Talk:Silom Line

Thailand Low‑importance

	Thailand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thailand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thailand-related articles on Wikipedia. The WikiProject is also a part of the Counteracting systematic bias group aiming to provide a wider and more detailed coverage on countries and areas of the encyclopedia which are notably less developed than the rest. If you would like to help improve this and other Thailand-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.ThailandWikipedia:WikiProject ThailandTemplate:WikiProject ThailandThailand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

More information:
/
	This article lacks references.
	It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Cleanup message

Bot identified the article as needed cleanup and put the relevant maintenance tags. Please fix the identified problems. If you think the maintenance tags were put in error then just revert the bot's edits. If you have any questions please contact the bot owner.

Yours truly AlexNewArtBot 14:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

Bts skytrain train.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prefix

I waited for quite many days for an answer and did not get any proof for your changes. I suggest to keep the status quo ante until solid proof is supplied.−Woodstone (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yappofloyd has shown time and time again that they aren't interested in engaging in any consensus-building process, only steamrolling through talk pages with rationalisations of their own opinions without considering anyone else's, tiring out everyone else. I suggest going straight to dispute resolution. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect Paul_012, your previous stated idea of consensus is when only one person agreed with you which is in fact not actually consensus. It is premature to canvass dispute resolution when this discussion has just started and it would be useful to receive input from others.

Previously, I did advance the prefix point regarding reverting the MRT name after you made title changes again earlier this year. Thereafter, I abided by the decision of 4 others - 3 of which have never contributed to the Bangkok mass transit articles but the decision had some sound basis and was made which I respect. I contend your opinions characterisation, my contributions are based on facts with linked official references/documents which I clearly provided in the previous MRT Yellow line discussion in 2017. This in response to you not knowing that the MRT Yellow and MRT Pink lines were MRT lines, "it's doubtful that the pink and yellow lines will be considered part of the MRT" This even though they had always been MRT lines and were tendered as such by the MRTA back in 2017. Yet, you were very adamant that we didn't know "though this remains to be seen" even though I linked official reports to the Thai Stock Exchange and MRTA documents.

I'm committed to consensus-building but the talk process should ideally involve others, not just one other users view. I also believe that those that make regular contributions should be accorded the time to offer the views as it is entirely respectful for those that take the time to contribute to these BKK mass transit articles.Yappofloyd (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstone, I added the prefix of BTS to the Silom line (didn't change the article title) when making a major edit adding further information to the article on 21 November as the line is officially called "BTS Skytrain Silom line". You undid that just the prefix edits on 23 November. I redid the edit on 24 November and I provided two sources to you for that, the official BTS online map and referred to BTSC Annual reports. I can also refer to previous BMA tender documents which are not currently available online. Later, on 4 December you started a talk discussion which is useful to which no one had replied and I wanted to wait until others had. I suggested that you wait for further input to which there was none until today. I still suggest to wait for further inputs from other users.

Most pax users refer to both lines as BTS, this is also the official name and accordingly it seems reasonable to reflect that especially when the main article is titled, "BTS Skytrain" not just Skytrain. I would actually say that it is inconsistent to have the main article titled "BTS Skytrain" and the two related articles not use the BTS prefix. ( I also note that the icon links used on all BKK transit pages are titled, BTS). One of your rationales is that it adds to visual clutter which seems rather strange given that the prefix was only added 5 times in the article. If that is the main issue for you then I suggest just keeping BTS Sukhumvit Line for the Legend/Summary box and the extensions section? Would that solve the issue?

The question seems very simple, is this a BTS line or not? Further, does it improve consistency, and the accuracy of the article to use the BTS prefix or does the inclusion of BTS prefix create confusion or is it somehow incorrect? If you believe that it is not a BTS line or that including the BTS prefix adds confusion then please do articulate why as I cannot see that is does. Anyway, can we please just wait until others offer their views on the matter, especially those that have contributed to the BTS articles. It would be appreciate to have others views on the matter. Also, I'll note that there are significant updates to the article needed regarding the proposed Taling Chan ext and the Saphan Taksin station duplication project if you have the time as, often I don't, and these are on my to do list Yappofloyd (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES the name to be used is not necessarily the official name, but rather the most commonly used name that is likely to be encountered by the readers. How many times will they read the BTSC Annual Report? As I checked recently the bare names "Silom line" and "Sukhumvit line" are uniformly used without prefix in the following places daily seen by users or the Skytrain:

the signage in the stations
the maps in and around the stations
the ticketing machines
the dynamic displays in the trains
the online "area maps"

The overall header title on some maps is "BTS Skytrain Route Map", but the prefix "BTS" is practically nowhere used in combination with Silom or Sukhumvit. The official name of the system may be BTS Skytrain, but that does not carry over to the individual lines.

It is of no importance if these lines belong to an organisation called BTS. What counts is how the lines are named in the real world around the readers.

You mention consistency with other articles about transport in Bangkok. If I'm not mistaken, that is because it is User:Yappofloyd who has been busy adding prefixes all over the place. Which organisation owns or operates the lines is of little interest to the ridership. They will prefer to use short and locally unambiguous names. These are in line with the WP guidelines that names should be recognisable, natural, precise, concise and consistent.

Finally, User:Yappofloyd insists that the changes made must remain during the discussion, but common practice is to keep the situation as before the controversial edits. −Woodstone (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your considered reply Woodstone.

Firstly, WP:OFFICIALNAMES that the name to be used is not necessarily the official name is really not relevant. It has never been advanced to use the official name nor any edit done to that effect , the more common 'BTS Silom line' has been proposed. As noted in the 24 November edit, " "....BTS Skytrain Silom line". This the official english name - commonly called 'BTS Silom line'.". It is good that the previous bizarre & exaggerated concern, "BTS is systematically being added in front of every occurrence of "Sukhumvit line". This creates a lot of visual and mental clutter" was not restated as an issue given the fact the prefix is only used twice in the Sukhumvit article. How the addition of 3 letters added twice creates "visual and mental clutter" is indeed a mystery.

It is completely accepted that signage at stations, area maps and ticketing machines don't generally use the prefix, this is indeed correct. However, they all have the BTS logo, BTS branding is never absent, a fact that can't be ignored. Woodstone states, "The overall header title on some maps is "BTS Skytrain Route Map", but the prefix "BTS" is practically nowhere used in combination with Silom or Sukhumvit." - practically nowhere is overstated when the BTS official map uses the BTS prefix for both lines in the legend and all maps have the BTS logo. The official BEM map just uses the BTS logo (in Thai ver as well) without even mentioning the line names, indicating for BEM that the BTS logo reference is more important than either line name.

Regarding the principle of common use, in the last 21 years since the BTS lines opened my experience living in BKK in that period has been that most english speakers in BKK refer to the lines as 'BTS' or 'Skytrain' rather than the actual line names. Most Thais also, say either "rot fai fah' in Thai or "BTS" in English. The common real world emphasis is on the prefix BTS, not the individual line names. Most Thais rarely, if ever, express that they are going to use the "Silom line" or "Sukhuimvit line", they commonly just say "BTS" or "rot fai fah". That is the primary reference, as stated "short and locally unambiguous names". Similarly, Thais refer to the MRT Blue line as "MRT" or "rot fai tai din", you rarely hear "Blue line" in Thai. Woodstone is invited to survey friends/colleagues on the matter. Also, Woodstone offers no supporting information to his opinion, "Which organisation ... operates the lines is of little interest to the ridership." Customer surveys have shown that the BTS brand has a very high brand recognition with pax, ridership expect better service from the BTSC and they know exactly which company to complain to & about when something goes wrong.

Wiki articles inconsistency

In respect of consistency in wiki articles, the reference was specifically to the fact that the main article is titled, "BTS Skytrain", not just 'Skytrain'. This has been the article title since 2005. Is it not entirely precise, concise and consistent to use the prefix BTS for both of these line specific articles to ensure greater consistency with the main article? Otherwise, to be consistent in rationale Woodstone would be advancing that the prefix BTS should not be used in the main article title as "It is of no importance if these lines belong to an organisation called BTS". Woodstone refers to WP guidelines that names should be recognisable, natural, precise, concise and consistent yet chooses to ignore glaring inconsistencies within and between articles which undermine the same WP guidelines;

1) Main article is titled "BTS Skytrain" - as above,
2) Coloured icons (used in all BKK transit articles) which link to these two articles use the prefix "BTS" and NOT the line names, ie. BTS is used not SUK or SIL,
3) The excellent map of Bangkok urban transit systems created by user Zeddlex Zeddlex in the BTS Skytrain article - and other BKK transit articles - states the lines as "BTS Sukhumvit Line and "BTS Silom line",
4) The legend of the wonderful map in the Sukhumvit Line article created by user Hmaglione10 states "BTS (skytrain) Sukhumvit" and "BTS (skytrain) Silom"

Thus, at least a 2 other users who have made significant contributions to the articles in designing maps recognise that the prefix BTS is important in their view. There is an easy way to rectify these name usage inconsistencies.

Lastly, as queried before, does it improve consistency and the precision of the articles to use the BTS prefix or does it create confusion, or add further inconsistency in name usage beyond to that which already exists? What specifically is the detriment in adding the prefix when it only improves recognition and consistency? Yappofloyd (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official name of the system may be "BTS Skytrain" and there may be an on-line map where the name "BTS Skytrain Silom line" is used, but I never see or hear the name "BTS Silom line". People will usually say "You should take the BTS" (or "the Skytrain"), but when it comes to individual lines, they would always just say "You should take the Silom line" (or the Sukhumvit line). The prefix is simply superfluous. Even the BTSC itself does not use the name "BTS Silom line" (without Skytrain) in the system, as I showed and you agreed above.

As to consistency, that is not a goal by itself, but should a consequence of a judicious choice. Once the best name has been chosen, consistency should follow. It does not make sense to determine the best name by looking at incidental contributions of earlier contributors (even if valuable).

Adding the prefix does not contribute to clarity, does not correspond to usage in the world and (I hesitate to say) it adds clutter.−Woodstone (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]