Talk:Light Rail Transit (Singapore)

message: We really need a real major cleanup and improve this page. There should be locators like at MRT stations and photos for every station. A map is also needed and a lot of information is needed here. We need lots of work here. :P 
We have to do something about this article and it needs urgent cleanup. The least we can do is do some summary to the page first. This article is of poor standards. This is not good at all. We need to do a major cleanup, for it to gain better status. Photos are very urgent here. Please take a look and comment whether this article should be the COTW. 
The Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore) article is a long page, whereas this one is of low standards and needs a cleanup. This article is a mess. if I can put it. --Terence Ong |Talk 08:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvements to page

message: I notice some sub-pages, like those of the Depots, are rather short. I suggest that we either improve on these sub-pages, or incorporate them into this page. Also, Punggol LRT Line seems rather outdated. --fauzi 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: We need lots of research to this article. We should improve the sub-pages and summarise the information. Try to take ideas from our MRT article. Also when updating, you may also like to edit it here. --Terence Ong Talk 06:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to sub-pages

message: Our inaugural COTF has been very successful and there'a very big difference from what it was before to what it is now. See difference . However, there are still many tasks to improve this article. --Terence Ong 14:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done! 

message: User:Ragnaroknike insisted that the text I reverted is verifiable. He took it from a book, Resource Atlas for Social Studies which he purposely scan it and create an uploaded on Wikipedia. The image can be found here. It is unacceptable to scan pictures from a book which is definitely a copyvio. 
This text has been reverted several times by three users: NSLE, Kenneth88 and myself.
LTA had once proposed building LRT lines at Orchard Road and Marina South. Orbital LRT lines at Bedok and Tampines linking Serangoon - Bishan - Buona Vista and Houngang - Ang Mo Kio - Toa Payoh are under study.
I never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this. This was a specteculation by the book and the future orbital LRT Lines are unverifiable as LTA has never mentioned it. This is definitely crystall-ballism which is not allowed. We are an encyclopedia not some "what will happen in the future" website. --Terence Ong 04:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How long have you been tracking statements by the LTA, or by the URA? Plans to build a rail line along Orchard Road and Marina South are for real (the Orchard Rd plan was pretty recent, in fact, while the Marina South one was at least a decade old), and the orbital line actually refers to the current circle line under construction, albeit it is refering to a much earlier plan which envisaged a network of LRT lines instead of the current plan employing a combination of both. There are indeed LRT lines planned for the East as well as Northeast regions. A book as old as "The Next Lap" already details these early plans.--Huaiwei 11:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, the comment was made in April. Please note the time difference its almost five months since you made this comment, check dates for goodness sake. The Circle Line (Marina South) was always tagged as a MRT line, not a LRT line. But the problem is there is no sources for this. Show me the sources for the Orchard one then? Proof it? No source, no proof. Don't use your wild imagination, does the papers ever carry such information. The answer is no. Ok, then do source it then, if you have the time to do so. Aren't the lines part of the MRT? --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool down please :D. Huaiwei was just asking how confident you were about "never recalled the Land Transport Authority saying this", and whether you would be familiar with earlier plans, say 10 years ago. I do remember LRT proposals for Dover (NUS students would remember this) and Marina South. This again serves as reminder of how old I am, :P  --Vsion 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah I even have a newspaper cutting of the proposed LRT system in Buona Vista. Anyway, the system isnt entirely thrown out of the window...there are still plans for a PMS system with links to NUS if the one-north concept plan is to be implimented in full  (click on transport map).--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should five months make a difference here, when plans for those rail lines in question date several years back, sometimes even several decades? Pick up "The Next Lap", a book published in 1991 (which I was compelled to buy as a student by my school), which shows a Concept Plan with LRT lines snaking through the Eastern areas of Hougang, Aljunied, Marine Parade, Tampines, Pasir Ris. Sengkang, Punggol, and Seletar. The routings mirror part of the current Circle Line, as well as the planned Northshore Line. Since decades ago, there has been much talk on a "downtown LRT system", linking up the New Downtown with the rest of the city, and various routing proposals could be seen many decades earlier. Refer to past Singapore Master Plans and Concept Plans for this. The current Concept Plan of 2001  clearly shows plans to build an MRT/LRT line along Orchard Road, as well as along the Scotts Road/Paterson Road corridor. It also clearly shows the entire range of proposed LRT lines in all the areas listed in the original book above. Just because plans were changed to accomodate a new Circle line dosent mean the non-existance of previous plans which include LRT lines, so quit assuming "wild imaginations" are at play here. Your ignorance is no excuse to berate others who happen to "know better".--Huaiwei 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by that? Show the cutting then, scan it, I want proof. Oh, trying to find fault with me, is it? Then go and cite it, why discuss it? Arguing will not benefit at all, then you go and do it since you are the smart one. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which "cutting" are you referring to, my friend?--Huaiwei 15:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper cutting you were talking about. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I talked about that cutting I was referring to the Buona Vista system, which has nothing to do with whatever User:Ragnaroknike tried to add. Furthermore, I was conversing with Vision with regards to that cutting, and not with you. I suppose you consider it gracious to demand for a cutting you do not deserve, but no, I am not going to scan a copyrighted article just to put a check on your run-away gap.--Huaiwei 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to have a private conversation, go and talk among yourselves on email and on Windows Live. Do consider that this is a wiki, anyone can edit, so don't think it is between you and Vsion. --Terence Ong (T | C) 15:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AMK, Orchard, Marina South, Tampines, Toa Payoh Lines.???? 

message: I think we need more images for the stations, even if they are not opened, such as Soo Teck LRT Station. -User:Ragnaroknike
:Please don't expect me to go to a remote place to take some stations pics. I don't live in the North-East, so I can't do it. --Terence Ong (T | C) 12:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images for stations

message: Are there any figures for LRT ridership and the operator's cost per passenger compared to buses?  LTA's decision would seem to indicate that the LRTs are a failure from this point of view. Jpatokal 08:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Failure" seems too strong a word to be applied to all three LRT systems. At least in Sengkang, it seems to be doing well. The problem is the high capital costs invovled in introducing it to existing towns were there has never been a provision made for LRT systems, and the resulting backlash it can create should the public complain that it does not offer them doorstep service the way buses do (which LRTs in their current configurations can never do).--Huaiwei 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridership and cost 

message: :Image:NS logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

message: As oahiyeel has recently attempted to censor all past comments on this issue in his talkpages by labelling it an "eyesore", I provide a link here for ease of reference. Refer specifically to the section headlined "Light Rapid Transit"--Huaiwei (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention, also, a rather interesting comment in the edit history as recorded here.--Huaiwei (talk) 15:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's an interesting comment, but it states the truth. - oahiyeel talk 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive of discussions

message: I don't have a strong opinion on whether Rail or Rapid is "more" correct, but it's obvious that both terms are consistently used even by very authoritative sources (LTA, MOF, URA, etc), so the article body should definitely mention the other — and now it does. Jpatokal (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Including the names

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Light Rail Transit (Singapore). 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/20131022195642/http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=8a70fc51-fd2a-4793-ac12-700db7586496
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified