Jump to content

Talk:MRT (Bangkok)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MRT vs BTS

[edit]
  • The official name for the Metro is MRT (Mass Rapid Transit). It is operated by the Mass Rapid Transit Authority of Thailand (MRTA) and operated by Bangkok Metro PLC (BMCL).
  • The MRTA is a state agency under the MOT (Ministry of Transport), formerly known as the Ministry of Transport and Communication or MOTC.
  • The official name for the Skytrain is BTS (Bangkok Masss Transit System). It is operated by Bangkok Mass Transit System PLC (BTSC) under a concession granted by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA).
  • The BMA is local governing body under the Ministry of Interior.
  • The Metro and the Skytrain (not SkyTrain) is used for less official purposes such as in marketing.
  • Note that the followings are names that are not official: Subway, Bangkok Underground, Thanayong Skytain...
  • The Metro should be referred as the MRT, not MRTA.

MRT station names which are fequently misspelled:

[edit]
  • Si Lom not Silom – Si Lom is the official version of how this name is spelled, but because it has been spelled incorrectly for many decades, most people use Silom (also because it looks more trendy). The Skytrain uses Silom Line.
  • Chatuchak Park (remember the word Park too) – Officially, it is spelled as Chatu Chak, but for the same reason as the name Si Lom, Chatuchak is now widely accepted. Note that Jatujak (JJ) is the layman's version of it because farangs can pronounce it more accurately, but since it is not official, use Jatujak only when really neccessary.
  • Thailand Cultural Centre – Centre instead of Center. The same goes to Queen Sirikit National Convetion Centre (QSNCC)
  • Khlong Toei – not Khlong Toey; not Klong Toey.
  • Lumphini – not Lumpinee
  • Hua Lamphong – not Hua Lumpong, Hua Lampong or Hualamphong.
  • Kamphaeng Phet – not Kampaengphet or Kamphaengpet.
  • Lat Phrao – not Lad Prao, Lat Prao, Lard Praw nor Laad Praw. Do not follow the spelling used by Central Plaza Lad Prao.
  • Phahon Yothin – not Phaholyothin or Phahol Yotin.

BTS station names which are frequently misspelled:

[edit]
  • Chit Lom – not Chidlom nor Chid Lom. Do not follow the spelling used by Central Chidlom.
  • Sala Daeng – not Saladaeng or Saladang.
  • Thong Lo – not Thong Lor.
  • On Nut – not Onnuch, not Onnut nor Onnooch.
  • Ekkamai – not Ekamai. It must be double k.
  • Asok – not Asoke.
  • Chong Nonsi – not Chong Nonsee nor Chong Nonzi.
  • Saphan Taksin – not Thaksin (not named after the Prime Minister). It's named after King Taksin.
  • Mo Chit – not Mor Chit nor Morchid.
  • Phra Khanong – not Prakanong nor Pra Khanong.

This is all nonsense. Romanizations of Thai names have never been standardized. The "official" names of all these stations and landmarks are the names written in Thai script. All romanized names are simply an approximation, and all systems which come close to the Thai name for western ears are valid. "Thong Lo" "Mo Chit" and "Thonglor" "Morchit" are equally correct (British English spoeakers and some east coast Americans pull back their "R") You can separate the syllables if you wish, or not. The "d" or "t" in Chidlom or Chit Lom is the Thai letter dor dek, which is more of a "d" than a "t" to many ears, but Thais swallow it anyway when it comes at the end of a word.

This not nonsense at all. All stations have their names spelled out in roman letters on the station itself, on the ticket dispensers, in the trains and on the maps of the BTS. They are always consistently spelled. So in this specific case there certainly is an official transcription. −Woodstone 23:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subway or metro?

[edit]

The company's name is 'Bangkok Metro Company Limited'; the domain of its website is <bangkokmetro.co.th>; presumably the name in Thai is a cognate of 'metro'. Shouldn't this article be at "Bangkok Metro?" –Hajor 01:58, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right you are, article duly moved. Jpatokal 05:22, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Brilliant; thanks. I'd have done it myself, but I wanted to be sure I wasn't treading on any toes first. –Hajor

List of Stations?

[edit]

Does Wikipedia really need a a page for every station on the subway line?Zosodada 02:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not but then again again it has been done for other metrosystems like the New York one. And since the Bangkok metro is not "less" than the any other metro system the answer should be yes. Unless offcourse you consider non western subjects of less importance which wikipedia does have a tendency to do. Waerth 11:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
IMHO I doubt we need those articles of New York metro stations - the only major difference is that those in NY or Paris have a much longer history and thus more to write about them. Anyway, I won't write any of these articles. BTW: try to click some of those blue links, and then you'll come to articles having nothing to do with the subway... andy 08:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rot Fai = "car with fire"

[edit]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoowatch (talk • contribs) .

Images

[edit]

Too many images, perhaps? with the last edit moving the route map to the left, it now eats into the text with Firefox on 1027*768 Paul C 09:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Line stations?

[edit]

I have deleted the Purple station list as it a future development which has nothing to do with the current Bangkok subway even though it will be overseen by the same agency, namely, the MRTA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.9.169.229 (talk) 09:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Merge Purple Lines with Bangkok Metro ?

[edit]

I think this is not good idea. Soon bangkok metro will be very large system and have more lines, Other lines may also called MRT or Metro. Another problems is route diagram of all MRT lines in not possible in the page, I think split into Bangkok Metro (Overall information) and Metro Line (Line information) pages would be preferred solution. See this Official master plan of Bangkok Rapid Transit System and [1] for more info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfalpha (talk • contribs) 10:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now are there only two lines? In which case have a single article, if there get to be lots of lines they can be re-split. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies with the "official" map

[edit]

The Bangkok Metro has an online map of the current system here: [2].

I just returned from Bangkok, and I feel like there are discrepancies in the official map from what actually, physically, occurs. For example, I thought one of the MRT interchange was at Asok (spelled Asok inside the train itself, not Asoke on the map), not Sukhumvit (I *know* it does NOT interchange at Sukhumvit). If anyone could verify this, so it's not just "me against the internet" here, I'd be grateful.

The point being, I think it's important to note that we can't take the map as the be all, end all for this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.81.74 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The station Asok (written without e) is on the BTS and it connects to the MRT station Sukhumvit. The street of the same is often written as Asoke. BTS and MRT use the RTGS method of transcription almost consistently. Notable exceptions being Siam (RTGS Sayam) and Sukhumvit (RTGS Sukhumwit). −Woodstone (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on MRT (Bangkok). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on MRT (Bangkok). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hua Lamphong extension

[edit]

This has been being built for years and years, with the narrow streets of Chinatown being badly blocked by tunneling works. People wonder how many more years it will be before a relatively small length of tunnels is finally finished.(185.181.236.101 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mass Rapid Transit Master Plan in Bangkok Metropolitan Region which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:31, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminus

[edit]

What matters most is the reality for the travellers. In the stations the direction of the trains is indicated by stating the terminal station. This is currently in most stations given as "Tha Phra via Bang Sue". So that is what this article should mention. The official status can be mentioned in text or in a footnote. −Woodstone (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What matters most to MRT pax is factual and accurate information. Fact, the extension is still not officially open - it is only a free, trial period. In the future, the MRTA will list the opening of this extension as being 31 March 2020 (unless they bring it forward). Fact, the trial period operates along the extension for only 6 hrs a day which is only a third of the MRT Blue lines normal operation hours of 18 hrs a day. Fact, for 12 hrs a day the terminus is Tao Poon. For 6 hrs a day it is Tha Phra. Fact, even if the station sign says Tha Phra is the terminus station that does that mean you can travel on the extension at all hours of the day does it? The current operational reality is the factual reality over signage installed for the long term. It seems that you are asserting that even though a sign in an MRT station is incorrect for 12 hrs a day, therefore this article should also be incorrect too!

Essentially, you are giving a false and misleading impression to travelers and readers that the extension to Tha Phra is open for the full operation period, that pax can travel along the extension to Tha Phra at any time of the day when they can't even do it for a majority of the day! Anyone using the MRT at 7am, 9am, 5pm, 8pm or 11pm cannot travel along this extension & terminate at Tha Phra. Full operations are contingent upon the remaining rolling stock being delivered which is why it is not scheduled until the end of March. (However, the trial period operational hours might be expanded prior to then). All you have to do is wait a little longer until full operations begin or at least until the operation period is increased to something more substantial than just 6 hrs a day. That might occur next month.... Yappofloyd (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why every train should actually go to the terminus of a line. For example many trains do not go all the way to Kheha. The traveler trying to find out which train to take in a station will look for signage containing the terminus. Looking for "Tao Poon" will be in vain. This article is not meant to be a train schedule, but a description of the lines. Therefore regardless of the administrative status and number of trains going to the very end of the line, the terminus is de facto "Tha Phra via Bang Sue".−Woodstone (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for metro lines it is very unusual for a service not to terminate at the terminus due to the operational frequency of metro lines. The Kheha comparison is flawed as services to Kheha do not operate for only a limited period each day. While most BTS services do terminate at Kheha station, the extension and station are open for the full operation period. This MRT extension is only open for 6 hrs a day. Why is that, because it is still only limited, trial operations. If you ask the MRTA 'is this extension, officially open?', they will reply 'no, it is not officially open as it is only trial operations'. It is just a plain simple fact. You are focusing on signage installed for the long term vs what is a trial period of transition until the line officially opens in 10 weeks.

Obviously the article is not a train schedule, but a traveler trying to travel to Tha Phra via Bang Sue cannot do so for 12 hrs a day as services terminate at Tao Poon. A few signs stating Tha Phra is the terminus does not change that fact. You seemingly want to provide an incorrect and misleading impression that travelers can do so, just because it is the temporary terminus for 6 hrs a day during the trail period. Alternatively to your example, the traveler looking for the Tha Phra bound train will be in vain for 12 hrs of the day. You certainly can't travel along the extension at peak periods when most pax use the MRT Blue line. You want to include a description of the line that is inaccurate for the overwhelming majority of the daily operational period. Is it not better to be accurate and judicious as to the reality as it currently exists than create a misleading impression? Again, 12 hrs a day vs 6 hrs a day! (Again, expect that to change next month. And if it was reversed ie 10-12 hrs a day to Tha Phra vs 6-8 hrs to Tao Poon, then it would seem entirely appropriate to change the terminus) Yappofloyd (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you talking about the Terminus of the line, Tha Phra is the current terminus of the northern end of loop because there are services running to, although it is trial. There are 2 services on the same Line which normal service train are run from Lak Song to Tao Poon, and another trial service that run from Tao Poon to Tha Phra.

I see no problems of misleading information to travelers. As long as there are information about normal service only terminate at Tao Poon and limited trail service from Tao Poon to Tha Phra only open during the day. And Wikipedia data are not the reliable information for travelers at any time, how many trains article are up to date ?. I guess not many. sfalpha (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


MRT vs MRTA for article titles

[edit]

The MRT Orange line and MRT Brown line articles have yesterday been renamed & redirected by member Paul_012. I have submitted the message below on his talk page explaining why the title MRT should ideally remain. At the very least, I am requesting consistency as we now have some articles titled MRT (Blue, Purple and this article) and some MRTA (Orange, Brown, Yellow & Pink). In my view such inconsistency makes it confusing for readers who already have to contend with the confusion of different owners and operators of mass transit lines in Bangkok being either BMA/BTS lines, MRT and SRT lines (and soon the ARL will be changed to a private operator for added complexity). Unfortunately, this is not the first time such an intervention has been made. Two years ago the MRT Yellow and MRT Pink lines pages were renamed as Yellow line and Pink line as there was a refusal to accept that there were MRTA projects - this was subsequently accepted. You will note that the MRTA officially refers to all lines with the acronym MRT and not MRTA in their titles of the lines - refer to official MRTA press releases linked in the message;

"It would be sincerely appreciated if you could kindly please refrain from redirecting and changing the MRT article titles. All of these projects are implemented under the authority of the MRTA and commonly known as 'MRT lines'. (eg. the MRTA refers to the Blue & Purple lines as MRT Blue and MRT Purple not MRTA Blue Line nor MRTA Purple Line. This is the same for the MRT Orange Line, as the MRTA refers to it as the MRT Orange line as you can see here, and here. The MRT Orange line title will remain regardless of the private concessionaire agreement granted to manage and operate the line.

These redirection & changes are similar to 2 years ago when you didn't accept that both the MRT Yellow and MRT Pink lines were MRTA projects, and even insisted that it was not the case contrary to all evidence presented to you. As you can clearly see, the MRTA still refers to them as MRT Yellow & MRT Pink, here too. The changes that you have made for the Orange & Brown lines without any consultation only result in inconsistent article titles and make it confusing for readers. Current MRTA related article titles are; MRT Blue Line, MRT Purple Line, MRT (Bangkok) and now we have MRTA Orange Line and MRTA Brown line after your changes. The article titles should be consistent. Preferably, please revert to MRT. However, if you do feel a compelling need to change the titles to MRTA and thus be inconsistent with both the official MRTA names and common usage, at least ensure that all titles are consistent to avoid confusion. It is rather frustrating that you make these changes without consulting members who make regular contributions to, and in some cases have created, these articles. Thank you"

Appreciate any thoughts on the matter, we do need to ensure consistency in usage Wiki article titles for these lines in order to avoid confusion. Even if MRTA is used instead of the official MRT. Yappofloyd (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MRTA always refers to their lines as MRT lines. Logical, because they are mass rapid transport lines and not authority lines. Also in the newspapers and speech the lines are always referred to as MRT lines. Therefore it is much clearer if the articles conform to this usage. −Woodstone (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to enter into argument against Yappofloyd, seeing as it was demonstrated at Talk:MRTA Yellow Line#October 2017 that constructive discussion is quite impossible. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RM discussion started at Talk:MRTA Yellow Line#Requested move 1 July 2020. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is primarily matter a matter of process. It has been demonstrated yet again by User:Paul 012 that there is no understanding that the MRTA owns these lines and that their official, common english name uses the MRT prefix. This has literally been the case for nearly 2 decades since the establishment of the MRTA and since OTOP drafted the first master plan in 2004. Indeed, the frustrating aspect here is a user who unilaterally renames articles titles without asking regular contributors beforehand for some guidance . This only results in confusion and inconsistencies as some were named MRT and others MRTA. Again, a confusing outcome for readers which could have been avoided with some basic consultation, or verification with the MRTA.

These MRT lines have since 2006 been known as MRT lines. The MRTA in all of their tender documents, annual reports and press releases uses the prefix MRT for each line. Previously in 2017, member User:Paul 012 unilaterally changed articles titles and did not accept the fact that the MRT Yellow line and MRT Pink line were MRTA projects stating, "There simply is no evidence of reliable sources referring to the lines as "MRT Pink Line" or "MRT Yellow Line". A wealth of evidence was provided but this was ignored. User:Paul 012 was kindly invited to verify the fact with the MRTA directly or via their website but chose not to do so demonstrating a lack of constructive discussion nor a willingness to undertake basic research - in this case a simple phone call to the MRTA.

I do appreciate your constructive input Woodstone and feedback and I note your comments elsewhere. It would have been useful to receive views on the matter from regular contributors such as Tondeknoi1802, Matthewmayer, Magnamonkun, Mr.BuriramCN, Gend07000& Funtimebyron597 to name but a few. I still extend the invitation for them to offer the views on the matter if they wish to.

The current outcome with article titles renamed without the MRT prefix is less than satisfactory as it still results in inconsistency and will most likely cause some confusion for readers. (It should be noted that 3 of the 4 that contributed to the outcome do not contribute to the relevant articles - again some effort should have been sought to consult with regular contributors. One contributor even thought that the MRTA was the franchise operator). The current problem is that we now have a summary article titled MRT (Bangkok) and the Master Plan article which both list all of the individual MRT lines by their proper name but each individual MRT line article title is now without the official MRTA english name of the line given the absence of the MRT prefix. Thus, this is a patently inconsistent. The preferable outcome may have been to keep the MRT prefix and add in Bangkok if it was felt that there may be confusion with other cities MRT lines, eg. MRT BLue Line (Bangkok), MRT Purple Line (Bangkok), MRT Orange Line (Bangkok) etc. For now the articles have been renamed but I suspect that this will revisited sometime in the future to ensure that there is some consistency.

To ensure clarity for User:Paul 012 the following lines have been titled MRT lines for the last 15 years; MRT Blue Line, MRT Purple Line, MRT Yellow Line, MRT Pink Line, MRT Brown Line (though this is a different line now from the 2006 plan) The following line was shelved in 2012: MRT Light Blue Line

It should noted that other lines have been proposed outside the M-MAP framework eg. Samut Prakhan to airport line. The M-MAP lines are due to be completed by 2029. However, prior to that date a new batch of lines will be proposed.Yappofloyd (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks to the above story by User:Yappofloyd.
Titles like "MRT Blue Line" are likely to clash with mass rapid transport lines elsewhere in the world. Therefore using the city in titles like "Blue Line (Bangkok)" is a better choice. It brings some consistency with lines in other cities, as can be seen in one of the many disambiguation pages like Blue Line. Having "MRT" in front of these lines does not add useful information. For the reader it is not of great interest who owns or operates each line. The MRTA is not consistent itself in using the MRT prefix, see for example "the blue line". Nor is the operator "MRT system map". The legend on maps in the system does not add "MRT" to each line. And there don't appear to be lines of the same color by different owners. Furthermore the BTS lines never use a prefix like in "BTS Sukhumvit Line" or "BTS Light Green Line". So the recently chosen names seem to be reasonably unambiguous, consistent and future proof. Therefore I propose to keep these names and also to rename at least the SRT lines accordingly.
The articles MRT (Bangkok) and BTS Skytrain are problematic, because they just repeat parts of information that is much better given at their individual lines (and were/are outdated as well). Are they needed? Can they be reduced to minimal articles, just referring to the individual lines?
There are now some inconsistencies here and there because of the recent flurry of activity, but these can be gradually worked out easily.
−Woodstone (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally my feeling is that while lines are under construction, there is typically not enough reliable consistent information to be able to name the articles well, so the Color Line (Bangkok) is a fairly neutral compromise. Once a line opens, if a more specific name is consistently used by reliable sources, we could move to that. As an example, note the Gold Line article which has been moved from BMA Gold Line to Gold Line monorail to to Gold Line (Bangkok) to BTS Gold Line to Gold Line (Bangkok) and it's not even open yet Matthewmayer (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Matthewmayer. Yes, the BMA Gold Line has been complete mess on the that front. I suggest due to confusion as the line is a private initiative proposed outside the M-MAP framework and initially no one wanted it - MRTA HQ staff admitted as much during a meeting I had with them. It was 'lumped' on the BMA as the regulatory authority and ownership will revert to them once the 30 year concession period ends. BTSC has been appointed as the obvious operator given that it is designed to draw pax from BTS Silom line to Iconsiam. Those that changed the title from BMA Gold Line perhaps don't understand this framework? (It was incorrect to title it a monorail as it is an APM). Regarding the MRT lines, the MRTA uses the MRT prefix in all of their gazettes, tenders docs, official releases and annual reports (see egs above) even if at other times they don't, so with respect it can't be said that there is not enough reliable consistent information in that regard for the MRT lines. Yappofloyd (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of clarifty for those that may wish to contribute to the discussion and are unsure as to which authority/agency owns which line:

A) The following are all MRTA lines; MRT Blue Line, MRT Purple Line, MRT Orange Line, MRT Yellow Line, MRT Pink Line, MRT Brown Line (not to be confused with the previous Min Buri MRT Brown line which merged to an extended MRT Orange Line) B) The following are BMA lines;

BTS Silom Line, BTS Sukhumvit Line, BMA Gold Line, BMA Grey Line (this was originally an MRTA line but was taken over by the BMA as a project in 2012. However, note that in mid 2018 the M RTA Gov stated that the MRTA may take it on to build on their MRT Pink and MRT Brown Line work & for connectivity reasons)

C) The following lines are SRT lines; SRTET ARL (operations to be handed over to the Eastern HSR consortium), SRT Light Red Line, SRT Dark Red Line

D) The following lines have been shelved; MRT Light Blue line (but may return for the post 2029 plan)

E) The following lines are proposed for the post 2029 Master plan with initial responsible authority; BMA Bangna Airport Southern link (currently changed from BTS Spur heavy rail to LRT), MRTA Samut Prakhan to Airport (monorail), MRTA Rangsit to Thanyaburi link Yappofloyd (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bangkok Metro" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bangkok Metro. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 29#Bangkok Metro until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Paul_012 (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

[edit]

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Network map broken?

[edit]

Is it just me, or is the network map broken? I'm variously getting the Purple Line only, a map with no lines at all, or a blank. Template talk:Rapid transit OSM map indicates the template itself may be wonky. Jpatokal (talk) 04:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The entire system of Mapframe maps is very unreliable, and has been intermittently broken for years now. The system is extremely poorly documented, and no one seems to know what's causing this or even where to raise the issue. The best hope is probably Module talk:Mapframe, though I won't expect much. Probably best to actually avoid using these OSM maps until someone actually bothers to fix the thing.
PS The map still works if you click on it to bring up the enlarged window. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MRT_(Bangkok)&oldid=1204105109"