Talk:LRT Line 2 (Metro Manila)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [[1]] 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)

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)

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)

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: [2].
• Current LRT-1 maps refer to it as LRT-2: [3].
• Announcements from LRTA also use LRT-2: [4]. Even their name on Twitter is LRT2.
• Recent news articles call it LRT-2: [5].
• Tickets use LRT-2: [6].

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 [7]. Before the website update, it was referred to as MRT-2. Nevertheless, a 2004 article used LRT-2 to refer to the line: [8].

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)

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)