (LRTA) or Niog station (LRMC) just like we do railway stations like 10th Avenue station (PNR). In case people dont know PNR is not some generic rail technology being used here like LRT/MRT but is actually the state railways operator.

The PNR has been with Luzon people ever since Rizal was alive. They know that it is the state railway operator. It also is a good way to distinguish between LRT/MRT/trams (God how would we name tram stations if they still existed!). PNR can mean many different things, instead of just "the state railway operator". It can also mean "the train line from Tutuban to Bicol", or the service per se, just as San Miguel can either mean the corporation, beer or basketball team.
I'm curious though on why you oppose the RM as currently stated. How does this violate anything at WP:NC? Howard the Duck (talk) 11:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are aiming for a standard that would be applied to all, i.e, a rail station and line naming convention for PH which currently does not have one. Does (Metro Manila) work for all train lines and stations? If location isnt possible, there is the operator or system disambiguation. Currently the only available articles to use for disambiguation is at Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System (if you exclude LRTA/LRMC/MRTC). Actually, until those have been renamed to shorter and more recognizable titles, or a new article covering those at your preferred dab have been created, we shouldnt be even having this discussion. The main article is never Metro Manila as for the nth time, these systems cover a network beyond Metro Manila although it is partially operating within the region as of the moment. The main article has always been Sky Harbor's article and therefore the dab should be at LRT 1 (Manila Light Rail Transit System) until that has been changed or a new one created. End of story ;).--RioHondo (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are aiming for a standard that would be applied to all, i.e, a rail station and line naming convention for PH which currently does not have one.

Awww me too!

Does (Metro Manila) work for all train lines and stations?

Yes. At this point, all LRT and MRT stations, 100% of it, operate solely in Metro Manila.

If location isnt possible, there is the operator or system disambiguation. Currently the only available articles to use for disambiguation is at Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System (if you exclude LRTA/LRMC/MRTC).

We should probably make articles for the operators, but for the service/product, we do and can use LRT or MRT or PNR.

Actually, until those have been renamed to shorter and more recognizable titles, or a new article covering those at your preferred dab have been created, we shouldnt be even having this discussion.

Dude, we're actually doing that right now. On this RM. What are you talking about?

The main article is never Metro Manila as for the nth time, these systems cover a network beyond Metro Manila although it is partially operating within the region as of the moment.

For LRT and MRT, 100% of its stations that are operational are at Metro Manila. I triple checked. Look, I can't even understand what "The main article is never Metro Manila" supposedly means. Are you saying you can't disambiguate "(Metro Manila)" to a service currently 100% serving Metro Manila?

The main article has always been Sky Harbor's article and therefore the dab should be at LRT 1 (Manila Light Rail Transit System) until that has been changed or a new one created.

What? Unbelievable. How does not violate WP:NATDIS? It's like placing Association football to Soccer (association football). Similarly named train lines are disambiguated per place. See for example Light Rail Transit (Singapore). If you object to using Metro Manila because some stations will be operational outside of this region, as conceded earlier, I'm more than happy to disambiguate with "Metro Manila/Rizal" or "Metro Manila/Cavite", as the case may be. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

End of story ;).

LOL. Let's tackle the enumerated reasons why he won't support the suggested title:

Long names aren't common names
- WP:ACRONYMTITLE: One general exception to this rule deals with our strong preference for natural disambiguation. Many acronyms are used for several things; naming a page with the full name helps to avoid clashes. For instance, multiple TV/radio broadcasting companies share the initials ABC; even though some may be far better known by that acronym, our articles on those companies are found at, for example, American Broadcasting Company rather than ABC (American TV network). In this case, if we can't use LRT nor MRT, we are supposed to spell it out. Again, I have no problem spelling out what "LRT/MRT" means as this is 100% compliant with the WP:MOS.
Long names don't even match the operators' name for their system (MRTC calls theirs as "Mass Rapid Transit Line 3" not "Metro Rail Transit" as per their logo
- A supplement to WP:NC, WP:OFFICIALNAME: People often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, that name is 'ipso facto' the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy. WP:NC itself reads Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. In other words, what MRTC calls its service doesn't matter. What matters is what our reliable sources call MRTC's service is.
the Metro Manila disambiguation does not apply to all systems
- I won't answer this one as this has been thoroughly discredited, and an actual alternative has been brought up that should satisfy this objection, and I suppose @TagaSanPedroAko: won't oppose using "Metro Manila and Rizal/Cavite". Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh! Do you really have to write this long all the time? Lol. I dont see any RM btw. Look above. There is no activity at Talk:Manila Light Rail Transit System and Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System either. Again, those are currently these article's parents not Metro Manila. Initiate the RM there first or create a new parent for these lines. Then come back to bug us again here once that's done to move these articles dab to the new target. Again and again, we cant use Metro Manila for LRT 2, MRT 7 and LRT 1 as their networks and stations have already been identified here with their own articles, no matter how long your replies are. Any project that has been identified to serve other areas can not simply be passed off or falsely labelled as particular to only one area. I dont care if the Cavite-Laguna Expressway only goes up to Santa Rosa at the moment from SLEX, it still isnt Laguna's alone. Even if MRT 7 partially opens up to Fairview only by next year, we know it's still a Bulacan line. If you still dont get it, there's nothing more i can do. Maybe just watch more netflix than compare policies here ;).--RioHondo (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I dont see any RM btw. Look above. There is no activity at Talk:Manila Light Rail Transit System

Talk:Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1#Move discussion in progress. LOL.

and Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System either

Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3#Requested move 5 May 2020 HOLY CRAP YOU'RE EDITING THE EXACT SAME SECTION. WHAT IS WRONG IS WITH YOU?

Again, those are currently these article's parents not Metro Manila.

I don't understand. Article's parents?

Initiate the RM there first or create a new parent for these lines. Then come back to bug us again here once that's done to move these articles dab to the new target.

My god. You. Are. Editing. On. The. Section. Where. We. Are. Discussing. The. RM.

Again and again, we cant use Metro Manila for LRT 2, MRT 7 and LRT 1 as their networks and stations have already been identified here with their own articles, no matter how long your replies are.

You aren't even acknowledging "Metro Manila and Rizal/Cavite" as a parenthetical disambiguator are you?

I dont care if the Cavite-Laguna Expressway only goes up to Santa Rosa at the moment from SLEX, it still isnt Laguna's alone.

Where are you even getting this. Dude. Seriously.

Even if MRT 7 partially opens up to Fairview only by next year, we know it's still a Bulacan line.

Ummm it's both a Metro Manila and Bulacan line? Wouldn't "Metro Manila and Bulacan" work for you?

If you still dont get it, there's nothing more i can do.

Currently, COVID-19 disruption notwithstanding, all stations are in Metro Manila. 100% of the stations are in Metro Manila. At the current time, the Metro Manila disambiguation applies. This is not wrong at all. If you still dont get it, there's nothing more i can do. More than 3 people acknowledged that even if stations outside Metro Manila open, the Metro Manila disambiguator is still valid. It's a disambiguatory part of the title. It's supposed to disambiguate, not totally define what the article is about (or situated). Howard the Duck (talk) 14:34, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we use MM disamb for the meantime until the sections outside the metro opens, but regarding LRT or MRT on the proposed names, I oppose spelling them out if their full written form can be found in the lede or determined by context, and the parts of the name can tell it's a Metro Manila rapid transit line.

On the names of the system articles (the parent article of the article we're discussing), I support moving them to something shorter like "Light Rail Transit (Metro Manila)" and "Metro Rail Transit (Metro Manila)" respectively. Their present titles are both too long, and the names are not the common name either.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be okay spelling it out, as per the ABC/American Broadcasting Company example that was stated in WP:ACRONYMTITLE. I'd suggest conceding on this so that we can get this article moved away from the current title nobody wants. I suppose most people have semblance of an idea on what "LRT" and "MRT" means.

Can we keep things in order? This RM is for moving the train line articles. For discussion on individual station names and systems, I suggest on making a separate RM. We can't get too distracted by this. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. What was all that ranting about up there? At least Tagasanpedroako figured it out immediately. Err, only the lines are up for RM here?...Maybe this will help:

Manila Light Rail Transit System (Daddy)
- Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 1 (Me)
- Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 (Little sister)
Manila Metro Rail Transit System (Mommy)
- Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 (Half brother)

Is daddy and mommy under RM? Who is LRT 1 (Metro Manila) and MRT 3 (Metro Manila)? If daddy adopts a different surname and i am below 18, our surnames will also change, including mom's and half brother if they so choose. Lol. There is no changing these kids names unless their parents do so first within the bounds of law ;) If the parent articles are titled Manila LRT and Manila MRT, then those kids would be at either LRT 1 (Manila LRT) or LRT Line 1 (Manila LRT) and MRT 3 (Manila MRT). Is common sense not common now? That's where these lines got their titles from in the first place! So the change must come from the parents first. And i dont support Tagasanpedroako's band aid fix either for all the reasons I have been raising here repeatedly. The system or operator is the only way to go for this tri-region rail system.--RioHondo (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, we are narrowing down this RM to these choices: options 3 ("LRT/MRT Line x (Metro Manila)", with possible accommodations for extensions outside MM), option 5 (same as previous except we spell out LRT and MRT) KRF's option 6 ("Line x (system/operator)") and a new option 8 of yours ("MRT/LRT Line x (operator)", which would result in LRT Line 1 (LRMC), LRT Line 2 (LRTA), MRT Line 3 (MRTC), and MRT Line 7 (SMC-MRT7))? If we want to keep with the common name guideline, then we choose between options 3 and 8, but I think we better pursue option 3, and make the accommodations for the segments outside MM opens. @RioHondo: The option 8 based on your arguments would be problematic as disambiguation by operator hides away where it's located, and readers care little about the companies that operates them.

Now then, if there are two conflicting meaning of MRT, go with the short form and have the lede explain it to the reader. We can also go with abbreviating LRT for consistency and conciseness (the name already implies it's a light rail line). Just my two cents.-TagaSanPedroAko (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did say system OR operator. But since the Manila Light Rail Transit System and Manila Metro Rail Transit System are the current source of the article titles here, they would have to go first, either an RM for those parents or a new article merging those parents from which to source these lines from. Their networks spanning three regions is not called Metro Manila. Regardless of the status of those line projects, their service areas have been identified, approved, and already being laid to cover areas outside of it. Those service areas may be in Luzon or Greater Manila Area but not Metro Manila alone. It's like the Washington Metro in DC that services areas in Virgina and Maryland. Its individual lines are disambiguated by this system, and not (Washington D.C.) obviously, not even (Washington D.C & Virginia) or Maryland or any of those weird combinations). Change the parent system articles first if you dislike (Greater Manila Area) or (Luzon). Ill see you guys at the parent systems talk if ever. For now, these lines were all named from and dependent on those two system articles created by SH. These RMs are all invalid anyway without the parent articles changing names first.--RioHondo (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—This tiring thread (and its sequel) is not entirely useless, but this only emphasizes the fact that we have not established what is our own yet. I also agree with RioHondo's reply. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 10:33, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep on refuting/counterarguing on discussions like this, this and possibly future threads would be unnecessarily spoiled and become unhealthy. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 10:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The argument you agree with doesn't make sense. You cannot disambiguate with "Metro Manila", where 100% of current operational stations (COVID withstanding) are, and instead would disambiguate the long form of the article? It's like naming "Georgia (U.S. state)" to "Georgia (State of Georgia)" (This doesn't even make sense as the country of Georgia is also a state). If you'll cap this argument as "End of story", other people will LOL.

Seriously people, the arguments against are laughable to the point that the closing admin should read the absurdity of it all and then dismiss it. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koresha:, I'm intrigued on your support on this. What exactly do you support? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather push for a Wikiproject that would help us accomplish this job easier; then again, define what is our own. I am honestly disappointed to see such a long thread of refutations (which makes it harder to 1) navigate at this cumbersome thread, and 2) gain consensus or even formulate which stand to support within here) and that it seems that chunks of this thread conflicts with civility and respect, and that Wikipedia rules are not that carved in stone but rather can be interpreted in various ways by time or when certain rules would be best applicable if not all. Take RioHondo's statements: moving names of baby articles do require adjustments to the parent names.

Quoting alone each sentence then saying "oh this point IS wrong" further lengthens the whole thing. Now @Howard the Duck: I am curious; what are you really pushing for in this RM discussion? And to answer your question: given this thread is longer than your six-car Line 2 Katipunan station, I suppose I have nothing to support now within this tangled RM discussion.

{{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 05:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious; what are you really pushing for in this RM discussion?

I suppose you know what RMs are for? It is for moving out of the current title that no one wants. In this Part 2, at least three distinct people User:Howard the Duck, User:TagaSanPedroAko and User:Itsquietuptown have already supported the amended proposal. Combining parts 1 and 2, a minimum of 2 other people are okay with "(Metro Manila)" for disambiguation: User: Sky Harbor and User:LSGH. A minimum of one other user is okay with "LRT/MRT", User:Truflip99. This means these people are okay with "LRT/MRT" and/or spelling it out, and using "Metro Manila" for disambiguation purposes.

I figured not refuting anymore the replies would work and I would suggest nesting all those so that other people can chip in. A consensus is slowly emerging from all of this, and it's clear that at least 5 different people prefer "LRT/MRT" or spelling out the acronyms are the clear front runners in what the WP:NC is as per WP:RS, and since we have to distinguish what LRT/MRT is, places are the universally used disambiguation, with "(Metro Manila)" emerging as the consensus pick on what to use it for. User:Truflip99's observation of WP:SPA hold true, as well, so I disregard those wholesale, aside from the fact that it was copy-pasted from somewhere.

Speaking of "from somewhere", we'd rather formulate policy on RMs than discussing endless on project-space, then RM it, then other people who had no idea you guys discussed something are all flabbergasted and exclaim "where did this came from?!" This is something I learned from what was alluded to the WP:MOSPHIL discussion, where people discussed about it, then attempted to impose it to all articles, only to find out that other people wanted to do it some other way. Those long-winded discussions on whether to use Cainta, Rizal or Cainta (WP:MOSPHIL required "Cainta, Rizal") all went down the drain because guess where Cainta, Rizal is now? Discuss things of consequence on processes that involve consequences, such as RMs, AFDs and the like, rather than discussing it somewhere then say "THIS IS CONSENSUS". Then the consensus (or none of it), that's what you say is the consensus. Howard the Duck (talk) 05:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: I disagree on formulating policies based on separate, individual RMs. That would be too messy and inefficient. A wikiproject would help consolidate all discussions into a single, central page. If people disagree with the consensus made within the wikiproject, then they're free to make an RM. Plus, its not like the people outside the wikiproject aren't allowed to participate in discussions. Itsquietuptown t • c 07:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsquietuptown: RMs can move multiple articles, not just one. See for example the Tutuban PNR station RM, that has a lot of articles included on it, or this one where we'd moving 4 articles on a single discussion. We can build on each RM so aside from individual stations, the consensus formed can be used on RMs on individual lines, stations, operators, etc. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Howard the Duck: While RMs alone can move multiple articles, we must not forget that 1) there's a lot of old, defunct railway stuff that can have separate naming conventions, 2) yup there's PNR, but the sentence case "station" can be practically used in ancillary titles of these mother pages in this RM hullabaloo. 3) Again, we have not yet defined what is our own. RM discussions tackles only the main, parent-page titles within the request focus; WikiProjects can discuss anything within its scope. Separate RM discussions can also cause WP:FORUMSHOP.
Take article layouts for example, LRTA 1000 class and LRTA 2000 class; both may be Philippine train-related articles, but look: they have significantly different sections. It is confusing to decide alone whether to merge/redo/rewrite sections or not, since there is no specific logic to follow. To realize that the layouts are different hurts my eyes! Ergo, 4) non-article title issues such as article layouts can be best adhered to by members of a Wikiproject as these rules and standards are obligated to be present at the project's main page. @Itsquietuptown: already said some of the points that had to be said and what I and @RioHondo: keep on saying before.
Aaaaaand... "recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency should be seen as goals, not as rules." :) {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 11:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Thats cause there's too much at stake here you know? Lol. We dont want to dissappoint the readers of the region's oldest and most reliable train lines. ;)--RioHondo (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support option 3. Even though the rail lines will be extended beyond Metro Manila, the lines' primary purpose is to transport passengers to and from Metro Manila. just my opinion... Itsquietuptown t • c 09:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still need to read this entire thing more thoroughly, as I thought the discussion would already wind down when the standard 7 days waiting time for an RM is done. I think the third option would work best, but I'm thinking of a minor variation there, where Metro Manila is placed before LRT or MRT so that we could avoid using the parenthesis dab altogether. The last three options in the same table do not look so good to the eyes; we do not need to include in the title those places that are outside of Metro Manila. Adding the name of the operators would make sense only if these operators actually run several lines within the same locality. This is the case in several cities around the world, but not in Metro Manila, where each operator is responsible for one line only. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why we can't use "Metro Manila LRT"/"Metro Manila MRT" because the most prevalent name isn't "Metro Manila LRT"/"Metro Manila MRT", but just plain old "LRT"/"MRT". Disambiguation can be spelling out what "LRT"/"MRT" means, but that won't cut it on this example because "LRT" and "MRT" are one of the most common names for train lines such as this. That's why we're stuck with disambiguating with the place name in parenthesis. Howard the Duck (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me now. That explains why it was never placed first in any of those suggestions. But LRT and MRT should still be abbreviated. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 09:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Option 3. Going back from a slight hiatus, the only choices I support are maintaining status quo "Manila Light Rail Transit Line x" / "Manila Metro Rail Transit Line x", etc or my proposed option 6. I agree with the "Daddy-Mommy" logic of RioHondo as for me there is really no need to rename the articles. But should it be deemed to do so, then renaming them into option 6 would IMO still go under the "Daddy-Mommy" logic. Korean Rail Fan 10:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Invitation to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Philippine Railways

Good day. I have set up a proposal for the creation of WikiProject Philippine Railways. This proposed WikiProject aims to oversee all Philippine railway-related articles. Your support is greatly appreciated. —Hiwilms (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post-RM discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Line #" is everywhere!

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

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

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

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

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

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:

MRT-3 Ayala Station Exterior 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stations list with collapsible transfers

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

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