Talk:SBS Transit

message: Where is the ridership figures obtained? The figures on this page seem a lot more than the source this article quoted. --unkx80 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ridership 

message: A recent AFD at Articles for deletion/SBS Transit has been closed as keep, and as such I am tagging this article so that content can be split into this recently created page. See also: Talk:Trillium Line#Trillium Line. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into a separate article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on SBS Transit. 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/20140703122517/http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/downtown-line/stages.html to http://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/downtown-line/stages.html
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) 15:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone create the Volvo B8L artical? TheBusBoy984 (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volvo B8L 

message: As it is the same organization, just privatized in 1997 and rebranded in 2001, suggest Singapore Bus Service be merged into this article. Blueroom6 (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - same entity. Besides SBS Transit (railway company) is already a separate article, which mean SBS Transit article is mainly just about the bus services which was formerly Singapore Bus Service. In fact, the railway company article can also be merged into the main SBS Transit article. The information about DelGro (and previously Singapore Bus Service (1978) Ltd) can be merged into ComfortDelGro article. Marcnut1996 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Support Both are the same. R22-3877 (talk) 09:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Would you have a reliable source disputing the sentence? As per your request to read Automatic train operation, I have reviewed all the lines before the North East Line. Most of the ATO-runned lines have elevated portions and do not disprove the North East Line's claim to be the first fully automated underground metro. The Glasgow Subway, though fully underground, requires a driver to close the doors, which is not the case of the NEL. The Montreal Metro is only listed as "semi-automatic control" without further details. Seloloving (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: We have not discussed it. Would you kindly respond to my reply here, as I did to your edit summary? Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Hi Seloving! The initial text stated that the NEL would be "the world's first fully underground and automated rapid transit line". This clearly without any doubt is a plain wrong statement. It is neither the first fully underground transit line (obviously), nor the first fully automated transit line , nor the first fully underground and automated transit line. For example, Paris Metro Line 14 opened in 1998 is both fully underground and fully automated . You then cancelled my deletion adding additional references. I checked the first reference (on dnvgl.com, which by the way is not a very serious source to determine the status of the NEL as the source is just a press release of a subsystem supplier...) which in fact does not refer to the NEL being "the world's first fully underground and automated rapid transit line" (as initially stated in the article) but as "the world’s first fully automated and driverless high-capacity rapid transit line". Making a distinction between high-capacity and less higher capacity is in my eyes not very serious, but I guess that's how you can defend somehow the idea that the NEL was different than the Lille VAL, Vancouver Skytrain or Paris Line 14 (which has much more capacity than Lille or Vancouver but which still has a lower vehicle profile than the NEL). The second source, which I did not check before making my edits earlier this weekend, and which is also a press release (from Alstom ) states that the NEL would be "the first driverless heavy metro line in the world ". This is again not the same than stating "the first fully underground and automated rapid transit line" or what the dnvgl.com site says. I just took the time to read everything again and modify again the article. I now found the answer, which is a bit different than the press releases referenced want us to believe but which still makes the NEL a first: the NEL is the first metro line with complete heavy rail characteristics . It is in that sense that it is unique. I hope you are now ok with my edits. --Fmjwiki (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the very satisfactory response. However, I will be satisfied with the current version of the page. Seloloving (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First fully automated underground metro 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion