Talk:HarbourFront MRT station

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) 23:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NS logo.jpg

message: I have removed the following section from this article:
:Incidents
:At about 10:30 am on 7 November 2006, the amount of waiting time displayed on the screens at the station platforms shows 20 minutes between trains and most commuters took it in their stride though, since the morning rush hour was over by then. A spokesperson from SBS Transit said that the slight delay was due to technical fault and normal train services resumed soon after.
It clearly does not add anything relevant to the article and is not sourced in any event. - Mark 14:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section 

message: With CCL stage 6, would HarbourFront retain its destination number or would it be transferred to another station or done away with, as LTA's maps as of now does not show destinations number 9 and 10. Should the number be removed or do we keep it for now? - 1.02 editor (talk) 10:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Destination number  

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: Over the past few weeks, User:Oahiyeel has been adding platform layout diagrams to multiple MRT station articles. I believed that some of them were not notable and removed them, but he added them back, or added statements in the article about them.
Looking at other discussions regarding these layouts (like at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2020#Closure_of_2019_station_layout_RFC), users note that such layouts should only be added if the layout is notable (that is, if elements are stated in reliable sources). With regard to the Singapore MRT, I believe that this can be applied as thus:
* Layouts for stations in which the track layouts are relatively complex and are mentioned in reliable sources (e.g at Raffles Place MRT station and Tanah Merah MRT station) should be retained, and also mentioned in prose
* Layouts for stations with additional features (e.g. cripple sidings) that are described in reliable sources, but are not as complex, should not be added, with the feature just described in prose.
* For features in stations that are not mentioned in reliable sources, they should not be present in the article (in either diagram or prose)
Please feel free to comment on how this should be approached.
(Pinging  for comment) R22-3877 (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, to be clear I did not add back any layout diagrams that were removed. I had created diagrams mostly for interchange stations which contains more than 1 line, or stations with additional features like sidings/crossovers or for turnarounds. I do agree some of these diagrams, especially of non interchanges are quite simple, and have no issues with them being removed if deemed not notable.  - oahiyeel talk 07:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oahiyeel I understand, but also, especially for the interchanges, I believe that some of the diagrams (like at Outram Park MRT station) don't add much as a whole. IMO, track layouts for most of these should be separated by line, as in many cases, placing multiple lines' track layouts together makes it confusing. R22-3877 (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole idea was to show the tracks and platforms in relation to each other at the station. If they were separate layouts then there wouldn't be a point having the diagram as there wouldn't be useful/notable (?) information.  - oahiyeel talk 09:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Oahiyeel Regarding the interchange diagrams, could you elaborate on how showing the tracks and platforms in relation to each other is useful to the reader (for articles like MacPherson MRT station and Outram Park MRT station? R22-3877 (talk) 08:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of track layouts to MRT station articles