Talk:Bombardier Movia C951/C951A

Requested move 16 April 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed after a couple of weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Bombardier Movia C951 → Changchun Bombardier Movia C951 – Reason given by previous mover is invalid and unsourced. Bombardier Transportation and Changchun Bombardier (joint venture of CNR Changchun and Bombardier Transportation are two distinct entities. This is indicated in the sources provided. The title should be reverted to "Changchun Bombardier Movia C951" to reflect this, in line with other Singapore MRT rolling stock which has stuck to this convention. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Noting this has now been moved to Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, no idea if that's an acceptable title. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus to keep the article at it's current name has been established. &mdash; Music1201  talk  17:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951 → Bombardier Movia C951 – The tender submitted was clearly not a joint venture by the both company. The winning bid submitted was solely by bombardier and its Singapore company unlike the C151A trains which was submitted by both Kawasaki and CSR. Pls refer to C951 tender results and C151A's http://web.archive.org/web/20100228004114/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jun08_951.htm   http://web.archive.org/web/20090902142556/http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jan09_151a.htm Lee480 (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. The train was clearly built by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles, as indicated by multiple primary and secondary sources. source from Ministry of Transport/Straits Times "...Built in China by the Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles Company (CBRC) – a joint venture between Bombardier and CNR Changchun Railway Vehicle Co" source from Bombardier "... in consortium with its Chinese Joint Venture Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles Company Ltd (CBRC) it has received an order for 45 driverless MOVIA metro cars from the Land Transport Authority of Singapore (LTA)". 2010 source from ST Electronics "...by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles Co Ltd (CBRC), a Joint Venture of Bombardier Inc. and China CNR Corporation Limited." Also refer to the previous move request above. - Mailer Diablo 04:50, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Construction of all trainsets was completed this year. source. Copying the entire tender details onto the article is a both a copyvio and violation of LTA's terms of use on their website. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The train was built by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles. Why should we remove Changchun from the name? Personally, I would have preferred it "Changchun Bombardier Movia C951" as that is the actual name of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recent edits
This article, Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951, attracted attention in light of the C151A scandal that broke a few days ago. As a result, there is now a requested move and removal of the phrase "Changchun" trying to remove all references to China. Personally I never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject Trains follow the operator rather than the manufacturer, but it is a fact established by several sources that these trains are constructed by Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles, a joint venture by Bombardier Transportation and CNR Changchun. Could we have other editors comment on this naming convention? - Mailer Diablo 16:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Nope. Even before the C151A scandal, this train was never referenced as "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951". You're the first person I've ever seen that does so. And without consulting other editors around, this editor moved this page and made major change by adding what you think is appropriate, forcefully.

Various website, including Singapore's government (LTA), calls it Bombardier Movia without the "Changchun".

Another point is this editor asserting that referencing numerals/values from another website is a copyright violation! Shocking! So if Apple made a net profit of $1.67 Billion and they flaunt it all over their website, this "$1.67 Billion" is a trademarked value according to our dear editor,.

Seemingly like a hollywood movie, this editor tries to allege that I am attempting to remove reference to China in this page! This train is well-known and proud to be made in China! There's nothing to hide. A quick search in the editor's talk page clearly shows why he is emotional about the China linkage. However, we should be professional not emotional and come out with baseless conspiracies!

To exemplify my professionalism, I've edited this page to make it clear that this train contract was won by Bombardier (the canadian company) but built by your favourite: Changchun!!

Hope this clarifies.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee480 (talk • contribs)
 * The table fails to address the discrepancy in the amount bid and awarded as listed below. The last two paragraphs also violates WP:NPA. - Mailer Diablo 17:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents current version. - Mailer Diablo 05:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to the original post, can we please only comment on the content and not on the contributor from now on? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about RfC
I cannot easily determine the goal of this RfC. Is this to discuss the name of the article and a move? If so, what are the options being considered? Briefly, what is the justification for anyone supporting any given option?  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  20:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

LTA material
Material on LTA's website is copyrighted. You can't copy tables of information ad verbatim down to the exact party names including spaces and typos, refer to Copying text from other sources and Copyright violations. Also refer to LTA's terms of use, clause 6. - Mailer Diablo 16:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers are wrong anyway. The table in the article is a gross mis-representation of the amount actually bid, as there are multiple offers. The actual amount awarded is $570m, which is more than the amount $547m as stated in the first offer. - Mailer Diablo 16:49, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lta.gov.sg/tender_info/close/tenders_close_jun08_951.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110603231353/http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=uzth1f88ltw23y65rc72y0t2wqt50rid8w2893s39pxzdmvbbn to http://app.lta.gov.sg/corp_press_content.asp?start=uzth1f88ltw23y65rc72y0t2wqt50rid8w2893s39pxzdmvbbn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why are so many train pages renamed for no reason?

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 18:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody calls it "Bombardier Movia & CNR Changchun C951/C951A".
 * LTA (the owner+authority) calls it Bombardier Movia: https://www.lta.gov.sg/content/ltaweb/en/public-transport/projects/downtown-line/fast-facts.html
 * The OEM calls it Bombardier Movia: http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/newsList/details.bt_20171024_bombardier-movia-fleet-to-double-capacity-on-singapo.bombardiercom.html
 * The train builder plates clearly and solely mention Bombardier Movia: http://www.sgtrains.com/img/trains/c951/c951-builderplate.jpg
 * Train enthusiast pages calls it as so too: http://www.sgtrains.com/train-c951.html

However from what I read above it seems that the editor Mailer Diablo (poorly) attempted to oppose the renaming the article because he "never liked the MRT rolling stock articles to be named this way as convention in WikiProject". What he is trying to tell us is that although the transport ministry, the train operator, the manufacturer and Wikipedia herself follows certain naming convention we shouldn't follow it because it doesn't fit his style.

Singapore's original C151 trains were built by 4 separate manufacturer and I dont see the editor Mailer Diablo attempting to rename it. Why is he so selective?

So the solution is simple, either we follow the nomenclature the masses are doing or we rename the C151 page, to ensure consistency across.


 * Support. If I read the article and related sources correctly, Bombardier partnered with a Chinese firm to construct an existing design, the Bombardier Movia, in a Chinese factory, and then deliver it to the Land Transport Authority. That's the way IRJ sees it. If this were an actual joint design between two companies, like the Bombardier–Alstom HHP-8, then the article would probably be titled Bombardier−CNR Changchun Movia C951/C951A. Unlike the HHP-8, there are no sources (that I've seen) treating CNR Changchun with equal prominence. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral May I know what you would like to rename the article to? -1.02 editor (talk) 08:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's stated quite clearly on the header of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretSquirrel78 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose the reason why KHIC151 is named advance such is because KHI built majority of the trains, with the other companies only building about 10 each, and as putting 4 company names in the title would make it very Long. Imagine Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Nippon Sharyo, Kinki Sharyo & Tokyu Car Corporation C151. -1.02 editor (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Apple iPhone is built by Foxconn. Can someone go to the Apple iPhone X page and rename it as Foxconn-Apple iPhone X?? The reason why KHI is named as such because LTA and SMRT name it as such too, which we followed. You are not addressing the points I made on the justification on renaming it and the inconsistency on why for some trains (including the C151) we are following certain nomenclature but others including the C951 trains, we dont. ("Long name" is really a poor reason). SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. R22-3877 (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.