Talk:Trams in Helsinki

message: Since nothing has happened with the split I originally proposed almost two years ago, I've taken it upon myself to design alternative versions of this article. They are available at User:JIP/Helsinki tram and User:JIP/History of the Helsinki tram. For now, I just copied the entire Bibliography section from the main article to the history article. I'll have to remove any sources from the Bibliography section in the history article that aren't referred to in the text. JIP | Talk 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. The history section should definitely be split into its own page. Also, I think that the "future extensions" section is too long. Contributors inevitably end up describing the various stages of planning and decision-making, but retaining all that detail on the page just makes it difficult to read. If some plan or decision is superseded, it should be possible to cut it from the page. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have split off the planned extension section to User:JIP/Planned extension of the Helsinki tram. I've also fixed the missing references in User:JIP/Helsinki tram. Now all that is really needed is pruning of the Bibliography section (it's the same in all three articles), removing sources that aren't referred to in the text. JIP | Talk 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work JIP. Consider using the shortened footnote template when fixing the references / notes / bibliography. The template was not available when I split the references section into references and bibliography in 2008. The template makes managing the references a bit easier since it automatically populates the  tag by creating a short author-date citation from the bibliography, thus eliminating the usage of the cite tag in the bibliography section. You can check article Munkkivuori for an example on how to use the Sfn template. Also, looking at the current content of the Bibliography section, it might be better to title it Notes. --Siipikarja ♫ 10:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I'm willing to take this on and do the split. I guess JIP's split pages are now somewhat out of date as there have been more edits to the original since 2012, so I would start again from this original page. Is that okay? Poikkeusreitti (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I created separate pages User:Poikkeusreitti/Helsinki tram, User:Poikkeusreitti/History of the Helsinki tram system and User:Poikkeusreitti/Planned extension of the Helsinki tram network by splitting the text of the original. I pruned the bibliography for each from a copy of the full original bibliography section. Otherwise there are only minimal changes, and that's deliberate so that updates to the content are not mixed in with this reorganization of the pages. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  How would the split be done in practice? I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia. I guess the editing history of the new pages (History and Planned extensions) would be blank, which seems wrong towards the contributors. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I split History and Planned extension to separate articles. The bibliographies should be now pruned accordingly. I've deleted my user subpages that I linked above. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: The title of this article is rather "non-standard" for English-language Wikipedia. Articles on metropolitan tram systems tend to have a "Trams in [city]" title - for example: Trams in Vienna, Trams in Prague, Trams in Moscow, Trams in Berlin, Trams in Brussels, etc. 
If there are no objections lodged here, I'd like to "move" this article to "Trams in Helsinki" in the near future. If anyone has issues with this, or other comments, please post them here. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe It's only  as a result of the progressive renaming of the rest.  It is less convenient from the point-of-view of writing about the Helsinki Tramway, boarding a Helsinki tram, or viewing the museum containing Helsinki trams without needing an pipe.  I'm tolerant to the renaming, but would respectfully recommend that the description of  seems to be inappropriate given the circumstances.  —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll concede that it's an "evolving standard", certainly (which seemed to evolve away from the current standard around 2010, before evolving back towards it more recently...). The main advantage of the move is that it makes searching for systems easier if they're all named "Trams in [city]". However, I'd also concede that a move is unnecessary, if it can be shown that "Helsinki tram" is the most common way to describe the system in English, under WP:COMMONNAME – and, honestly, I think the name of this page is OK (at least it's not one of the "[city] Tramway" named articles, which seem to violate Wikipedia naming conventions!). But, if "Helsinki tram" isn't the "common" English name, then a move to "Trams in Helsinki" would seem to be preferable... On my end, I'm not in any hurry on this, and will definitely wait a while to give more time for comments. Thanks for taking the time to respond! --IJBall (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article to "Trams in Helsinki"?