Talk:San Tin

Transport
I've copied in text from the wikipedia page on San Tin Highway. There is a lack of sources on that page. If anyone has any please feel free to contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.135.60 (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Merge with San Tin (constituency)?
These seem to be about the same thing! This article originally called it an "area", but WP:GEOLAND does not give much weight to a legally unrecognized place. The actual legal constituency is probably the best place to put the two current existing articles together. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21,

Are you now going through the rest of the dedicated pages for Hong Kong District Council constituencies to merge them with other pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.2.135.60 (talk) 06:31, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Not quite... I imagine that doing so would take a long time. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi MarkH21,

Going by your reply above, can I ask please why you have done it in this case? Your action doesn't appear to have followed any standard. Indeed it appears what you have done is non-standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.146.144 (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This transition should be done to follow Wikipedia standards since WP:GEOLAND does not generally admit undefined "areas" for its own notability separate from the legal constituencies (unless that area somehow has significant WP:GNG-level coverage separate from the boundaries of the constituency). Any other HK articles on such areas that coincide with constituencies should be merged with their constituency articles or deleted. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Article is NOT about the name "San Tin"
Stop edit warring and stop re-adding that San Tin is each of an area, a highway, a public transport interchange and one of the 31 constituencies of Yuen Long District. The article is about the constituency. It is not about everything that shares the name "San Tin". On top of that but much less importantly, stop capitalizing cardinal directions and stop adding redundant wikilinks. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. It''s always confusing when the same name is used for several different geographic levels or several geographic object sin the same area. The best course is my opinion is to rewritethe article to be about the constituency. Add a paragraph at the end, saying it is also applied to the highway, village, and the area. This has ben already done for the higheay and the interchange. Now do it for the area. The next step is to see whether there can be separate articles for these. I see there is already one for the highway. I added the proper link for it, according to WP:Summary Style. The same could probably bedone for the Interchange. I see there is one for the station, but it's premature. I'd suggest redirecting it here, until there are at least approved plans for its construction. The problem will be the unincorporated area. It would seem to be there is enough material bother in earlier and recent history for a separate article., tho perhaps the articlemight better be about the Man clan. Their history and that of the area swem to overlap.  DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The area was not well-defined whatsoever. Per WP:GEOLAND, it's probably not notable enough on its own as an legally undefined area (not an unincorporated area). That's why I merged them and it's not apparent that there is much material to separate it. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:DGG,

Thanks for replying above. Previously there were 2 articles; one for the constituency and one for other things re San Tin. User:MarkH21 merged the pages together (I have no doubt MarkH21 you did that in good faith at the time). However we now seem to be in a situation where if the article is to be about the constituency, that leaves the question on where useful content appropriate to the article that no longer exists should go.

Can I also ask your opinion on the use of "The" to prefix 'San Tin Public Transport Interchange'. MarkH21 responds using "The" is appropriate since:

a) That has been used in a HK Govt article by provided by MarkH21 as a source b) San Tin PTI is a noun

I don't dispute either of those points. However it still seems to me that using "The" in this case is sub-optimal. If it is appropriate to use "The" as a prefix in this case, for consistency then does that mean all the transport hubs and interchanges should be re-worded to use "The" at the beginning? There's plenty examples out there that suggest not. e.g. Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport

Thanks again for any help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.148.34 (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There is still after many years, considerable dispute about the use of "The" in article titles. My understanding of the manual of style is that we do not use it unless it's a fixed form, or necessary for comprehension. Some people think it should be used whenever it is part of the official title; some think it should almost always be removed. As with other title format issues ,  the really essential thing is to have a redirect from whatever form is not chosen.  DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * the disagreement was not about a potential article title, but about usage within the text of this article. E.g. "At the centre of the San Tin PTI is..." vs. "At the centre of San Tin PTI is...", or "at its northeastern end at the San Tin Interchange" vs. "at its northeastern end at San Tin Interchange". This is a very minor disagreement that does not really matter though.More importantly, the "area" of San Tin is not well-defined and there is no clear case for it to have a standalone article per WP:GEOLAND as I mentioned above. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

More San Tin area/constituency discussion
You've re-labeled this article as an undefined "area", which has issues satisfying WP:GEOLAND. The content in this article is only well-defined as about the places contained within the constituency since the "area" is not defined. So shouldn't this material go into the article about the constituency if there is no other well-defined geographical place called "San Tin"? — MarkH21 (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not understand your accusation. Which part did I "re-labeled this article as an undefined 'area'"? Lmmnhn (talk) 05:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It’s not an accusation. It’s just a discussion of which makes this article about an “area”. The previous state was a merger between the constituency article and the “area” article since an “area” (as it reads now) isn’t well-defined. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Images in "San Tin Public Transport Interchange" subsection
Hi, Would you mind calmly reviewing the sequence of edits on this page. My experience is is brash / aggressive in editing. Some calmness just to constructively check things over would be appreciated if that is OK with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.21.126 (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm, new IP editor says that I am brash and aggressive for trying to avoid having four images, some redundant and un-captioned, in a single subsection consisting of 6 sentences.If you'd like to discuss rather than make random accusations, then I'd be happy to. The images are distracting. As the guideline MOS:PERTINENCE says: not every article needs images, and too many can be distracting. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi ,

I refer to your history of this article and also this talk page and just to the edits of the last hour or so. e.g. your comment above: ---

@116.49.146.144: Stop edit warring and stop re-adding that San Tin...

--- Your history is there. Maybe I should have used abrupt and/or impulsive to the list of adjectives. It may be what you have edited is the best option. Your track record is there though for all to see. Hence there's no harm asking for some other opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.21.126 (talk) 11:09, 19 November 19 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because edit warring is not allowed. Whether or not an edit is correct was not the issue there; warning about edit warring and then discussing the issue is always appropriate. There's nothing brash/aggressive/abrupt/impulsive about it. Asking for other opinions is fine; I never said anything about that.Now if you'd like to comment about the actual issue here rather than make judgments about my past interaction with someone who was edit-warring across different IPs, please do so. — MarkH21 (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)