Talk:Edinburgh Trams/Archive 1

Extension to St Andrew Square (Sep 2011)

Needs some text and reference to article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-14713476 that the decision to go beyond the Haymarket was a result of the threat by the Scottish Government to withhold £72 M of funding if it stopped there. This important point is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.60.71 (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Letdorf (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Controversies

Need some text and links to articles linking to reports that the proposed tram system was accepted without public votes or any democratic approval but were accepted by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.231.230 (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

This project is now under construction and seems to have a proper name but the results are confusing. I am suggesting this be moved to one of these names:

This is based on various searches for the proper name of the project. I am not sure which it is though. Simply south (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think TfE is just marketing speak, TiE is the commissioning company, where most hits for that will come from, NET - never seen this one but historically accurate (is there an old edinburgh tram article?), ET is the obvious choice, TramTime - never heard of it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, actually TiE stands for Transport in Edingburgh, but they do refer to the system as Edinburgh Trams, which as they are the builder, should probably be the official name (although arguably without the s). MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the system is not yet open, and from the above discussion clearly does not yet have a stable 'public identity', the name on WP is inevitably going to be fairly arbitrary. I'd be inclined to leave the current name alone, create redirs for the above alternate names, and cover the lack of a stable name in the text of the article. Once a stable public identity has emerged, we can then think about renaming the article. -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would expect Trams in Edinburgh to be a more general overall article, covering both the historic systems of Edinburgh and Leith and the new system. -- Chris j wood (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trams For Edinburgh is the new web site address with TramTime being the old.
New Edinburgh Tramways was an unofficial project set up by a private company which never received any backing by national or local government.
tie is not for Trams in Edinburgh or Transport in Edinburgh but Transport Initiatives Edinburgh. They are the overseeing organization for the project. They have also worked on various projects other than the Edinburgh Tram.
The official name/branding for the system is "Edinburgh Trams". This is what is being used on all on street signs, all mailings being issued by the overseeing organization and the latest construction updates.
I propose the the page be renamed Edinburgh Trams--77.103.197.54 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This nomination appears to be based on the common but mistaken belief that official names are an overriding consideration in Wikipedia article naming, and is another demonstration of why the existing policy of not being bound by them is a good one. Andrewa (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In reply to this, there are times when the most common name must be used (e.g. The Broads or Beeching Axe) and times when the official, or at least the branded, name should be used (e.g. National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty or Nottingham Express Transit). Contrary to this, common name does not override everything and I am not saying official does. Take things with a pinch of salt. This falls into the latter. Simply south (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an interesting view, but the policy actually reads (in part) Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature. Yes, we do use official names for article titles, but that's because either they are also the common name, or there's some good reason not to use the common name. Andrewa (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This article is about the current tram project, not previous tram systems in Edinburgh. Once the name of the system is known, it will become the common name. Right now it is hard to determine which it will be called. Simply south (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Right now it is hard to determine which it will be called" - so why the need to debate it at all? What is so ambiguous about the current title? Renaming it now and then again when a proper name emerges just creates editing work to fix all the resulting redirects again. MickMacNee (talk) 11:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exactly. That's one reason for the current policy. English usage generally changes a lot more slowly than the whims of officialdom. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's unclear whether these official names refer to the network, or the project to build the network, let alone what it will be called when finished. For the moment, the simple descriptive name this article already has is by far the clearest. David Arthur (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move 2

Just thought I'd be on the safe side. Now according to sources, the official name for this is Edinburgh Trams, as seen here, here and this (from Edinburgh city council). Simply south not SS, sorry 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. No objections after five days so i'm going ahead. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh tram

Is the capitalised Trams part an official part of the system name? If not, could I get a feeler for renaming this article to Edinburgh tram; I've done quite a bit on the Helsinki tram article and it's very useful being able to easily link it as [[Helsinki tram]]way/[[Helsinki tram]]s/[[Helsinki tram]] system/a [[Helsinki tram]] was.... —Sladen (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did construction start?

From the other-articles-header-thingy: "This article is about a tramway under construction from 2007 onwards." From the article body: "Movement of underground utilities commenced in Spring 2007" then later "Construction work started in June 2008". This doesn't all quite make sense to me: can it be sorted out by someone who knows the issues, to clarify it a bit please? Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it comes down to whether you consider the relocation of utilities to make way for the tramway as part of its construction, or merely a preparation to its construction. David Arthur (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracklaying commenced the week before last. Tom walker (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

This project has been beset by problems such as poor planning, poor execution, poor communication and it's not ended. The costings for this project did obviously not take into account record levels business difficulties along the route resulting in loss of jobs, and empty premises. Clearly decisions made by politicians who either took advantage of an apathetic public or mislead them. To this day all the pictures of the trams exclude ugly wires which will scar the face of one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. The matter will continue for years and whilst Edinburgh may live to benefit, the short-term pain is most grievous. It's like trying to survive a plague; you will have immunity however a lot have gone by the wayside. Expressions such as "Hitler didn't do this much damage to Edinburgh" are common-place. Edinburgh Citizen 3/07/09

Does commuter heavy rail not count?

This article says non-bus public transport ceased in Edinburgh in 1956, but the south suburban, for example, ran until 1962. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rage707 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

The image used in the infobox shows the work as it progressed through Princes Street, however in the article there is a picture of the completed work. Surely an up-to-date image would be more appropriate than an image of only work in progress as this part of the network is now finished?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.19.204 (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burns apology

"Labour and the Tories united last Thursday to defeat the Lib Dems' plan to take the line along Princes Street to St Andrew Square. As transport convener in a Labour-led Edinburgh council administration, Burns was the politician who introduced the plan back in 2006. Then it was envisaged that the tram would run all the way to Newhaven, with future extensions into other parts of the capital. Speaking to Scotland on Sunday, Burns admitted it was "incredible" that the line would now only go as far as Haymarket."

"Labour councillor Andrew Burns says sorry for trams debacle", Tom Peterkin, Scotland on Sunday, 28 August 2011 --Mais oui! (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Does that mean that he accepted that the Labour administration was wrong to commission the plan in the first place? ¬¬¬¬[reply]

Split the page?

Given the tram line is due to open next year and completion is now getting near, I think it might be time to move the section on proposals for line 3 and other unrealised plans to new page. Any thoughts? Elsecar (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having re-read the article, I'm inclined to agree. Perhaps a Edinburgh Trams Planning or such? There's so much currently about Phase 1a, Phase 1b, Phase 2, Phase 3, and in fact what is being built is just a subset of even Phase 1a (referred to as roughly Line 2 at various stages). Yes, go for it. —Sladen (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the historic material should probably move to a different article. Maybe History of Edinburgh Trams? Regards, Letdorf (talk) 15:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I agree a split is needed. This article should focus on describing the extant system with smaller history and future sections, as is the case with most other tram system articles. Stuff about the details of the problems the scheme's had, the possible planned future phases and so on could go in a History article as suggested above or in a Future Expansion article. Tom walker (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the "Original proposal" section to a new article and revised the History section of this one to include an overview of the evolution of the project, which I think this has improved the structure of the article. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Refurbishment

I've refurbished the page, and extensively updated it. It was terribly outdated before. I've also decided to nominate it for a Good Article review, if anyone is interesting in reviewing it. RGloucester — 📬 23:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is archived at Talk:Edinburgh Trams/GA1.