Jump to content

Talk:Manchester Corporation Tramways 765

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

Just started this little page - please don't just tag and suggest deletion - I am looking for more info but could do with some help. There seem still some possible inconsistencies! (Msrasnw (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Notability...

[edit]

Hi guys, not totally sure that this article meets notability, and it's got a fair few inaccuracies. I've been through this in the past with other trams, and we came to a general agreement that the individual trams aren't notable. 765 isn't a particularly special car, and hasn't 'done' anything notable - Trams such as So'ton 45, Balloon 717 & Jubilee 762 would have more of a claim, but they still wouldn't meet notability. There's also a fair few inaccuracies in the article too, despite one of the sources being written by myself which is accurate! Anyway, I'm not familiar with the deletion ways here (It's a lot different at Simple!) so just wondering if anyone can help. I'm happy to give more reasoning if I can, but it doesn't meet notability - and I've seen 'more notable' (but still not notable) locos & trams removed than this one. Cheers, BG7even 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bluegoblin7, sorry you don't like the article and for the inaccuracies. I think notability is a difficult thing with different people having differing views. I think the Tram is notable and deserving of an article and have since my youth known about it and thought it somehow special: a reminder of the old Manchester. I think getting on the DYK (2000+views) and the extistance of more refs in the popular media might be enough to indicate that the article would have a good chance of surviving any attempt to delete it. Could you detail the inaccuracies so they may be dealt with? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Just because you think it is notable doesn't make it notable, I am afraid. I think Blackpool Twin Set Two is the most important tram in the world (And so I will cover it more than something else in my magazine) but it wouldn't be worthy of a Encyclopedia article. 765 is very much your 'ordinary' tram - found in a field, put into store, restored and now running. It's excursions to Blackpool are equally ordinary - Howth 10, Edinburgh 35 and Panto 167 have all been there, amongst others & loads more this year. Also see User_talk:Bluegoblin7#notability for the summary of what came up when I looked at writing about So'ton 45 (The first tram to be preserved, so definitely notable). If that's not notable, then 765 isn't either. Indeed, if we were writing about Manchester cars, then L53 has te biggest claim to fame - sole surviving operational Eades Reversible Horse car - but even that wouldn't make it notable enough, despite the media coverage it has had. As an aside, getting a DYK does not automatically make it notable - an article must be notable to get a DYK. Finally, the chances of 765 getting in the 'popular media' (National papers etc) is very slim because it is so ordinary! Specialist/Enthusiast publications, yes (I've covered it myself several times and will continue to do so - indeed, it's got a bit coming up in the next edition), but they don't make it notable unfortunately. Hey, even Balloon 710 would have more of a claim than this - it "killed" Alan Bradley... BG7even 11:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that it was the DYK hook that I was referring to when I mention one of the inaccuracies. 173 at the Museum of Transport is operational too - it just doesn't run because it won't fit in the HPT depot. I'll admit that that could be a subject of debate, but certainly that's the prevailing view I get from the mag. Also, the hook didn't seem to be sourced, but that's for the DYK boffs... BG7even 11:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there are inaccuracies they should be corrected and was worried about this - but I think the claim that "the last remaining electric car from Manchester Corporation Tramways still in operation" is true if we allow a distinction between in "operation" and "operational" - the claim was in operation - but that would be knit picking. Anyway I think this is not really a question as to whether you or I think it notable. I do. You don't. It is for the wikipedia community to decide. Also I am not sure why someone who thinks it not notable would really want to get rid of it but if you do then you could propose for deletion at the WP:Afd page. I think an article on each preserved UK tram (like L53 - the sole surviving operational Eades Reversible Horse car)would be nice. But as Wikipedia expands in this direction it might run up against some special interests such as those publishing in more specialised areas. Wikipedia is not just a general encyclopedia it also aims to serve specialist areas and so there are potentially conflicts of interests with specilist publishers. I think that an encylopdia of UK tramways might well have an entry on each preserved tram. Wikipedia can serve this purpose. All that we need is reliable sourcing and for the subject matter to be notable. Notable to a specialised audience would be OK. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If you want them corrected I'll dig out my book and correct them at the weekend. As for the claim it is certainly accepted in the 'industry' that 765 isn't the last operational car with the reasons I stated above, and it's certainly what I report on. (BTW: If you want my details they're on my SEWP userpage, I won't link here as I don't know if it would be spamming or not!). I would agree that it needs the community to discuss it, and certainly a PROD/CSD wouldn't go through at this point. I just want to try and discuss deletions before they are proposed - I am nice! - as I feel it can be less pressurised and stressful, plus allows views and opinions to come out - I might change my mind (Unlikely on this, though...). If I am honest an article on every preserved tram would be absolutely ridculous - otherwise we are going to end up with 25 pages of almost identical content on the Balloons, a similar number with the Brush cars and 6 pages on the Twin cars, etc etc. It would get stupidly out of hand, especially when they are 'ordinary' - like most preserved cars. Indeed, if we are discussing what should have artcles, a completely un-biased list would be: DHMD 1, London 1, Blackpool 4, G&I 14, Southampton 45, John Bull (47), Manchester L53, Croydong 058, Dreadnought 59, MBRO 84, Blackpool 166, Blackpool 167(?), Prague 180, Blackpool 249 (Dubious), MET 331, Sheffield 510, Leeds 602, Cent 648 & Jube 762. There's possibly some more but most of what's left are just 'average' - all of the above have a rather significant claim to an article... I'll leave the research to yourself, unless you want me to tell you in which case TP or email, as we're going OT!. Wikipedia still has a lot to cover and I don't think that covering un-notable tramcars - which this is, and you can't really escape that fact (Tell me what it's done!) - is going to be helpful to Wikipedia's normal readers. I also doubt it would be useful to special interest readers because sites & magazines such as my own - as well as Museum Guide Books and the like - already cover all of that in ample detail - as do the archives at the National Tramway Museum which any researcher or historian would visit. As for the encyclopedia... funny you should mention that, it's something I am evaluating as part of my magazine's web presence. Finally, in this instance - yes, sources 1 & 2 are reliable (1 is official from the HPT, 2 was written by myself) while 3 is dubious (The organisation have a history of errors), but it is in no way notable - especially if articles such as Southampton 45 have been denied. (Which, interestingly, hasn't been a problem at Simple.) Regards, BG7even 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible resolutions

[edit]

As mentioned above, I don't want to go through deletion unless necessary. I've been having a think as to the best possible outcomes for this:

Thoughts? BG7even 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Another possible resolution is to try to improve the article or leave it as it is and work on the articles for other notable trams. I think notability is clearly established by sources and references listed: Fisher, Jeffrey N. The Return of 765, The story of Heaton Park Tramway, Manchester Tramway Co . and Kirby, A. K. (1964) Manchester’s little tram. MTMS 1st ed, 2nd ed. (1979) MTMS (ISBN 0 900857 18 8) 3rd ed. (1990) MTMS ISBN 0 900857 27 7. The suggestion of moving to another wiki or that this is better dealt with in specialist publications with which User:Bluegoblin7 is directly involved may indicate a possible conflict of interest. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

PS - changed to "regular operation" as the distinction between "in operation" and "operational" is perhaps too vague. (Msrasnw (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Two sources, one of which is self published, != notability. Go read the WP page on notability. I've already explained why your second option isn't one (imo) and the first one I have already said, kind of - What's it done?! Why is it notable? Why does it deserve an encyclopedia article? Southampton 45 has no books on it, does that immediately mean it's not notable? Without it, there's a chance that 765 might not be here. 765 is not notable. I'd be interested also to know why you think it is so notable - it's not even a notable tram within the tramway preservation movement. As for conflict of interest, I don't see where one exists - I've already covered 765 in depth (You've sourced from one of them), and no doubt will do so again in the future. I've not named the publication I am involved with, nor would I benefit from it, so I don't really see where the COI exists. I've been involved with similar cases before where we've moved non-notable railway locomotive articles to TrainSpottingWorld - and that was a largely accepted practice - my suggestions are no different. I am now going to file an AfD, as we appear to be going nowhere. BG7even

Why merging is not a good idea

[edit]

In the debate here and on the proposed deletion page merging this article with others has been suggested. Suggested merges include Manchester Corporation Tramways, Metrolink (?), Heaton Park Tramway (implicitly), Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum. In addition to its own merits, this diversity indicates to me to have links from most of these to this article is to be preferred to merging and what is more the addition of this whole article to anyone of these pages would not seem to me to be useful to improving those articles in terms of balance and structure. (Msrasnw (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Postscript to AfD failure

[edit]

BG7even, I note that your attitude changed from "not wanting to delete", to posting an AfD request in less than 24 hours.

Why?

You have an interest in trams, obviously, with the magazine you web-publish.

Is it not in your own interest to see this article survive, improve, and complement the MCT page?.

It is bad enough when unconnected "wiki editors" start, quoting this, that, and other regulations, which means you have to come up with a good reasoning for an article. (which was done!!)

What would you gain by having the article deleted or moved/merged?

I must admit to wondering why merging it with Crich's article was suggested, as there is currently no reference to it, at all, on there, or their own website, nor has it been resident there for over 30 yers.

By your action, you may have unintentionally gained a reputation that you may not like.

As for picking on the "only surviving operational" aspect, I have been visiting Boyle St since before you were born, and 173 has never moved from the site as far as I am aware.

As for the ownership aspect you alluded to, can we have some information on this? To make such a statement and not expand on it makes me wonder on what your intentions were in mentioning it. --Keith 11:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove the claim that 173 is operational? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Done. I dont understand the reason for it to be there in the first place. 173 nas never been in regular operation since its withdrawal "by 1931". Thats out of "regular opeation" for 79 years, and therefore not "current", I think!

Just noticed..... 4 out of the 5 references are to Blackpool. Hmmm!! One of them begins "This is a rare working example of what is known as a 'Combination car' - an unusual tram which has an enclosed central saloon, with open air seating at each end, intended for smokers." I think that might have been used for an argument on its "notability", dont you think?--Keith 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

I now have a revised draft and will come back to the problem.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Felix Folio Secundus,

Hi. What is the problem? Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Corporation Tramways 765. 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:

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) 17:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester Corporation Tramways 765. 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:

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) 00:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_Corporation_Tramways_765&oldid=1203867261"