# Talk:Tramways in Adelaide

I have just been reading through the article and I must say congratulations on such a great article. 
There is only one subjection I can make to your article and that is to your introduction / lead section.  
I believe there is to many small detail about the system like when all the different systems where opened and closed.  The reason I say this is because i was interested in syncing your article to the Trams in Australasia article.  I feel it would be better if you left out some of the smaller details and or separate the smaller details from the first paragraph so both sections can be synced.    
Thanks L blue l 07:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - unfortunately the lead was written in between some programming tasks late last night and I decided to post it before I was happy. I'll see what I can do over the next few days so that the lead is a good summary for the Trams in Australasia article and for this one - Peripitus (Talk) 08:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I started the article Municipal Tramways Trust to detail the history of the MTT it has been largely superceded by the article Trams in Adelaide. What opinion do people have regarding a merger with the Trams in Adelaide article? Ozdaren 11:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really in favour of this. Partially this article is probably long enough already but mostly as the MTT article, when it's fully written, should cover much more than trams. I can see a sections on the personel, staffing practices, regulations (like one where women were fined 50 shillings for having unsafe hatpins), kensington gardens, their contribution to the River Torrens flood prevention schemes, petrol buses, and the 17 years they spent as mostly just a bus company. While researching this article I found lots of material and hope, in the fullness of time, to expand the MTT article likewise. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that it should be merged. I don't really think the Municipal Tramways Trust article is really that notable anyway OneofLittleHarmony (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In June the following text was added

Trams in Adelaide a currently undergoing a renaissance, with the relaying of the Glenelg Line, Modernised Trams and extension of the City section. This has seen a revitalisation of the Tram service with many morning services now operating at capacity.
A revitalisation of the City Precinct is now evident with the Casino and Rundle Mall Stations now in use throughout the night on weekends, bringing life back to these otherwise unused parts of the city.
A transformation of Glenelg can also be seen with a large increase in the tourist traffic to Glenelg. Although this has inevitably resulted in higher numbers of public disturbances, [especially due to the effective linking of Glenelg and notorious nightspot Hindley St], the response from traders in Glenelg has been largely positive.
Further transformation has been proposed by the SA State Government with their 2008 budget with new Tram lines through the western districts of the city, coupled with electrification of the heavy rail services for dual use networks [i.e. train/tram lines]. This will result in the linking of the AAMI, Hindmarsh sporting stadiums, along with the Entertainment Centre concert complex.

I'm removed it from the article and moved it here as

The detail mostly belongs in the Glenelg Tram article
Words like "revitalisation" "Modernised" etc. read like a press release rather and an encyclopedic article
There is no referred source
- Peripitus (Talk) 03:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Trams in Adelaide/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
I will do the GA Reassessment of this article as part of the GA Sweeps project.  H1nkles (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
The article still meets the GA Criteria, I did some minor copy editing but the body of the article is fine, refs are good, photos are good, lead is solid.  I'll keep it at GA.  H1nkles (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has quite a few spelling errors; I don't know if they were introduced after the GA Reassessment or not. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The govt of SA recently announced plans for the next few years and they include proposed adjustments for the tram networks. Not sure if it should be mentioned here in the article. 
Here is a link to the plan: http://dpti.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/117551/A_Sharper_Focus_on_Inner_Adelaide.pdf By no means is this exhaustive and if you do a search on this website, you would be able to find a couple of other detailed brochures too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.208 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trams in Adelaide. 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/20070120012436/http://www.transadelaide.com.au:80/transadelaide_info/trams.htm to http://www.transadelaide.com.au/transadelaide_info/trams.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) 17:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Trams if you are interested in discussing the structure and number of articles about Adelaide trams. --Scott Davis Talk 13:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone interested: Please note the comments I have made at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Adelaide#Organisation_of_tram_articles about how a restructure could be implemented. SCHolar44 (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Trams in Adelaide. 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/20110524133343/http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/current_budget.jsp to http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/current_budget.jsp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.transadelaide.com.au/transadelaide_info/trams.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.treasury.sa.gov.au/dtf/budget/publications_and_downloads/current_budget.jsp
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) 05:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been looking through current images to see whether the logo is at all associated with Adelaide's trams -- I don't live in Adelaide any more [weep] and can't check other than online. Tentatively I conclude it is simply a generic one that has no connection.  Albeit the logo looks good -- better than the one representing trams in Adelaide Metro graphics -- if it is generic I think it should be deleted. I'm reluctant to do it myself without some confirmation. DAHall (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @DAHall: The logos that features in the infoboxes of articles on the Adelaide tram, train and bus services are pulled directly from the Adelaide Metro website and the service timetables, as is noted on each images' file page. These logos are also found on timetables and other related media posted at stations and stops, in addition to Adelaide Metro service centres. I hope this answers your question. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 08:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Mitchell 98: and anyone else interested: Nick, I see that you've added an infobox replacing the one I drafted and stated the "Reason for edit" as "(Restoring to previous revision by Nick Mitchell 98. Infobox is a brief overview of tram types (horse and electric), recent edits have made it far too detailed and cluttered.)" I also see you've set the "Contemporary era" section of the infobox to be open, with an implicit emphasis on the contemporary era.
Your stated reason baffles me somewhat. The length of your infobox, as presented to the reader on opening the page, is the same as the one I had written. Mine started with key dates (uncollapsed) which helped the reader to quickly grasp the eras over all, which you deleted. My "eras" sections were collapsed. 
I summarised my rationale, and asked for comment, in the discussion about restructuring of the trams articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Trams -- see "Discussion about restructure of this and related articles" above. I made a number of proposals to implement Scott's restructuring suggestion, with "Trams in Adelaide" being proposed as the overview article and a structure for all the articles as shown in this overview diagram:

As you'll see (or may have seen) on the talk page, I said the proposal:involves trimming some of the main "Trams in Adelaide" article (not deleting any content — just shifting some detail to subsidiary articles, e.g. some of the description of the first electric trams, mid-century decline, patronage), so that the coverage will be uniformly at overview level, incorporating all key events and characteristics but not getting into  great detail — a good quick read for the casual visitor.
Further on I mentioned that presentation of the "Trams in Adelaide" infobox:in chronological order of eras will help to give a clearer picture – this is supported in Template:Infobox tram network guidance. I have added some important details including kilometrage, agency dates and exact locations of the Hackney and Glengowrie depots. This may make for a long infobox, but by starting with key dates in the non-collapsible start of the infobox, with the eras initially collapsed, this should be enough to satisfy many casual readers (not everyone curious about Adelaide's present-day trams will be interested in horse trams, say) so they can choose what they want to look at.
The whole series of developments in the long history of Adelaide's trams is complex. You may disagree with my suggestions after you read the full comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#Trams -- or maybe you've already seen them -- but an integrated approach is desirable and given the amount of thought and research I've put into restructuring I'd really welcome your contributing to the discussion instead of just summarily replacing the infobox. :-)
It would be good in the end to see consensus on the strategic structure of all the articles before the work starts. We can end up with the whole series really shining. I think we can enhance our achievement of "Good article" status too. It would be good if we can all sing from the same song sheet.  :-)  SCHolar44 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I've responded on the WikiProject page so that it can all be kept to the same location. However, what I will put here is my reasons for editing the infobox for this article.
Though most of the smaller changes to article content have been restored, the reason why I hesitated to restore the infobox was in part due to the ongoing discussion that you directed me to, but mainly because of the inclusion of "key dates" that you added.
The purpose of this template is to create collapsible era sections with information relevant to each era. The list of "key dates" effectively replicated information already included in the infobox, alongside other less significant dates, that all-together makes the infobox far too large. I have restored all but the key dates section; while parts pertaining to your new article format can be added once a consensus is made on the article format. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The line would bifurcate. Divide into two. The other part would go to Colonel light gardens.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.178.163.19 (talk) 00:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC) 

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#2019 upgrade of Adelaide trams articles for discussion of the two new articles I have drafted and the existing articles I'm upgrading. Comments very welcome. SCHolar44 (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)