# Talk:Homansbyen Depot

What is the Norwegian name of this facility? As the facility is a proper noun, it should be capitalized, per WP:CAPS, i.e. 'Homansbyen Tram Depot'. Note that Norwegian and English grammar is different on this issue. I'm also wondering about the 'tram' bit being unnecessary, but I'm not sure. Aspenberg (1994) refers to them as 'vognhall', which I would just translate 'depot', not 'tram depot'. Perhaps you disagree or have other information? Arsenikk (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Hartmann & Mangset (2001) and Thrap-Meyer's own plan drawings, the official name of the installation was 'Kristiania Sporveisanlæg'. However, I moved it to Homansbyen tram depot for the case of standardizing the Oslo Tramway depot articles, in the form 'Place tram depot'. It is a difficult question, since this was not only a depot (vognhall), but also a head office (administrasjonsbygning), multiple stables (staller), a forge (smie) and a vektbod (which I have no idea of how to translate into English). The book refers to it as "sporveisbebyggelse", "Bygningene" and "anlegg". I don't think it will violate WP:COMMONNAME if this article is named something else than 'Kristiania Sporveisanlæg', since nobody really knows much about this topic, so I'm open for more article naming suggestions. --Eisfbnore talk 17:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Most depots also have administrative offices, workshops, and even stables (if for horsecars). Personally I prefer the 'Homansbyen' bit, and for instance Aspenberg (1994) refers to it as such. The lower-case 'tram depot' is incorrect (if it is part of the name, it is capitalized, if it is a description, it should be in parenthesis). I don't care if 'tram' is included or not. Personally I would have called it 'Homansbyen Depot', but I'm also open to 'Homansbyen Tram Depot'. 'Kristiania Sporveisanlæg'. Arsenikk (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I'll move it back to 'Homansbyen Depot', since that is more intuitive and wp:ENGLISH than 'Kristiania Sporveisanlæg', but I'll add the latter as alternate title. And one further question: How would you translate "vektbod" into English? Eisfbnore talk 19:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps 'weighing station' or 'weighing shed'? You mean a small house where things were weighted, correct? I can't find it in the Norwegian dictionary either, so I honestly don't know. Arsenikk (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

As I'm a rookie on image licencing, could someone else be so kind to take a look at som of these pictures and check if at least some of them are free? --Eisfbnore talk 23:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For images to be free [if taken in Norway], they must have been taken at least 50 years ago, and the author must have died at least 15 years ago. In addition, because of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, they must be taken before 1946 [this is a requirement of hosting the images on US servers, not related to the legal use in Norway]. When the author is unknown, it becomes a fog of legal doubt to determine if it is free or not. Commons [and Wikipedia] has the line of thought that unless it can be proven that the image is free, it cannot be hosted. Of course, if the image is sufficiently old, it can be presumed beyond any reasonable doubt that the author has been dead for at least 15 years (for instance, any image at least 100 years old, as it is unlikely that anyone under the age of 20 was taking the image, and and only a handful of people live to 105). On the other hand, if it can be asserted as highly likely that the author is unknown, then the 15-year bit can been looked away, and 1946 becomes the "magic number". When Oslo byarkiv says the author is unknown, then it can be presumed that they have gone to some effort to establish this, and that no record could be found. I would therefore be comfortable uploading anything published until 1946. Arsenikk (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. There is, however, another problem: The images have a grey byline from oslobilder.no on them, in the bottom. I tried to remove it by uploading a screenshot of the image, but commons didn't accept its file format. What to do? --Eisfbnore talk 18:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Download GIMP or use whatever image editing program you have. Save a copy of the image from the browser (don't screenshot) and open it in the editing program. Select the area you want to keep, and find the 'crop' tool on the menu. This will reduce the image to the area you want. Save as in .jpg format and it should upload without any problems to the Commons. Arsenikk (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The image (that of the map) needs a better caption, it is nearly impossible to understand where the depot was or where the line went. I needed a couple of minutes to figure it out. Geschichte (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Homansbyen Depot. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5uQe9KemT?url=http://www.trikken.no/asp/Hoved.asp?SideID%3D4%26Nivaa3Id%3D32%26Prioritet%3D8%26OmOssId%3D15 to http://www.trikken.no/asp/Hoved.asp?SideID=4&Nivaa3Id=32&Prioritet=8&OmOssId=15
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sporveien.no/Miljo-og-kultur/Historie/Hva-gater-og-hus-forteller/Noe-a-skilte-med/
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) 09:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)