Talk:Tram types in Adelaide

References

I don't think I have properly copied all of the references from trams in Adelaide. Part of my failure is that I don't know if the references marked "Metropolitan Transport Trust" and "Metropolitan tramways trust" are supposed to be Municipal Tramways Trust. I chose to leave them rather than get them wrong and create a reference to a paper book that cannot be found because it does not exist. It is possible they are already that way and should be corrected. Does anyone know? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm certain "Metropolitan Transport Trust" is a mistake, Scott, and means Municipal Tramways Trust. I've checked this with a couple of authors; they agree. These are disappearing in the article upgrade I've been drafting, as a result of my revalidating all refs. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Major upgrade to this article

Please see the discussion of pending major upgrades to this and other articles about trams in Adelaide, and two new articles, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide#2019 upgrade of Adelaide trams articles. Comments welcome. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments on draft of upgraded article

... should go under here. SCHolar44 (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

If the suggestion here is that the individual tram articles all be deleted and set up as redirects to this article, then Oppose. This article should be a high level overview, or parent, artcle, with the individual class, or child, articles holding more of the detail. So really this article should be trimmed and the others expanded.

I didn't actually suggest that.

That was how I interpreted I asked myself how many readers would look at 16 separate articles to gain a broad understanding of the subject – versus reading either the "At a glance" panels on their own, or the panels plus selected text underneath that interested them. I don't think there would be many prepared to read 16 separate articles, even if they were more substantial than at present.. But then if you are not proposing, a moot conversation. Broad16 (talk) 02:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the naming convention debate there are a number of different formats used by various primary and secondary sources; A type A-type, Type A etc. In the interests of consistency I think we should go with the existing format that is used in the article names. i.e. A type Adelaide tram. Broad16 (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Have you read the rationale here? I had never even considered following this variant of the "everybody does it" line: "the other Wikipedia articles do it". I'd be interested in your view on the aviation (Hercules) parallel argument, and why you don't accept that terminologies should be based on the usage of the entity that ran the show.

I have suggested that these remarks be made at the Talk page covering the upgrade of Adelaide trams articles because they may be applicable to more than one article.

SCHolar44 (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeing that you seem to have set up discussions in multiple places, and I can't work out exactly what you think should go where, will leave it to you to move my comments to where you think they best should go.

Yes I did read it. Regarding the aircraft naming analogy, the article is named Lockheed C-130 Hercules as this is the long established format used for all aircraft, be they by Lockheed, Boeing or any other manufacturer rather than because it is the practice of the institutional owner.

While the MTT may have used the Type H format, it hasn't been adopted universally, with multiple variations used;

• H type by The Advertiser in 1942
• H-type by The Advertiser in 1951
• H-Type by the Adelaide Tramway Museum
• H Type by the Sydney Tramway Museum
• H-Class by their most recent institutional owner, the DPTI

Everyday usage is not immaterial as stated, it is very much a factor, per WP:COMMONAME it shouldn't just be ignored. There are probably many sources using each format, but as there isn't an overriding name that it is used universally, it will come down to the consensus of editors. My opinion remains that there is no need to deviate from the status quo. Broad16 (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Article moved to mainspace

I have moved the article after six weeks in the draftspace.

Concerning the question of H Type vs Type H, I've had further discussions with a number of tramways writers on this point and I believe that on balance the better choice is to retain the terminology invariably used by the MTT as the owner of the alphabetically classified trams. I note also that the most recent scholarly book on Adelaide's trams -- City & Glenelg -- follows the MTT usage. I realise this may discombobulate Broad16 and probably some other tramway enthusiasts but I'm mindful that by far the majority readership of the article is not of the tramway enthusiast persuasion. In fact as you'll know, Wikipedia policy is that articles should not be directed to a specialised interest group, though I note that tendency is often evident in transport-focused articles (the comment "Vehicle 102 has also had traditional leather hand holds installed instead of rubber hand holds which are fitted to the rest of the fleet", previously in the 100 Series text, in my view exemplifies the problem). SCHolar44 (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)