Talk:List of town tramway systems in Europe

Trains: Streetcars / By country series Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the By country series task force.

Splitting list

I decided to split this list into three parts because the file size has reached "156K and growing." Ldemery 20:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Region / Bundesland

I decided to list systems in France, Germany and Italy by region (or Bundesland) because of the large number of systems in these three countries.

Completion of listings for Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. will wind up my contributions to this section. I have tried to include all town tramway systems in Europe for which I could find documentation. I hope that others will fill in the blanks. Ldemery 01:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrozavodsk

I have replaced this city as the "bottom" of the Russia-Europe section, with annotation. I think it should remain as re-entered until it is confirmed that no construction was started (either pre- or post-1991). Ldemery 02:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France - départements

With reluctance, I have added French départements as subdivisions of the régions. This is to facilitate addition of suburban electric tramways. References (contemporary and modern) are organized by département, and the networks themselves tended to serve only one département. Ldemery 03:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katowice (Poland)

The genesis of the Katowice area tram system is a complicated matter. Although it is now governed as a single entity, it had at least two ancestors: 1) the Upper Silesian part (ex-German), originating in 1894 as a narrow track steam interurban (later electrified and regauged to standard); 2) the Zagłębie part (Sosnowiec area, ex-Russian), originating in 1928 (already Polish times) as a standard gauge system. Both were and are connected by just one single-track line. There were also some municipal tram companies, e.g. in Beuthen/Bytom, a standard gauge system initially separate from the narrow gauge interurban (but later fully incorporated). Thus, I think, at least one more date should appear, 1928 for "Zagłębie" trams.

Nevertheless, I find the list very interesting and well done. 212.51.213.2 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll make the change. Ldemery 03:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversal of flagicon removal

I have reversed the flagicon removal undertaken - rather presumptiously - by "Andrwsc"

As he noted in a personal e-mail to me - but was too cowardly to note here - "Andrwsc" acted prior to adoption of WP:FLAG into Wikipedia policy.

In other words, "Andrwsc" acted according to a "draft" policy, which has not yet been enacted.

That, in my view, is a high-handed and arrogant act by a "Wikipedia" administrator.

The "current" iteration of flagicons on this list, which I undertook in order to improve "user friendliness," is not "perfect" - but: to quote directly from "WP:FLAG"

"[Flagicons] can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries, such as for reporting political, economic, sporting or other statistical data, and many readers can more quickly scan a table with many countries with flag icons because of visual differences between flags."

"Andrwsc" did not dispute this - generally or for this list.

I note in addition the passage from "WP:FLAG": "when added excessively, [flagicons] clutter the page and become redundant."

"Andrwsc" does not make this charge for this list. He merely argues - rather weakly - that:

1.) The [flagicons] were attached to section headers, and most sections were big enough that you couldn't see more than 1 or 2 icons on a screen at a time.

--Well, boo hoo hoo. As noted above, the "current" iteration of flagicons on this list is not "perfect". I think they "should" go in the "Contents" boxes rather than the section. But I do not know how to do this - or if it is (yet) possible. "Andrwsc" did not bother to suggest this, so I will assume it is not (yet) possible.

2.) Many of the "flags" were actually coat of arms, and a large number of them were somewhat obscure, so there really isn't any benefit for users to be able to scan the list using them as visual clues for the table of interest.

--Well, (boo hoo hoo)^(boo hoo hoo).

"I'd also note that about 180 new templates needed to be created solely to support these five articles, which is very much contrary to the purpose of templates - normally, each template would have many transclusions on many pages."

I find a certain circularity to this "logic." It would appear that I'm to conclude that each newly-created template will, as if by magic, automatically sprout "many transclusions on many pages."

Or that this has occurred with each template created up to now.

Or something like that.

I note that the "WP:FLAG" essay fails to specify who some of these "many readers" are: those whose first language is other than English. The addition of flagicons was not an attempt at "decoration," but of improving "user-friendliness" - in particular, for those whose first language is not English, and are likely to recognize national (and perhaps sub-national) flags more quickly. In some cases, I was forced to make additional templates - and to use coats of arms rather than actual flags (which are flown / used in some places as flags).

Let me reiterate:

The "current" iteration of flagicons on this list, which I undertook in order to improve "user friendliness," is not "perfect."

Let me also paraphrase a respected colleague: "Perfectionism is the enemy of the good."

And as for the length of this "sub-section" - which I acknowledge freely has gotten out of hand - "Andrwsc" did not bother to suggest some reasonable scheme for division. I can think of several possibilities - all with advantages and disadvantages. Ldemery 03:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

since you've WP:OWN the article since its creation I think you may want to rephrase your concerns regarding the removal of the superfluous flags and of the tables which were not originally in the article and clutter the article more than anything. Feel free to spend another few hours decluttering the article since it looks messy. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I claim no special "ownership" or "control" over this series of lists, and make no attempt to exercise it. I do, however, want to see them "done right" - to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet attempted such a project in "hardcopy" form. The four-part set by Robert Peschkes comes close, but he did not include opening and closing dates.

In addition, I have observed that certain individuals quote Wikipedia guidelines and policies in mantra-like manner - but fail to adhere to the "converses." In this case, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles: "When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her . . ."

I believe that your non-specific concerns about "decluttering" and "looking messy" are not helpful - and overlook the primary purpose of these lists: to present information in a format usable to all who might be interested - whether they read English as their "first" language or some other language. "User-friendliness" needs to be considered when preparing lists such as these. For example, the Japan section of the List of town tramway systems in Africa and Asia section was very "user-unfriendly" prior to conversion to "wikitable" format.

It is true that the tables ("Wikitables") were "not part of the original article." (I am not certain why this is relevant - some of the information was not "part of the original article," either.) Another editor entered a "sample" table (for Austria), which improved readability of the lists. While researching how to use "Wikitables," it did not take long to determine that use of tables in a list draws fire from certain editors. That, I assert, is not germane to the matter at hand. Very simply: Did reformatting as "Wikitables" improve the readability - and therefore, the utility, of the list - to the majority of users - in particular, those whose first language is not English? The answer, based on the feedback I have received (which, I admit, is not much), is "yes." If you do not concur, I think it appropriate for you to so state - with explanation - prior to making edits.

It is also true that the "flagicons" were "not part of the original article." Addition was an attempt to increase "user-frienedliness" (specifically, to facilitate "browsing" using scrollbars) - again with users who read something other than English as their "first" language. This is not something I dreamed up - but modeled after the List of rapid transit systems. As with "Wikitables:" while researching how to use "flagicons," it did not take long to determine that some editors do not like them. Again, I assert that this is not germane to the matter at hand. Does their addition improve the utility of the list to the majority of users? Again, based on the feedback I have received (again, "not much") is "yes." Again, ff you do not concur, I think it appropriate for you to so state - with explanation - prior to making edits. Ldemery 18:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Split and the ♦ symbols

Could we please consider splitting off those countries that have long entries? I would suggest that Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom should get separate articles, linked from this one.

Also, what the heck do those ♦ symbols mean? I suspect it means something like 'inter-city', but why is that not explained in the introduction? Bastin 15:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now split off those countries' lists. Still haven't a clue what the diamonds mean, though. Bastin 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The ♦ symbols are an attempt to accomplish to moving some place names toward the right side of the column. That is, grouping various systems under the name of the major regional center. Examples include suburban lines and "nearby" towns that had town tramway systems, not necessarily connected to the "major regional" system. Any suggestions how to better communicate this concept visually? Ldemery 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to divide this list ???

This list has grown to the point where it should be divided. That much is clear. What is not clear is "how" this should be done (e.g. alphabetically, geographically, ??). Suggestions? Ldemery 04:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious answer is by country, so that's exactly what I've done. It's down from 266kB to 44kB: from completely unmanageable and unwieldy to being sensibly-sized. Bastin 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, but I think you've left some issues unresolved:

--"How long" is long enough to justify a separate page? Poland appears to be "at or near" the threshold.

--At what point would "sub-national" division be justified, and how should this be done ? Using the U.S. as an example: Should the (obviously needed) division be made by geograpic region? By state?

--How should references be handled? Should these be kept on the separate "main" or "quasi-main" page - or should these be distributed by country and by region?

I have grouped Guernsey and the Isle of Man under "British Crown Dependencies." Also, I will separate Japan from the "rest of Asia," and look at the other sections for obvious countries to "separate." Ldemery 01:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flag Icons

Please do not remove the flag icons. They are permitted for use in list as per WP:FLAGS#Appropriate_use. Olana North (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Olana North, I have the strong feeling that these flags are used solely for decorative purposes which is not permitted by Wikipedia:FLAGS. However, this list is somewhat a borderline case as you can actually see more than one flag per screen size, so it might actually help some people navigating the list. So I do not object the current readdition, but they should be removed if the tables grow. Сасусlе 13:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section that I feel is applicable is as follows

"They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags"

On this basis, the flags in the list are being used in accordance with the guidelines. Olana North (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funchal

Funchal , the capital city of the Madeira Region (in Portugal) also had tramways , horsedrawn and the small system never saw electrification. Sotavento (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and Towns

I think the article's title should be List of urban tramway systems, as many of the cities in the list are not usually referred to as towns. Also the tables would look more legible if the location/locality column would be the first one, like in List of town tramway systems in Romania. Elekhh (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article's use of Navbox

I have never seen an article use a Navbox in the middle of the article's text, as this one does. It would seem to violate WP:ORDER rules. Does anyone know if this article's use of the Navbox this way is "allowed"? Is there a better way to handle this, so the Navbox can be moved to the bottom, as per WP:ORDER? --IJBall (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of this "Europe" list was to cover countries that had too few tram systems to warrant having a standalone list, but I see that someone recently created "articles" for every country here, even Monaco! There's no reason at all for Wikipedia to have an "article" listing tram systems in Monaco (which has only a single city), under any title, and same goes for the other European countries that have had very few tram systems (currently and historically). Personally, I feel that those small-country lists of tram systems should all be deleted, but I don't really want to spend time on that (however, if someone else does, I'd likely vote in support of any deletion nominations if I hear of them). However, if a consensus to keep them emerges, then this article, List of town tramway systems in Europe, should be changed to just a list of links to those articles, with the navbox at the bottom. But for the reasons I just gave, I think the navbox and many of its articles should be deleted. Navboxes can be useful, but I've noticed some some people use them in a way that only encourages creation of "articles" on non-notable subjects. The mere presence of the navbox in question here (also named "List of town tramway systems in Europe", using the navbox Template:Europe topic) encourages some people to create lists that, in my opinion, shouldn't be created. Actually, since this navbox does not use its own template, but merely settings within a broader Europe template, I think I'll just remove it myself, but I'll wait a day or two to avoid confusing anyone reading this discussion. SJ Morg (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: OK, as a test, I'm trying to do a 'speedy deletion' ({{Db-a10}}) on the recently created List of town tramway systems in Albania. If that is successfully speedily deleted, I'll do the same for the other 'stub' articles that User:2020j recently created. If the speedy deletion is declined, I'll go the {{PROD}} route next. --IJBall (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support your effort, and I hope the speedy-deletion request is accepted. SJ Morg (talk) 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 'speedy deletion' seems to be working on the single system 'stub' articles. List of town tramway systems in Lithuania I've converted to a 'redirect' as a 'bot' had already tagged the page with that suggestion. When I get some time, my next order of business will be to delete the Navbox at this article, and replace it with a list of standard wikilinks to the relevant articles... --IJBall (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge-from' candidates

In light of the above discussion, I am proposing that List of town tramway systems in Latvia, List of town tramway systems in Slovakia, and List of town tramway systems in Slovenia (all of which are very short list table articles) be merged back to this article. (List of town tramway systems in Norway is another candidate for a merge back to here, though I am not proposing a merger of that article at this time...) Please indicate your support, or opposition, to this proposal below. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as discussed above. SJ Morg (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I missed one: List of town tramway systems in Estonia. But I will merge that one in when I do the other three, even though I didn't put up 'merge' tags for it. Oh well... --IJBall (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done – all four articles have been merged back in to this one. --IJBall (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]