# Talk:Edinburgh Trams

I appreciate your help in getting this article up to GA status. However, in this case, it should be left as I've put it. It is "about 8.1 miles" because the system was lain out in metric (13 km). The conversion isn't exact, hence "about". Yet, in the UK, distances are usually measured in miles, and Edinburgh Trams was one of the first UK tram systems lain out in metric. That's why it is as it is, not to mention that it reads better to the ear. RGloucester  — 📬 18:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"The first phase of project consists of a sixteen-station link between York Place in the city centre and Edinburgh Airport, or about 8.1 miles (13 kilometres) of track."
The or is incorrect, indicates choice. It is not a sixteen-station link or about 8.1 miles of track...., shoud read:
...is a sixteen station, 8.1 mile line....or
...is an 8.1 mile line with sixteen stations....Mo7838 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done[1] (hopefully with correct formatting and grammar!).  —Sladen (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
RGloucester (talk · contribs), FWIW, to the best of my knowledge all modern UK tram (and rail) systems have been drawn up exclusively in metric.  —Sladen (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, modern ones, but not the originals, for obvious reasons. I mis-wrote above. I am switching it to display imperial first, as that seems more appropriate considering the way distances are normally expressed. Also, in common parlance, "or" can be used as conjunction. As in sixteen stops or 8.1 miles, depending on how you measure distance (you could use "stops"). RGloucester  — 📬 21:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a modern system.  In a modern system, everything is in metric: including chainage and speed limits, so I'm unclear why it makes (any) sense to use imperial.  —Sladen (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Because, in common use, and to the common user, one expresses distances and speeds in imperial? The Metrolink article does the same.
However, if I may ask for some assistance with something else. Does anyone know a good place to find a proper route description, like, for example, where the trams start to go on-street? I've had to create a new route section for the GA-review, which I think is good…except what it really needs, and what this article lacks, is a good, detailed description including bridges and such, of the route. It used to be on the old Trams website, but that was taken down… RGloucester  — 📬 22:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Try relation 2632877 on OpenStreetMap. —Sladen (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Imperial or Metric?
Pros for Using Imperial measurements:
it is about a United Kingdom piece of intrastructure
Other tram articles on trams use imperial, eg Manchester Metrolink, San Francisco cable car system as their primary unit of measure
Pros for Using Metric measurements:
Like other UK tram networks, all distances, speeds etc will be quoted in metric when it goes live, perhaps this is a European Union directive being a new network with no existing interfaces?
Verdict:
If it's primary audience was tram enthusiasts, I would go for metric, but as this will be ordinary UK citizens with little or no knowledge of the inner workings of tram networks, I am think imperial should be used.
The exact length does appear unclear per  its either 14km = 8.7mi or 8.5mi = 13.7km, perhaps we should just run with the former for now, I am sure it will be able to be acurately calculated by tram odometer when the system opens.Mo7838 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Whatever you use, it should be properly referenced. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your insightfulness.Mo7838 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done kudos SladenMo7838 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The reference says "14K (8.5 mi). But a better rounding is 8.7, which is why it is different. RGloucester  — 📬 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I am assuming the reference doesn't say that the tramway has a temperature of 14 kelvins. If you're so keen on being old-school, this distance would more traditionally be expressed as something like 8 23⁄32 (depending on how much precision you want), because the traditional subdivisions of the mile are based on dyadic fractions (or units derived therefrom, such as furlongs), not decimal fractions (1⁄32 = 55 yards or 165 ft, as opposed to the not-very-meaningful 1⁄10 = 176 yards or 528 ft). In any event, British engineering and construction have been well-nigh 100% metric for decades (basically the USA is the only country in the world that still engineers in Ye Olde Englyshe units), so I don't see the need to give precedence to these archaic, confusing and irrational units in a context where they're not actually used in the real world. As a general point of metrological good practice, a rounded conversion should never be given precedence over the initial or nominal value, and all the primary sources that I have seen give the length as 14 km, typically without a (superfluous) Imperial conversion. A choice of units should not be made on the basis that they "sound" more authentically British; this is to value pretentiousness over practicality (I'm reminded of Americans who insist on giving engine displacements in cu. in., even tho their auto industry, like everywhere else on earth, has measured it in cm3 or L for decades). I am sure the Britishness of our engineers is not called into question by their desire to use a more rational system of measures, and I dispute that there's anyone alive in 21st-century Britain who doesn't know what a metre is, but I don't think most people under the age of 40 (I'm being generous) really understand Imperial or know how to use it correctly. If, for historical reasons (such as a discussion of pre-1960s British tramways) there are legitimate reasons to prefer Imperial units, this should be reflected consistently throughout the article, e.g. by giving vehicle dimensions and masses firstly in ft/in and long tons/cwt respectively, followed by a metric conversion. The article, as it stands, correctly prefers the metricated value of 1435 mm for the gauge, because this aligns with the existing metrological practice in contemporary Britain; giving 4' 8+1⁄2" as the primary value would be anachronistic. Mixing and matching Imperial and metric is bad practice: it helps nobody in particular, and it makes the article stylistically clumsy. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember saying anything about "Britishness". I said, quite simply, that in common use distances and speeds are quoted in miles and miles per hour, just as road signs are given in that manner. I also said that articles like Manchester Metrolink or Sheffield Supertram also use Imperial. It is quite clear that you do not have a neutral point of view on this matter, considering your derision for what you call "Ye Olde Englyshe units", and considering you tendency to edit articles on metrification. There is no reason for such nonsense. I can understand a metre as good as the next person, but I'm certain Imperial should take priority for distances and speeds, just as the government has decreed that roads signs are done in that manner. RGloucester  — 📬 13:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Let me also quote the manual of style at WP:UNIT:
In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:
miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
hands for horses and most other equines
RGloucester  — 📬 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I never pretended to be "neutral", but I am unconvinced that there is such a thing as perfect neutrality in this case; in my experience the people with the most dogmatically inflexible opinions are those who are convinced they don't have an opinion and are merely being impartial. It has been the policy of our successive governments since 1965 to migrate our country to the metric system, and the fact that they have done this so slowly and inefficiently that, well into the 21st Century, the DfT has still not brought our road signage into the 20th Century, is quite irrelevant. In my experience British people do not slavishly convert the lengths of, for example, 10 km races into "6.21 miles", because this adds nothing of interest, and they are no less capable of understanding what the metric unit means than are people from the rest of the world.
I edit articles because I know a lot about metrology, and I believe it is appropriate for Wikipedia articles express measurements more consistently. There exists an international standard which every person in the world with a basic education should be able to understand (i.e. the SI and associated units), so it generally makes sense to prioritise this. I don't like privileging units that most people whose cultural origins lie outside the Anglophone world (many of whom do speak English and some of whom do read the English Wikipedia) do not generally understand, and many people of younger generations within the Anglophone world do not understand, especially since the overwhelming majority of people can understand the metric equivalent perfectly well, much as they might like to pose at being old-fashioned by speaking in Imperial units (like I say, even something as fundamental as the connection between yards and miles is probably a mystery to 95% of them). Some editors (I won't say "Americans" but that is what I suspect) have an obnoxious habit of not only providing no metric equivalents for the US Customary units that nobody else in the world uses, but even inserting feet and suchlike into contexts where they are patently absurd and do not belong, with no effort to translate them into standard international measurements (e.g. in articles about France) - is this in line with your idea of "neutrality", or is it OK for me to change this sort of inconsiderate nonsense, in your opinion? I don't find it unreasonable for a reference work that is the product of international collaboration to prefer international measurements.
The manual of style and the other articles you cite are also not god-given; they are products of people who have, dare I say it, opinions. I'd also put it to you that the person who wrote that part of the style manual has a dubious understanding of metrology; "miles per gallon" is a measurement of fuel economy and is formally considered a supplementary unit; in the UK, fuel consumption is (by legal mandate) measured in the standard international unit of L/100 km. These are reciprocal quantities, and confusing them is pretty serious incompetence. I dispute that "main units" means "use these units slavishly, regardless of the primary sources or any other considerations" -- to emphasise, my main dispute here is not with imperial/metric per se, so much as that an approximate conversion has been given priority over the value expressed in the primary source; this is exceptionally bad practice. If I were important enough to merit a Wikipedia page of my own, and gave my height and weight as 186 cm, 75 kg, because I've always measured/weighed myself in cm and kg, and they're the units that are most meaningful to me and about 95% of planet earth, would you insist that, because I am British, this is unacceptable, and some meaningless value in medieval units is to be preferred, in mindless adherence to the style guide? There is a need to show some level of discretion, rather than following rules to the point of absurdity; presenting a primary value as if it were a conversion is disingenuous, which is simply not acceptable in any work of reference. My point is that, if, in point of fact, we have mixed measurement traditions (which we do), the primary value is always to be preferred, in its given units. If I were to cite an OS map, would you say that, even tho they are 100% metric and have been since the 1970s, I should censor this fact by replacing all references to km with mi, and m with yds? Implicit in any style guide is the cardinal rule: "break any of these rules before you write something absurd". If you disagree with my central contention that the primary source determines the primary unit, please explain your reasoning to me, and leave out your "certainty" that miles and mph invariably have priority (this makes it sound like the Imperial system is some sort of divine revelation). You could also go to the source of the offending metric units and try to persuade Edinburgh council or the British engineering and construction communities that they've been horribly misguided for these past 40 or so years, and the Imperial system is actually the key to their future. I'd be most interested to hear how far you got.
As for "derision", if you ever try to deal with the extreme and pointless silliness of Imperial engineering units (BTUs, therms, poundals, slugs, lbm vs. lbf, "mils" vs. fractional inches, two different kinds of gallon which don't relate in a natural way to cubic feet, not to speak of the horrible conversion factors like ft/s to mph or hp to BTU/h) I can guarantee you that you'll join me in deriding Imperial and sending it to the history books where, for the present generation of British engineers and scientists (of which I am one), it already belongs. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
That is marvelous, and I appreciate your opinion on the matter. But the talk page for this article is not a forum for discussion of systems of units. If you would like to propose a change to the manual of style, head over to the village pump and make a proposal. Otherwise, please don't disrupt this article's talk page with stuff that has nothing to do with it. RGloucester  — 📬 16:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
There's no need to be patronising or dismissive. I didn't mean to start a more general discussion about units and I apologise if I rambled in trying to make my point; I was specifically calling into question your interpretation of the style guide, as it stands, on one particular point, relating to very specific content of the article. I'll request a clarification of that section of the style guide on this matter, and I ask that you abide by it - I don't think it's controversial to require editors to respect the content of primary sources, rather than trying to "correct" primary sources because they disagree with the choice of units, which is misleading to readers and thus bad practice. It should be made clear what is the source value and what is the approximate conversion. I would also draw your attention to the following quote from the style guide, directly below the passage you quoted: "Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first" -- this seems unambiguously to preclude putting a converted value before the nominal reference/design value of 14 km, i.e. the official figure from Edinburgh council. At the head of the page is "Use common sense in applying it [the style guide]; it will have occasional exceptions." Couldn't have made my point better myself. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I was being neither patronizing nor dismissive. Merely establishing that meaningful work is being done on this article, and that this is not the place for the discussion you've started. One of the sources, that is, the Edinburgh Council website gives "14km (8.5 miles)". Other sources, like the Scotsman newspaper and the Edinburgh Evening News, give 8.7 miles and 8.5 miles variously as the primary number, while still listing 14km as the alternate. I understand that there are exceptions to the style guide. This is not one of them.
Your justification for changing the units is coloured by your opposition to any use of Imperial units, which you've made visibly clear. I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point personally, but I do know that in common use, Imperial units are used in the UK these types of distances and speeds. I know that the style guide also agrees with that notion, and that other similar articles adhere to it. To deviate from the paradigm in this article alone, without changing the others, would be incorrect. If you are proposing that change them all, fine (Manchester Metrolink was also lain in metric, but an approximate conversion is still given as primary). But you must do this at the village pump, and not here, where it doesn't belong, and where it is disruptive. RGloucester  — 📬 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
For that sake of letting bygones be bygones and so on, I'm willing to agree to metric units in the article, if other editors have no objections. This is not a battle I want to fight, and it is interfering with work that has otherwise very much improved the article. What say you and all? RGloucester  — 📬 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a UK article, hence British English has been used. Yes the construction (and I believe the tram) industry speak in metric and have done so for many decades, but UK citizen 'Joe Public' who is going to be the primary reader, speaks in imperial so the status quo should remain.Mo7838 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Your assumptions about what units British people will use are not relevant. As a country we have two systems of measurement existing in parallel, one modern and one largely obsolete. The only objective way of deciding which one to prefer in a given context is to follow the primary source, which any credible work of reference is ethically bound to do in any regard (where dual units are given by Edinburgh council, the preference is for the round metric values, with - very approximate - Imperial equivalents, so this simply reinforces my point). Please note that this argument is not dependent on my personal preference for metric (I don't dispute that would be bad practice on my part). Archon 2488 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Distances and speeds in the UK are in imperial, hence the article needs to reflect. Cars are sold with speedometers and odometers in imperial, a new motorway will have speed signs erected in imperial..hardly 'obsolete'. Yes the contract to build the motorway will probably be in metric, but a a motorway extension of 10 km will be announced as a 6.1 mile extension because that is the unit of measure the UK public relates to.Mo7838 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Giving an imperial conversion is fine, and I never said otherwise, but you must always bear in mind that a measurement, a nominal value and a conversion are all different things, and it must be made unambiguously clear in any objective work of reference, which one of these three things a given number is; the entirety of my dispute with the article is that it fails to do this and thus is misleading. This is simply good practice, and the essential point here has not been called into dispute. You have not given a compelling argument for altering information from a primary source, which is at best very questionable, and not at all conducive to writing an objective source of information. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a type of argument that is pointless to fight over, just like battles over WP:ENGVAR. It harms the encyclopedia, and it is pedantic. To be honest, it doesn't matter if one measures in feet, furlongs or myriametres. As long as one has a conversion at hand, it doesn't make tuppence coloured worth of difference. Can we make compromise for the sake of sanity? RGloucester  — 📬 22:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
So what is your proposed compromise? The difference is that 14 km and 8.7 miles (or is it 8.5? whats' a mere 352 yards between friends?) are not the same thing, and any engineer with such a casual attitude to unit conversion would soon be out of a job. "Color" and "colour" are the same thing, and I have never tried to "correct" American spellings (which are often more logical than British spellings, in any case). Archon 2488 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
First and foremost, I am not an engineer, nor do I ever desire to be one. To certain scholars of the English language, for example, Henry Watson Fowler, "color" and "colour" are not the same thing (he advocated "color"). Just as to you, these approximate measurements are not "the same thing". But, to Joe Bloggs, they are about as close as one needs to get. This article is for Joe Bloggs.
That is besides the point, however. My compromise, as I said above, was to allow metric to be primary for this article, to spare the world this nonsense about arguing of petty units rather than actually creating or adding a new information to the article and mucking up the talk page, which has already been done. Fourteen kilometres (8.7 miles). That's that.
After we've finished here, presuming other editors see the light and stop fighting with you over this, perhaps you could take my suggestion and head over to the village pump and make a proposal that metric always be primary. Then, we wouldn't have to waste time here any longer. With sincerity, RGloucester  — 📬 00:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 Agree it's become a bit boring, time to move on.Mo7838 (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
And just for the record, if you search for petrol and "miles per litre" you get about 1.4 million hits, a similar search but for petrol and "miles per gallon" gives less than half that. Which isn't surprising as petrol pumps only show litres. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Electric trams don't use petrol? I was just quoting what the style guide said were exceptions to the rule. I wasn't using that phrase. RGloucester  — 📬 13:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


### Infobox
Currently, this page uses Template:Infobox rail line. We could use Template:Infobox tram network, or the one used by Manchester Metrolink, which is Template:Infobox public transit. Should we bother changing it, or does it not really matter? RGloucester  — 📬 18:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I finally got around to replacing the old rail line infobox with the public transit one. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As all of the stations are likely to be very similar, would it better to include in the main Edinburgh Trams article as done in Inner West Light Rail, rather than have an article for each station none of which really pass WP:GNG? Mo7838 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to include them in the main article more than they are now in the route table, however I don't think the independent articles should necessarily exist either. All that people really need to know is that they exist, and where. Other than that, there is nothing notable about them. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs some major work if this article was ever to improve. It needs to do so as the system will be coming on line soon and this article will see more traffic. At the moment it is an embarrassment. Any takers? —John (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but this article passed a good article review. Me, and a few other editors heavily worked on the prose at that point. Maintaing the article has been a priority of mine, as well as others, as the line comes into service. It was for that very reason that I sent it in for a good article review back in September. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
John, would you be able to highlight which sentences (and in which paragraphs) need addressing, these can than be focused on.  —Sladen (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, if one can specify what needs to be done, it can be examined. I'd be happy to help with any phrases that appear off. I'd prefer, however, if one refrained from such detestable phrases as "embarrassment". RGloucester  — ☎ 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I implore you, stop at once. While many of your changes are justified, some are not, and should have been discussed before having been implemented.  RGloucester  — ☎ 19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's a wiki. Anyone can edit. Wait until I have finished and raise your concerns one by one here. That this article passed GA is somewhat surprising. —John (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone can edit, no doubt. However, I have no interest in reverting all one's changes at once without discussing them. Hence, I am being polite in requesting that one halt all changes, and stop with one's disparaging remarks towards this article, which are inappropriate. It is not beneficial to tread all over the work of others, as some kind of "god of Grammar", who apparently has preferences that haven't been agreed by consensus. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks then for your politeness. I have been contributing to the article since 2008 and am now the fourth most prolific contributor to it. I apologise for my initial tone but I do not withdraw my criticisms. The Daily Record is not a reliable source. WP:PROSELINE is a remaining fault. I stand by all my copyedits. Please don't try to own this article; it doesn't need it. Instead, it needs a further thorough copyedit. We don't need an obsessive account of every date on which every adjustment to the timeline was made, or every time an Evening News article criticised it. Let's try to maker it better instead of arguing. Can I use that Grammar God thing on my user page? Please? —John (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Do what you like. However! One shall be subject to the tempestuous virtues of consensus. I am not concerned about the excision of the Daily Record.  RGloucester  — ☎ 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously this has been a very complex project with many twists and turns, justifying a detailed article. Editors work in bringing to this stage is appreciated. Nonetheless some of the information added as the article has evolved, may in the fullness of time not be required. Always a bit hard to see when one has been involved in its evolution, so a fresh pair of eyes can sometimes help put things in perspective. Mo7838 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I spent a great deal of time removing such fluff at the time of the GA review. I'm not opposed to such changes, however, I would prefer that we remain civil and discuss them before wholesale removals. It might also be worthwhile to consider restructuring such problem-ridden areas, if they exist, rather than demolishing them. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with John's comments about the GA review, and I'd never have listed it in its present state.  Eric Corbett 23:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree, but clearly there are some who do not, otherwise it would not've been listed. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It can easily be delisted, and will be unless it's sufficiently improved.  Eric Corbett 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Do what you will, tempestuous one. It seems the gods of Grammar have descended upon our flock, and hence have cast us into the dark pit of delisting. I shall sit in the darkness and wail, for I'm sure some kind soul will aid me in due course. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I give you fair warning that if this article isn't improved to my satisfaction in next 14 days I will delist it.  Eric Corbett 23:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't my article. It is humanity's article. I do not know why you insist upon warning 'me', of all the billions that roam about. I do not care if you delist, for you will do what you will regardless of my speaking. You must go with your conscience, dear fellow. And I shall go with mine. Good luck in your endeavours. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then humanity had better get to work on it.  Eric Corbett 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Illustrates that the whole GA that some editors get all excited about, is a bit of a joke. A totally subjective exercise, with plenty of sub-standard articles flagged as GA, and plenty of good articles not so. Seems to primarily exist to stroke editor's egos. Then used by editors as a defence when adding rubbish to other articles.Mo7838 (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't entirely agree with that. I've done getting on for 600 GA reviews now, and I've delisted 147 articles. I fought long and hard for that little green blob at the top of the screen, and I don't want to see it devalued by sub-standard reviews. That's my only interest in this article.  Eric Corbett 00:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
There is not an exercise in the world that is not 'subjective'. However, that is neither here nor there. Would Mr Corbett kindly reply here to the query I left on his talk page? RGloucester  — ☎ 00:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You asked the question on my talk page and that's where I've replied.  Eric Corbett 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The picture caption should be a clue; pictures like this should never be used. I pass this location every week; I'll take a picture with a more relevant livery. Meantime, the picture isn't adding anything. --John (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and non-sentence picture captions shouldn't use a full stop. —John (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It is illustrative to be able to see the tram depot, is it not? It is. Removing it only harms the reader. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is correct to write "trams in So and So Street", but incorrect to write "on Such and Such Street" in usage. I do not know why this is being changed, but I can only think that it might be an ENGVAR issue. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you were asked where your car was parked, you would answer 'on the street', not 'in the street'. Mo7838 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would answer: "I parked my car in George Street". Similarly, I'd say "The are trams running in Princes Street". RGloucester  — ☎ 20:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Mo7838. What do other UK tram articles use? —John (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I would accept "at" as a compromise, which is what is used at the Manchester Metrolink article. However, I'm fairly certain that "in" is the standard. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Don't think in this instance it is a case of reaching a compromise, it's about getting it right. "At" would be even further away from correct in the current context. "At" would be appropriate if at a station or other landmark, but not so if just on a street. Mo7838 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
How can a tram be 'on a street'? I've never heard of such a thing. Cars drive in streets, lorries drive in streets, people walk in streets, people live in streets. I've never heard "on a street", except in an American context, which doesn't apply here. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I hear and use 'in' and 'on' interchangeably. Either is clear enough to me. If I was pedantic I'd say 'on the road' or 'in the street', road being a surface and street being a thoroughfare.[2]--Flexdream (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Can't find anything concrete to verify either of our theories. I wold have thought that "in" implies being surrounded by, while "on" implies sitting on top of.
My understanding is that anything inside the fence line is "in" the street, eg people live in streets, and that anything beyond is "on" the street, eg cars park on the street. We may need to seek external opinion. Mo7838 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Anyone who lives on a street must indeed have fallen on hard times, else they'd live in a house on that street. Similar with trams, on is clearly correct.  Eric Corbett 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not correct. In British usage, we say that someone "lives in Shandwick Place", or whatever. We do not say that they live "on Shandwick Place". I do not know where you get that idea. I know that Americans use "on", however, the British do not. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Trams don't live anywhere, that was just an analogy, but they certainly don't run in the street, as that would imply some degree of embedding within the fabric of the street. Saying that you live in Shandwick Place is a commonplace shorthand for saying that you live in a house on Shandwick Place.  Eric Corbett 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
They do run in the middle of the street. Have you never heard of rails, dear fellow? Why can cars drive in streets, yet trams cannot, despite the fact that their rails are more permanent? Living "in" a street is standard usage, and if it was once shorthand, it has ceased to be so after centuries of usage. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You're really wasting your time in trying to patronise me, particularly when you're wrong, so I'd advise you not to bother. The rails may or may not be embedded in the street, but the trams most certainly are not.  Eric Corbett 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not know what one means by "patronisation". I am merely pointing out the rationale behind what I am saying. I do not appreciate the harshness that one's tone clearly embodies. I do not see why it is necessary. I suggest that we consult external texts. However, in looking for such texts, I have found difficulty. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then let me give you a clue. I am not your "dear fellow". That you find difficulty in understanding what you're being told is no concern of mine.  Eric Corbett 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
All humans are dear, and all are fellows. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the definitions of the words in question:
In is defined as: expressing the situation of something that is or appears to be enclosed or surrounded by something else
On is defined as: physically in contact with and supported by a surface
As the rails are embedded into the surface, it is correct to say they are in the road, but as trams sit on the road with no physical side barriers, is correct to use on. Mo7838 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Quite. Simple really.  Eric Corbett 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose one cannot contest a dictionary, but I'm sure some old tram-men would be able to attest traditional usage. However, on this matter, I admit defeat. "On Shandwick Place", however, sounds dreadful. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
When you say you are "in your house" it does not mean you are entombed in the walls, it means you are "within" the physical structure. The context in which we commonly say "in the street" similarly means between the boundaries of the street, not embedded in the roadway. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Not read what Eric's or anybody else's opinion is but on a street for a tram makes far more sense than in a street.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC) 

All UK councils have "on street parking" [3][4] although you may have to park in (the confines of) a parking bay. None have "in street parking". Also, there is an English Language teaching programme  looking at how English works in everyday life called "Word on the Street"[5]. Richerman   (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
And here's another perspective. Would anyone say the trams were running inside the street as opposed to along the street?  Eric Corbett 13:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
'Inside' is different from 'in'. I would say 'along'. If one says that there is a 'dead man lying in the street', one merely means that there is a dead man inside the confines of the street, where dead men are not supposed to be lying. However, if one said that there was a 'dead man inside the street', it would be as if the dead man was paved into the street. I imagine that this is all a problem of dialect, however. As I said, however, it is irrelevant. Use one's 'on', and listen to the dreadful ringing of 'on Shandwick Place'. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm beginning to wonder if you're a native English speaker.  Eric Corbett 00:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm Edinburgh bred and raised, Mr Corbett. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah well. Having been brought up and educated in Scotland myself I've always thought highly of the Scottish education system, But there you go, we can all make mistakes.  Eric Corbett 00:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Returning to the original point, as you may know I have a fair bit of experience with tram and train articles, and I'd unequivocally concur with Mo7838 and John here. This is not an ENGVAR issue, it's a matter of basic grammar. The rails themselves are in the street, but vehicles running on those rails (note, not "in" the rails) are undoubtedly on the street; just stop and think how ridiculous "the train is in the West Coast Main Line" sounds. There are countless examples from both rail and road usage, in US, English and Scottish English, to back this up. (Through trains from Elgin to Kyle run on the Inverness Triangle, the car was doing 90mph on the M4, New Orleans streetcars run on South Carrollton Avenue...) A dip-sample of other significant tram articles (Muni Metro, Manchester Metrolink, Trams in Berlin and not to mention Tram itself) shows 100% usage of "on" rather than "in". – iridescent 11:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and justify the GA review here if requested. In the revision of as of 19 September 2013 the article did, in my opinion, meet the criteria. It might, in hindsight, have been a bit overly focused on the difficulties during development, and some of the prose a little unpolished, but it is well referenced and illustrated, reasonably neutral and fully covered the topic at the time of it being passed. Jamesx12345 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

What made The Daily Record a good source for that version of the article? --John (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
"The Edinburgh trams, built to meet TIE's specifications, are be bi-directional" is more than just 'unpolished'. --John (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
John: So, with specificality, how would you reword this sentence? —Sladen (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That sentence was a problem in the "reviewed" version of the article, not in the present version. I believe that Mr John is referencing the reviewed version, as that is what this heading deals with. The present one reads: "The trams for Edinburgh, built to meet TIE's specifications, are bi-directional, 42.8 metres (140 ft 5 in) long and built with low-floor access to meet UK Rail Vehicle Access Regulations for disabled people". RGloucester  — ☎ 18:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. The presence of the nonstandard form "are be" in the "reviewed" version suggests that the review was less than perfect. I see a lot of the current problems present in September 2013; PROSELINE, tabloid sourcing, poor prose like "unveiled". I agree with Eric that the article needs to improve or be delisted. --John (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
John: So, with specificality, which precise sentences and paragraphs need improving.  (ie. list the problems so they can be dealt with). Please.  —Sladen (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have already requested this of Mr Corbett. He said that he would do so during a GA reassessment, though he gave neither an indication as to whether he would be conducting such a reassessment in actuality, nor when he might do so. However, I would happy to address any concerns that are detailed in full. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I have removed the tabloid sourcing and most of the dodgy prose. The remaining challenge is to completely rewrite the article to make it thematic rather than a month-by-month chronology of the various delays. The delays and overspends need to be fairly mentioned but at the moment they dominate the article. —John (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Inevitably they will dominate they article, as they dominate the topic as a whole in reliable sources (not merely tabloids), at present. However, as the line gets up and running, this will presumably change, and the balance of coverage will shift. However, once again, one really needs a more detailed assessment before one can assist you. RGloucester  — ☎ 19:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) John: Incremental change is often an effective way to iterate improvements rather than simple going for a complete restart.  To do that it needs your help and assistance in order to document what you've spotted: which precise paragraphs (and sentences) covering the overspends and delays do you feel could do with re-balancing?  —Sladen (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
In response to the ping at my user talk, I have already indicated, as has Eric, that I believe a substantial rewrite is called for. I approve the ongoing edits from User:Mo7838. These will help in the rewrite. --John (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
John: I would like to ensure your specific concerns are addressed.  To be able to do this, you have to be specific about what those concerns are.  Please undertake your part of the bargin and share what precisely those concerns are.  Vague, indefinitely hand-waving is extremely hard for other editors to know how to respond to.  —Sladen (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've reverted the edits by Mo7838. Considering Mr John's supposed concerns about WP:PROSELINE, I do not know why he'd approve them. In fact, it seems to have made the situation worse, as prose-bits were removed, leaving only bits with the "date/fact" style that is discouraged in that essay. Some of the removals were appropriate, but a great deal more were not. I propose, as Mr Sladen has suggested, that we have discuss which parts need removal, and which parts need rewriting, and then work through them. This is the only effective way to get this done. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
If the editor looks at what was deleted, much of it was padding, out of date or in many cases simply irrelevant to the article, eg liveries that never were, Transport Initiatives Edinburgh staff movements, where Tramlink procured trams. As stated before, editor's contributions to the article are appreciated, but after 200+ edits to the page he/she may understandably struggle to see the forest through the trees. There seems to be a consensus that the article needs work, and the first step is to eliminate the superfluous text. Mo7838 (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The first step is for the editor to accept that the article needs work, not to try and pretend that it doesn't by attacking its critics.  Eric Corbett 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
My dear Mr Corbett, this is unwarranted. As one can see in my text below, and in my recent edits, I am not of illusions about this article. I merely questioned the implementation of Mr Mo's edits, which often reduced parts of the article to "In month day…", which is exactly what WP:PROSELINE prods us to avoid. I've removed most of the content once more, but have provided prose solutions to these drop-offs. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But we must discuss what text needs removal. I do agree with the removal of staff movements/Tramlink, however, I do not agree with the manner in which the prose was left. The result was "In month year…" throughout the article, which is fundamentally the problem we are trying to avoid. I do not agree with the removal of historic liveries, as this information could be of use. Furthermore, there is precedent for the inclusion of such liveries. I've already reinserted your edits with regard to rolling stock, and I am working on developing prose-methods of implementing the removal of the items you mention. RGloucester  — ☎ 23:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As editor RGloucester has elected to reinstate 50% of the recently deleted text, clearly he has yet to grasp the nettle as to the issues the article has. Given that the editor has to date not shown either the ability or willingness to make the necessary changes required to maintain its GA status, he is likely to require the assistance of other editors.
He would be well advised to give up his 'Dear Fellow' etc routine, which despite protestations, is clearly being done in a derogatory manner. The other editors he has managed to offend by his conduct, may well be the be the only ones willing to engage in the necessary steps to save the article's GA status, so perhaps editor should think twice before biting the hand that may feed.
The editor hasn't helped himself with the in/on streets issue. He was perfectly entitled to make a case, but when is told by all and sundry his position is not correct, he should gracefully retreat, not keep banging on.
In the interests of openness and transparency I will explain the rationale for the changes made:
1) [6] formation of Transport for Edinburgh, not relevant, covered on wikilinked article
2) [7] liveries, no need to go into a change of livery for Lothian Buses or other liveries that were never used
3) [8] staff movements & remuneration details at Transport Initiatives Edinburgh not encyclopedic
4) [9] staff movements at Transport Initiatives Edinburgh not encyclopedic
5) [10] where Tramlink procured its trams from irrelevant to the article
6) [11] various redundant info, assurances over dates, dates that things 'might' happen, possible studies
7) [12] delete some of the NIMBYism, par for the course with any infrastructure project
8) [13] trams, consolidate padding, of course they were built to Edinburgh's specifications, CCTV has been standard on all public transport for years
The "In month year…" overload is not helped by the fact there is to much 'nitty-gritty' information, that needs to be eliminated. For example, construction being halted in January 2010 due to weather conditions. The weather probably shut down most construction sites in Scotland and a couple of days lost are hardly relevant in the grand scheme of things. Its things like this, and a fair bit of duplication in different sections that needs to go. Mo7838 (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, dear sir, but all staff movement details, Tramlink details, rolling stock details, and so forth, have been removed, however, I've added in prose ways of dealing with the drop-offs, rather than just leaving 'in month year'. Perhaps you should take a look at my edits before you criticise them. I'd also like you retain at least a dram's worth of civility, as I've been nothing but accommodating to concerns raised by various editors. Now, onto the substance:
Transport for Edinburgh should be included in some respect, as the trams were originally meant to be owned directly by the council, and run by Transdev. This has changed significantly, with the formation of Transport for Edinburgh, the trams are now owned by that holding company, concurrently with Lothian Buses, and the Transdev contract has long been scrapped in favour of 'Edinburgh Trams Limited', a Transport for Edinburgh company. That's a development that warrants some mention.
The liveries are a historical aspect of the project. There is no reason why we should not detail that there were multiple different liveries for the trams, especially considering we are displaying pictures in each of the various liveries.
As it is, I am content to get rid of 'nitty-gritty', and have done so. Please continue to list sections that concern you, as they can then be remedied. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It's generally better to compromise than to revert good-faith edits. I don't think we should have a picture of the old livery. —John (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to compromise. However, to do this, one must discuss the edits one plans to make before making them, so that they can be implemented at the point that they reach consensus.
With regard to the old livery, we've got two: one of the replica tram on Princes Street in the 'harlequin' and one of the depot, which has the 'red and white'. I do think we should have a picture of the depot. If someone has an updated picture of the depot, that'd be useful. I could go look on Geographs. I don't think having the picture of the replica tram hurts, as it was an important stage in the process. The information with regard to the livery should be condense, however, I feel that it should at least mention that there have been three separate liveries planned. Firstly, the 'harlequin', which was never applied to the majority of trams, but was found in promotional material, and on the replica. Secondly, the 'red and white', which, accompanied by the old logo, was the original livery all trams were painted in until the arrival of TfE livery. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Its this nitty-gritty level detail that bogs the article down, that trams were delivered in a different livery to what they first hit the tracks in, lacks relevancy in the grand scheme. The livery info should commence at what time the trams first hit the tracks. Mo7838 (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it too hard to include a brief reference for the sake of completeness? Livery is one of the most distinguishing parts of a tram. I recommend such a phrase as this:
Trams are painted in a livery mandated by Transport for Edinburgh, which is shared with minor variation by Lothian Buses. It consists of white, with rose madder and platinum stripes. This livery was decided on after two previous liveries, never used in service, were discarded. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 Agree Mo7838 (talk) 01:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and inserted the revised phrasing. Please also see my commentary below, and consider responding to those concerns. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


### Recent edits - requesting revision
I object to some of the recent edits by Mr Mo. Despite voicing my concerns, Mr Mo has not discussed the removals I contested on this talk page. Instead, he has gone again and removed them. This is not appropriate. 

I've mentioned my reasoning for disagreeing with the removal of the formation of 'TfE'. This should be mentioned in some regard, as the changing of the ownership/operator of the scheme is certain notable in the context of this article. I am not opposed to rewriting the sentence.
Mr Mo has deleted references to old liveries once more, without discussing the matter, or trying to reach consensus.
Mr Mo has deleted the introductory sentence to the section '2013 to present' resulting in yet another 'in month year'.
Mr Mo has deleted the introductory sentence to the section 'Project revisions and delays'.
I recommend the the reintroduction of the introductory sentences to the two sections mentioned. I recommend reinstating a condensed sentence referencing the change in ownership of the tram scheme. I recommend condensing the 'old liveries' bit, but retaining mention of the fact that they existed. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Compromise? That's usually how things get done around here. —John (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you read my above post? One needs to 'discuss' to compromise, and Mo has not responded, nor have you replied to the substance. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I did. Can I request you not to make any more cheeky comments like that, or to call people other than their user name? John is fine for me. Most compromises on Wikipedia are enacted not by discussion but by making an intermediate edit. I write X, you write Y, then I write Z (where Z is a compromise between X and Y). That is what I meant by compromise. —John (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I already implemented such a compromise by revising the introductory sentences, and condensing them. Mo removed them again, without discussion. That isn't compromise. Discussion is required, just as WP:BRD declares. I do not understand your disdain for the appropriate manner of addressing people. It is essential that formality is retained in relations between strangers. Regardless, it would be pleasant if one would address the substance mentioned above. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Would have thought that after being asked by 3 editors, [14][15][16] to drop his Dear fellow, Mr John routine, that perhaps the message might have sunk in. Only conclusion that can be drawn is that the editor is either not very bright, or more likely, reluctantly engaging in discussion as he feels the article does not need work because of its GA status and thus has decided to communicate with editors questioning this in a patronising manner.
Either way, editor has been advised article needs substantial work to avoid a GA review. As he appears reluctant to take the opinion of others on board that may prevent this, I shall park further suggestions to further improve until this process commences. Mo7838 (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can't change my principles of address because some people dislike speaking in formalities. I hate the trend to casualness in the contemporary era, and I will fight it to the bitter end. There is no other proper way to address a person that one does not know. It does not matter where I am, or who I am speaking to. I use the same terms of address for everyone except those I'm very familiar with, and it is in no way 'patronising'. My apologies in this regard. Regardless, that is neither here nor there.
I do feel the article needs work, just as much as any article needs work, as I said before. I am not reluctant to take the opinion of others. I am content to do so, as I have done with regard to your edits. However, I cannot be expected to agree with everything you propose. I do believe that a minor mention of Transport for Edinburgh is warranted. I am not justifying the previous way it existed in the text, however, I think that a change in ownership of the scheme is notable enough in an article about the scheme. At this point, one has not responded to my view in that regard. The constructive way forward would be for you to respond, to see if a compromise is possible.
With regard to the introductory sentences, I've pruned them and removed words that might be considered a violation of NPOV. However, I think they are necessary for the sake of the flow of the text.
I hope and pray, Mr Mo, that you can retain at least a dram of civility in your dealings with other editors, myself included. I have done nothing to deserve your ire, and I have made every effort to initiate dialogue in this regard. If only you'd read my words, then all would be settled for the good of the project. Please assist me by responding to my comments regarding 'TfE'. Sincerely, RGloucester  — ☎ 02:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I love Openstreetmap but this is not a good source. There must be better. --John (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

There are other route maps, but none give a street-by-street breakdown. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I could describe the on-street section from Haymarket loop to York Place, but it would be on the basis of the survey work done for OpenStreetMap…  —Sladen (talk) 08:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

"and the Murrayfield Viaduct was adapted for trams to pass under it"
Looking on OpenStreetMap I don't see any viaduct that the tram line passes under anywhere near Murrayfield. Could this be clarified?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.177.76 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned IP --> 

It is on OpenStreet Map. The viaduct being referred to is part of the Granton branch of the old Caledonian Railway. It is located just east of Murrayfield. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hm. It seems I'm mistaken. I'll do some searching. I'm fairly certain it had something to do with the Granton branch, though. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I've found the problem. It seems as if these were preparatory works for tramway phase two to Granton, which would've followed the Granton branch of the Caledonian. Those bridges mentioned are along that route, not on the route of present tramway. It explains this in the source cited, which is the Scots parliament bill that approved 'line one' which was to include Granton. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it was all part of the Granton route, as seen here. However, I do not think these works were actually carried out. The source is a 'plan', not a factual reporting. Let me adjust the wording to make that clearer… RGloucester  — ☎ 15:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the viaducts along the Granton branch from that part of the article, as the works were never carried out. Thanks very much for spotting the error. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There has been a disagreement over whether the drivers and ticket inspectors have been 'employed' or 'hired'. As they are permanent employees on the payroll of Edinburgh Trams Limited, I would have thought employed more appropriate. Hired would given the impression that they may be G4S style outside contractors. 
When an employee is initially recruited they are hired, but once in the job, become employed. Mo7838 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Not true. I don't know where you get this queer idea. The two words mean exactly the same thing. One is merely Germanic (hired), and one is based in Latin (employed). One can temporarily employ someone, and one can temporarily hire someone. There is no difference between the words, other than origin. Hence, the OED[17][18]:

hire, v. 1a) To engage the service of (a person) for a stipulated reward; to employ for wages
employ, v. 4a) To use the services of (a person) to undertake a task, carry out work, etc. In later use chiefly: to hire or retain (a person) to do something in return for wages or payment, esp. to hire or retain (a person) to do work under an employment contract.
It is very sad when Britain's native sons no longer know the true language of their ancestors, that of the beautiful Germanic words so wantonly destroyed by Romanisation. This is pure discrimination against the simple Germanic. Note, the first definition listed of "hire" is the one we need in this context, whereas with "employ", it is merely the fourth. Hire, indeed. RGloucester  — ☎ 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't think my 'idea' was 'queer'. But who am I to question the thinking of an editor who believes trams operate in streets?
The key word in the employ definition is 'retain', indicates the relationship is more of an ongoing one.
As to the origin of certain words, who cares? The English language has evolved over time and Wiki articles are a reflection of that. Mo7838 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Hiring can be an ongoing relationship. Where do you get your ideas? Where? Where? Where? Who on this blue earth doesn't know that "hire" can refer to any kind of employment? Who? "Hire" has not evolved. It means the same as it always has done. It is the word of the people, and you are foisting your elitist Latinist nonsense upon them. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course the meaning of hire has evolved - it used to also mean payment - "for the labourer is worthy of his hire"-Luke 10:7. In the case of using it to mean employment, however, I think it's fine. It's maybe a little more common in American than British English but I don't think it's going to confuse a reader.Cnbrb (talk) 16:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
It still means what you say it "used to mean" to me. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

this article is over-long, far too detailed and over referenced. I have lost the will to live.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.203.123 (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 

Agree, far too much nitty-gritty news reel info. My attempts to resolve have been resisted, hopefully other editors may be more successful. Mo7838 (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
My personal proposal would be a split off to "History of Edinburgh Trams" or some such thing, allowing that content to remain for those who want it, but leaving a trimmer main article now that the line is going to be in service. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
That's a good idea. Now that the system is actually running, the focus of the article should be about what it is, not the development process. However, the history of the project makes interesting reading and could sit happily in a separate article (cf. History of Manchester Metrolink). This BBC article offers a fairly good summary which could offer some inspiration. Perhaps the history of the project and its troubles could be better presented in a timeline format (cf. Timeline of Manchester Metrolink), retaining the basic details and references but in a more easily digestible format. Just a thought. Cnbrb (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The construction section is quite detailed, although justified by the complexity of the project. Article has been trimmed down a fair bit in the past few months which does make more readable, but agree is worth considering splitting. Mo7838 (talk) 16:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that all of the tram stops have been built to the same basic design, should the Edinburgh Airport tram stop, Gogarburn tram stop, Gyle Centre tram stop etc stand-alone articles that don't offer any more information than already contained in this article, be redirected?
Obviously those that have been incorporated into articles with more scope such as Edinburgh Park railway station & Haymarket railway station should remain. Mo7838 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Its been done for the Inner West Light Rail in Sydney, I have no objections. Likelife (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I made that proposal ages ago. There isn't even any information to merge. There isn't really a reason to keep the stand-alone articles, but they don't do any harm. RGloucester  — ☎ 14:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I'd merge them into the articles for the places involved, so Edinburgh Airport tram stop -> Edinburgh Airport, Gyle Centre -> Gyle Centre etc. LaSeandre (talk) 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to see that's been done - there's a similar problem with Manchester Metrolink stops, which all have separate articles, unnecessarily in my view. WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and WP:SNOWFLAKE really apply here.Cnbrb (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
In defence of the Manchester Metrolink stops, many did have histories as railway stations pre being converted into tram stops, making them noteworthy enough to justify their own articles. But agree many of the newbuild stop articles, much like on the ones for this line were, tend to be repetitive. Mo7838 (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I thought the best idea was to merge them into the articles for the destinations, so that the minimal amount of information could be retained and the succession to those places would have some relevance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Has been done at Edinburgh Park railway station, Edinburgh Gateway station and Ingliston. Mo7838 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree with that Mo7838 - the articles about nice old historical stations which were converted for tram use are definitely worth retaining. I just meant that it's hard to justify a standalone article about many newer tram stops which amount to little more than a bus shelter! Actually I think the table in the main article could be enhanced a bit - maybe geolocation data for each stop and a thumbnail photo? Might do it if I get time, or anyone else feel free.Cnbrb (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

A couple of recent developments with the tram launch worth taking into consideration - this article claims that Edinburgh Trams is "integrated" with the bus system. This may be true in terms of ticketing, but I think it needs some qualification. Recent press articles have revealed that the airport bus service frequency is to be increased in frequency and will now run 24 hours. Part of the original rationale for building this tramway was to reduce pollution, so the the claims of "integration" are questionable - looks more like competition to me! The other reports are that the tram is slower and more expensive than the bus.... perhaps not quite enough material to put into the article, unless anyone has more references. Cnbrb (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Recall it reported that the tram would reduce the number of buses, that operate into the cbd with some being redireced to feed into tram stops, whether this actually happened is questionable given that it is reported only 1 route has been significantly reduced.[19] Obviously there are disparities such as the X100 being quicker from Edinburgh Waverley, but from anywhere else the tram is likely to be quicker. Think we need to be careful not to weigh the article down with too much of this more subjective reporting. Mo7838 (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
No, well quite - I didn't put it into the article for that reason, but it's worth being aware of it for future reference.Cnbrb (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

While the Edinburgh Gateway map does have some merit, as it cannot be located in its logical home and has had to be shoehorned in, think best to leave out. The Edinburgh Gateway station article gives the necessary detail. Mo7838 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this into talk. I'm glad that you think the Edinburgh Gateway tram connections has some merit - it does illustrate a complex detail of the trams project for which text alone is not sufficient. I put a fair bit of work into it, so having it removed within hours and dismissed as "clutter" was a bit surprising. However, I recognise that layout is always a problem with these articles and the position was unsatisfactory from the start. There is a gap in the table of trams stops, and if nobody has any objection, I propose inserting it into the table on the Edinburgh Gateway row - that way, the proposal is illustrated and the layout is not disrupted. Seem fair? Cnbrb (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Presume you mean in the vacant image field, seems a good idea. Mo7838 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
We don't need the article filled with maps to the point of clutter. The smarter idea is to let it remain at Edinburgh Gateway railway station, which is the most intuitive place for it to be (not to mention that the gateway doesn't exist at yet). If people would like to read about the gateway project, and see a map as such, all they must do is click on the link in the route table. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
OK got it. No more images. I'll leave it. Cnbrb (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a conflict of information between this page and the Edinburgh Tram (vehicle). The other states "Passenger capacity is 248, with 78 seated and 170 standing" while this page says "Each tram has a capacity of 332, allowing for 80 seated and 252 standing passengers". I would be more inclined to believe the former as the reference link seems to be more recent, and I can actually find that data!
Hopefully someone will rectify this discrepancy for me.
Sjtaunton (talk) 10:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edinburgh Trams. 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/20140526190452/http://edinburghtrams.com:80/tickets/cash-fares to http://edinburghtrams.com/tickets/cash-fares
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 08:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to start another debate, but I would like to direct anybody involved in the discussion over metric and imperial in 2013 on this page to have a look at my proposed policy change on the village pump here
Cheers --Alfiecooper (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Edinburgh Trams. 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.barr-construction.co.uk/projects-and-case-studies/industrial-building/edinburgh-tramway-depot/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://edinburghtrams.com/tickets/cash-fares
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210144711/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-one-bill/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-one-bill/index.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210144721/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-two-bill/index.htm to http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/tram-two-bill/index.htm
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) 10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've added details on the extension being approved by committee today with the following addition in the introduction and post-completion.
"On 14 March 2019, Edinburgh Council voted to approve the extension of the existing line from York Place to Newhaven.  The extended line is due to be operational by early 2023."
TN 15:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransportNut (talk • contribs)  

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

Uk tram icon.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Uk tram icon.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

section on route and the image 'map' need updated now the trams run to Newhaven  Kaybeesquared (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I just thought I'd make this post because I'm not sure I'm happy with the way the lead section of this article has been written because it focusses too much on the costs taken to build the tram line & its extension to Newhaven and not much on the other aspects on the Edinburgh Trams (apart from the route length and extension to Newhaven). Now I can understand that the Edinburgh Trams did face a lot of issues during its construction phase (especially when the first phase was built), with cost overruns especially being a major issue, but I'm not sure this really is a matter which should be talked about so elaborately in the lead section (which is meant to be a summary for the rest of the article), maybe just 1-3 sentences is okay for that but surely not a whole paragraph and a half. Other tram articles in the UK such as the Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram and West Midlands Metro have leads sections which don't talk about the costs and I might also point out that the Elizabeth line in London also faced cost overruns during its construction phase but on the other hand, there is hardly any mention of that in the lead section there so I think the lead section for the Edinburgh Trams article needs a rewrite (for which I'll probably add a tag for that). As I don't know if I'll get enough time to make changes myself & I'm no expert in rewriting lead sections, I would be very grateful if anyone else can please give their opinion on what should be done with the lead here, many thanks. Broman178 (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the general tone of Broman178's comments. In addition, the lead contains contains much too much detail. It should be sufficient to state, for example, that the project saw considerable delays and cost overruns, without itemising all the amounts involved (which properly belong in the body of the article). Another problem is the two (unsourced) references to Lord Hardie's report, although the report is not mentioned in the body of the article.
I will have a shot at rewriting the lead (unless another editor gets there first).
Mike Marchmont (talk) 11:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree there is too much emphasis on costs in the lead. Garuda3 (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Garuda3: and @Broman178:: I have now had a shot at rewriting the lead. Let me know what you think. It now simply mentions the fact of the cost over-runs and the delays, without the large amount of detail (which is covered in the body of the article).  I have also added a paragraph to summarise some of the other info re the trams.
Although the lead has a passing reference to Lord Hardie's report, this needs to be amplified, with a new sub-section in the body of the article. I'll aim to do that once I get time, but if either of you (or any other editor) would like to have a shot at it, feel free.
Mike Marchmont (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mike Marchmont: Thank you so much for making these changes; the lead is looking much better now and seems a lot more summarizing of the other parts of the article than it did before. I just had to make one minor change to the grammar in one sentence where you wrote "with the same fares charged on both system" so I changed the last word to "systems" to make more sense, but apart from that, I can't think of any more changes to make to the lead at the moment. Broman178 (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I have additionally tweaked the link for the tram vehicles as there is already a separate article for that - CAF Urbos 3 (Edinburgh). Broman178 (talk) 09:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Good to see that my changes met your approval (and thanks Broman178 for the tweak re the CAF Urbos). I have now made some more changes, notably a new sub-section dealing with Lord Hardie's inquiry and subsequent report. I'll look forward to contributing more to this article as and when the opportunity arises. Mike Marchmont (talk) 15:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I've created a template for Edinburgh Trams (Template:Edinburgh Trams network). Is this a useful addition to the bottom of the associated articles? In addition to the template, would it be useful to also have individual pages for each tram stop on the network in a similar manner to other UK trams systems? If so I'd be happy to start this process. I'd also be happy to receive comments on the template; let me know if you want any changes making (or feel free to amend yourself of course). Xtrememachineuk (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just seen the earlier discussion - I won't do any separate articles for tram stops of course. The Template is there if it helps however. Xtrememachineuk (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

When reviewing the FOI requests for Edinburgh Trams, they seem to state they have Urbos 2 instead of Urbos 3 as per other sources (and the manufacturer) suggests. Just want to get input on this before I enact any changes so they are not instantly reverted. FOI Request 1 FOI Request 2 ReduxGB (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)