Talk:Edinburgh Trams

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stations 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: , 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Then humanity had better get to work on it.  Eric Corbett 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: You asked the question on my talk page and that's where I've replied.  Eric Corbett 00:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prose quality 

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, and non-sentence picture captions shouldn't use a full stop. —John (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gogar tram depot in 2012, displaying trams painted in an older livery, never used in service. 

message: I love Openstreetmap but this is not a good source. There must be better. --John (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other route maps, but none give a street-by-street breakdown. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Openstreetmap 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Murrayfield Viaduct? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: For what it's worth

message: 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)
replies: text: Its been done for the Inner West Light Rail in Sydney, I have no objections. Likelife (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Has been done at Edinburgh Park railway station, Edinburgh Gateway station and Ingliston. Mo7838 (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Tram stop merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Integrated with buses? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Presume you mean in the vacant image field, seems a good idea. Mo7838 (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK got it. No more images. I'll leave it. Cnbrb (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Edinburgh Gateway

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tram capacity 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title: Metric vs. Imperial

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extension Approval 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Template