Talk:Canberra MRT station

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canberra MRT Station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140706170425/http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=38dc4ca3-5e70-4bf8-97bc-87f78e6303e7 to http://app.lta.gov.sg/apps/news/page.aspx?c=2&id=38dc4ca3-5e70-4bf8-97bc-87f78e6303e7

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  02:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aljunied MRT Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Removed a previous edit
I guess the mention to aust capital canberra is based on this http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/singapore-calls-new-mrt-station-canberra-20140628-zspsl.html

which i personally think it is written based on aust POV of the times, which may not be a little compliant to WP:NPOV.

well it is named after the area canberra, then canberra is named after canberra, aust , yes, but the mrt is not directly named after it. please read article carefully

plus for NS 12, there is no case for NS 13 ... as it is just can be considered trivia, can put in another section is necessary, but better to be linked to main NSL article

Just my 2 cents, opinions much thanked Quek157 (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to mention that it is named after the Australian Canberra but there should also be a mention of the Singaporean Canberra. Regarding the Station code, I don't really get what you are trying to say... Hope my opinion helps. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 23:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

hi. 1.02 editor do see the edit i undone to get the context and I am getting consensus for undoing that edit. I am also giving my detailed reply to the ip address editer to why I undone the context. I also not sure what ns 13 means but that edit mentioned that Canberra should be ns13 if not changed of mrt map. do reference to the edit  Quek157 (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the edit, and reasoned that the IP was trying to say that if the station had a code on the old system map it would have been N13 (13th station north of Raffles Place). The current code is (12th station on the NSL). Hope this explains. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 08:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

shall we put both as a trivia or interesting fact session with proper citations Quek157 (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

added named after canberra with 2 sources Quek157 (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we try this article for GA
Hi editors, if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanglan_Road_station and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryvandsh%C3%B8iden_(station) can be GA class, I don't think after all these editions this is far apart. can we try to push this a little and I can help to address doubts --Quek157 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2018 (UTC)


 * preferably I'll nominate when it opens but trying it now is fine. Also, do you want to be a co-nominator if we do get this nomination through? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:20, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think then we will have more information, this I agree. But really when I went through the entire list of rail station GA articles, I realised that this is very close to the quality (albeit some organizational changes are needed as well as condensation). I have trawled the entire net for information and this is the best I can get for this station, so I think it is slightly ready. The issues that can be identified 1. more pictures (but not all GA articles have so much pictures, they get 1 / 2 only). 2. more condensation (as most have only few paragraphs - just do not have subheading). Otherwise I did not see any issue. 3. most GA articles have a layout of platform (I know it is removed due to prematurity) but it is not a must. 4. We may sync with this proposed layout for the text (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Article_structure). Otherwise, I see no issue for this page not as par with the rest. We must be aware this is just a station not a line, so quality factors differ much, plus importance =/= quality, a low importance can also be GA. Once open, more pictures / news can be provided and then we may then push to FA? Do note that I used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Featured_content as a guide. It can be a short as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestgrensa_(station) and then GA. --Quek157 (talk) 10:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * just saying, station layouts were removed as per a discussion at the notice board for failing WP:NOTGUIDE. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 14:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * noted --Quek157 (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

ok then, do you want to nominate the article? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * wait a while...i am trying to upload somemore pics + streamlining things. Thanks --Quek157 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) I will rewrite the article based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stations#Article_structure.

In retrospect, the previous few GA I noted are really old in GA review, as it is 2011, a 2017 GA article of station is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenchurch_Street_railway_station which this page still have somewhere to go...so will hold the entire GA nomination but will still make edits --Quek157 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I would say that the most pressing issues with the article at the moment are compliance with WikiProject Stations, some grammar issues, and reference style, the latter two of which I can fix. Also length is not really an issue; from WP:GACR: "The "broad in its coverage" criterion is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles. It allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 04:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

will see how to edit up to compliance Quek157 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I tried my personal best to address compliance with WikiProject Stations as closely as possible. Edited grammar (pardon me cause I never gotten above a B3 for O level English and C for A level GP) - so try to help if possible. Reference style also do help if possible. Else I think we are good to go --Quek157 (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Do a B class check first (NOTE: Self check)

(Comment): Some redundant references can be taken off but mostly in place (Comment): Meet I think (Comment): Meet I think (Comment): Meet I think (but may still have minor errors) (Comment): Meet I think - I am trying to insert a map (but now still blocked) (Comment): Meet I think So now is just a borderline "B" article. Appreciate help to address all the rest and then we can then do GA. Thanks! --Quek157 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of tags and citation templates such as is optional.
 * The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
 * The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
 * The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
 * The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
 * The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 * comment: the current photos in the gallery should be removed once the station opens, and replaced with photos of the built station.1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the can keep one or two under relevant sections but yes, new pics are needed --Quek157 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * comment: since my English is not of a high standard (and as you mentioned neither is yours) I recommend getting Simeone to ce the article. 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 12:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked through peer review, none have any interest on transport. I guess we have to check the grammar ourselves. --Quek157 (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

do you still want GA? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 00:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * can you check the new user edit. I can't revert due to general 1rr. reason for including Chinese name is that it is reflected on ura official site as per the reference. with this kind of edit and go through the track record of the user also. I don't mind ga but with this current hot potato issue we need to settle first ---Quek157 (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that all the other stations do not have Chinese names in the lead, and the new editor is correct. also, i thought this page was under 3rr not 1rr? 1.02 editor (C651 set 217/218) 01:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * fine. I'll also remove the entire link. and can someone conominate with me. thanks a lot Quek157 (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * to also be crystal clear to the new user this case is substantiated due to norms. there's should be edit summary and especially you are a new user I'm not expecting reverts. I agreed to remove the Chinese name is also in prep of ga which this will be an issue. but that doesn't mean all pages cannot have Chinese name.   Quek157 (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I nominated the article already, we hope to wait for news and see what improvements we should made if any. hope all can help. =) --Quek157 (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Rfc: B class article now?
Instead of GA, is this a B class article now? I am hoping for 3rd party review. I think first B class then GAN will be better? --Quek157 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
 * you can try WP:TWP/A but it is largely inactive
 * will do --Quek157 (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, hope for news --Quek157 (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * recent vandal by user may make B class utnenable for now --Quek157 (talk) 10:19, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey editors! I have heavily modified the article to ensure a balance between formality in its presentation for readers (Not too detailed) as well as spelling out useful details that transport enthusiast might want to know (Not too general). I'm hopeful this page will push to an A grade as it undergoes review again. Additionally, please archive references so that dead links can still be readable in future, which I have already done so. Yenwei (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

images on commons
I noted with thanks that 1.02 editor moved gallery to commons. do note that all model pics are in danger of removal due to copyright infringement. I don't think it will affect as I can still add as external image. just fyi. I agree to deletion as no way hdb will give orts permission Quek157 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * update: argued for stay per SG copyright laws --Quek157 (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Managed to keep. (2nd deletion fight off, first in 2007 for CSD) --Quek157 (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

lta reading our ga review and copying from wiki
. see this paragraph. it's what we write here what after the review. seems lta stalking this page " As part of the project, a new 72-metre long rail crossover track will also be constructed north of Canberra MRT Station to connect two existing tracks that lead to and from the station. This crossover track will enhance the resilience of the NSL rail network by allowing trains to cross from one track to another when the need arises. For example, if one side of the tracks develops a fault, trains can temporarily cross over and use the other track to bypass the faulty stretch, hence enabling train services in both directions to remain available. Noise barriers will also be installed at the new rail crossover."Quek157 (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * "Canberra MRT Station will serve commuters living in nearby estates such as Sembawang Springs, as well as upcoming residential developments in the neighbourhood. Around 17,000 more households will be within a 10-minute walk of an MRT station, and enjoy time savings of up to 10 minutes when travelling towards the city centre or Jurong East.

5. To better facilitate commuter movements and enhance accessibility, Canberra MRT Station will have five entrances linking it to the new housing estates across Canberra Link. There will also be an elevated link bridge across Canberra Link for commuters to directly access the city-bound train platform. The new station will also have covered link-ways to bus stops, pick-up and drop-off points, as well as more than 500 bicycle parks." this one also Quek157 (talk) 08:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

On phrasing
Over the term used to describe the manafacturing concerns located at the Yishun industrial park in close proximity to Canberra MRT station (as mentioned in the second paragraph of the 'Location' article), wouldn't it be best to use the term 'companies' instead of 'industries'. This is because the term 'industries' is often used (from my experience) to refer to a line of work as a whole instead of individual business concerns (as it is utilsed in the article), whereas the term 'companies' is often used to describe individual business concerns in general. R22-3877 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I will I agree with the word companies, however, I am really not keen to change as it can sound promotional and usually not referred in Wikipedia. And in the furture, this should be in talkpage of the main article, not here. Thanks a lot and hope to have more conversations there . --Quek157 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, done --Quek157 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Content on pictures
A user had tried to remove the construction pictures of Canberra station from this article. I am starting this discussion to get opinions on whether we should retain the construction pictures or delete them. I would like to hear your opinions. Please do not attempt further changes until we have a consensus. Thanks. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, it would be best to remove the linked images and diagrams. The picture of the station under construction can stay, and is sufficient as it is. R22-3877 (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Opps, I already removed it until I saw this. I prefer the outsourced image because it has a better view of the construction works from above as compared to the picture taken at ground level.Yenwei (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * So I think we have a consensus. That the images of Canberra station under construction should stay. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Referring that the external image will stay? Yenwei (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. TheGreatSG&#39;rean (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

On GAN
The article hasn't fully stabilised yet, so I would say it's far too premature to make the nomination. Furthermore, the article is far from well-written. I suggest you send it to WP:GOCE for a copyedit and then a peer review before even considering it for GAN. R22-3877 (talk) 07:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Noted on that. Yenwei (talk) 08:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)