Jump to content

Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Sort by country

This list is ordered by country, and presumably it should follows the usual meaning of the English word 'country', instead of the narrower definition of sovereign state. The English word 'country' is used to refer to both sovereign states and other countries that aren't independent. This same usage is followed by WP:WPC. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Regardless, Hong Kong is not a country and shouldn't be on the list anyway. Mattximus (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Mattximus! But please be warned that the HKG-pushers have an "answer" for everything, including "One country, two systems"!... (Not that they're satisfactory answers, mind you - but they'll have an answer to this as well!) --IJBall (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Once again, the HKG-pushers are attempting to stretch the meanings of words beyond any reasonable definition in their quest to get HK "recognized" as a "country" when HKG is not in any meaningful way. ("Country" has multiple definitions, though I'll note that the leading definition: "an area of land that is controlled by its own government" would seem to rule Hong Kong out anyway...) When most English-speakers hear the word "country" they mean it to be synonymous with "sovereign state". So, I reiterate that I strongly oppose any change from China to Hong Kong (on top of everything, doing so adds no "informational value" to this particular list-set), and will continue to do so as long as this List's 'sister list', the List of metro systems continues to list Hong Kong under China, exactly as we do here.
That said, I'd like to hear from other editors of this page on this issue, if any are still checking in regularly... --IJBall (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Hong Kong isn't a country and never has been. (My parents came from HK, and it wasn't a country when they were living there.) Taiwan, however, is a different story for later. Epicgenius (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Read this [1]. Country is never a term that covers only sovereign states or UN members. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
So? That's a list of "countries" (incl. territories) from "The Economist". It's by no means an "authoritative source" on this subject. --IJBall (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Most, if not all, reputable publications use the same English word 'country' to cover both sovereign states and dependencies. In the English language sovereign states are only a subset of countries, though they're a very big subset. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, here the consensus is that we mean "country" to be synonymous with independent or sovereign state. And that doesn't look likely to change. --IJBall (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
But that isn't what the word 'country' actually means. Yes most Wikipedians live in sovereign states.. Wikipedians who live in other countries constitute a very small minority in this community, and therefore the consensus would always be favourable to those who don't even know other countries also exist. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The definition in the 'Legend' was clarified yesterday. There is now no ambiguity as to what is meant by "Country" because the definition is clearly spelled out. --IJBall (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia can't 'define' felid ≡‎ cat. Sovereign states are a subset of country, just as cats are a subset of felids. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

RfC

Are both sovereign states and dependencies both subsets of the English word 'country', in the same manner as leopards, jaguars, lions, cats, are subsets of felids? (Please discuss under Talk:List of countries without armed forces#RfC.) 17:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Hong Kong is not a country. Under Chinese/international law it is a Special administrative region of the People's Republic of China i.e. an autonomous territory that falls under China's sovereignty. ► Philg88 ◄ talk 18:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. But, regardless, the definition of "Country" used in these tables is now clearly spelled out in the 'Legend'. So, from henceforth, there really are no justifications for trying to change the status of the Hong Kong entries in the table... --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not confuse 'country' and 'sovereign state'. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

More

Let's follow the same rule for the Isle of Man, Aruba, and Hong Kong. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes - Isle of Man should be folded under the UK, Aruba under Netherlands (Antilles). --IJBall (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The Netherlands Antilles had been dissolved some years ago. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
And they explain how dependencies are conventionally considered countries, if you still don't bother to look up other lists on Wikipedia or from other sources. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Btw Aruba hadn't been part of the Netherlands Antilles since 1986. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Aruba

Could someone please check that the Aruba systems is a true "public transit" system, and not a tourist system? It was added a while back, but I don't have access to the reference cited, and so I could not check to see if it really qualified for inclusion on the list here. My suspicion is that it's not a true "transit" system, and thus should be deleted... --IJBall (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, got it. According to this: [2] "The tram will operate six days a week, Monday through Saturday, from 10:00 AM until 1:00 PM." That does not sound to me like a real "transit" system to me. I nominate the Aruba system for deletion from the list. If no one objects in the next week or so, I'm going to delete it... --IJBall (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Heritage systems are included. This isn't the only one. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This list is designed to cover only true public transit systems - i.e. seasonal or less-than-daily systems are not to be included here. If a "heritage" tram system operates as a true public transit system or line, then it qualifies for inclusion. The Aruba system is really borderline - while it does run 6 days-a-week, it only runs 3 hours a day (and not during "peak" or "rush hours" when the locals would be most likely to use it). Thus it really looks to me to be a "tourist system" not a true "transit system", and thus should be culled from this list. (Some of the Oceania systems look similarly unqualified and should probably be deleted - I've got a call in to another editor on this issue as well...) --IJBall (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
This doesn't form part of the title of this list.., nor does the title of this list suggest or imply so. Furthermore, would such a definition require editors to OR every single entry and see if they're truly 'daily regular' means of public transport?

On the other hand, how to differentiate tourists from the public? From what I read, passengers don't have to show their foreign passport in order to get onto these trams. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

The word "transit" is right there in the title! Why else would it be there?! Note that the title of this page isn't simply "List of tram and light rail systems" (because that would be a far more inclusive list). Again, I encourage you to go back through the Talk page archives and back through this page's edit history: systems (esp. heritage trams) that don't qualify as true "public transit" systems (i.e. those with regular, and not seasonal, and daily or most daily service) can and have been deleted from this list for that very reason. And not just by me, but by other editors... --IJBall (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Light rail transit is a compound noun. The title doesn't read tram transit and light rail transit. Further, transit for tourists is still transit. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

More around Aruba, etc.

@IJBall: I understand that you may want to get rid of Aruba, and just Aruba, since you can't actually tell whether it's part of the Netherlands or not.. (or whether it's part of the Netherlands Antilles or not). But even if we kick Aruba, we still got other countries to deal with. Say, the Isle of Man? And what if Puerto Rico decide to rebuild their tramway system (while Capitol Hill continue to ignore their request for statehood)? (San Juan did have a tramway, until 1946. So it would still be an issue if we got a list of former / decommissioned tram and light rail transit systems on Wikipedia.) 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I want to "kick" Aruba because it's not a true "public transit" system in the same way that every other system on this list is supposed to be (not because its country listing is "confusing"...). Any other entry should be dealt with using the WP:Consensus already established historically for this list, and reaffirmed in the "Sort by country" topic - territories will be "folded" under their administering sovereign states - Isle of Man goes under UK (note: this entry was missed and not moved when the page's 'Legend' was updated...), Puerto Rico (which is currently not an issue on this list) would go under the U.S. (as it does in this article's 'twin' List of metro systems article), etc. --IJBall (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
It's difficult to tell whether it was missed simply because of negligence, or missed for a reason (or some reasons). If you don't already know, please spend bit time to look around on Wikipedia. Dependencies are presented as countries on many lists, alongside independent states. That's the general practice. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it was just "missed" (I know I just missed it - not recategorizing was a "sin of omission" on my part...). At this point, I'd want to see other editors advocating keeping Isle of Man as a separate "country" entry, because to me the discussion from the earlier Sort by country topic makes it pretty plain to me that consensus among editors here is the same as it is over as List of metro systems on this issue and that only sovereign states should be listed under "Country"... --IJBall (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Full protection

I reverted the article to the state it was before the IP started editing, and fully protected it for three weeks. I also added it to my watchlist, so that any attempts to build walls of text and subsequently to call this "consensus" will be dealt with. Thank you for your understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, could you please mind your wordings in your edit summary?[3] My initial edits were made in good faith. It was IJBall who disrupted the page by removing whatever i added. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 13:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a wonderfully revisionist take on what actually happened - you once again ignored what the 'Legend' of this page specifically says on the subject, thus ignoring previous consensus on this issue (and previous discucssion on the issue - see "Sort by country" up-page, where multiple editors besides myself objected to what you were trying to do), and then magically declared your way of doing things the "new consensus". Your editing on this topic has been repeatedly disruptive, as anyone who can follow your edit history (esp. at many of the Talk pages you've visited) can easily determine for themselves.
Your worst offense was actually the obnoxious "dubious" & "weasel words" tag nonsense (something you were already warned against doing at the List of countries without armed forces), when the title of this page explicitly contains the word "transit" in its very title!
Again, what I'd like to see here is comments from other editors of this page, especially in the new "Issues on the table" topic"... --IJBall (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact u're the revisionist instead. The Wikipedian community have indeed interpreted the legend not in the way you read it and/or the way you preferred. They did it by action and added separate entries for the Isle of Man and Aruba. All I did was to stick with that existing practice, and improve it by adding sovereign powers in brackets.

I also improved the list by adding a note for Basel, you took that away. And, more amusingly, you went on to the extent that you took away the word 'daily' in 'regular daily', words that you yourself added, altogether, when you removed the {{weasel-inline}} tag (And all I did was to add the word 'daily' back). What would you call such behaviour if it wasn't disruptive? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

No, in fact, that's not what happened. But I will give a fuller accounting when it is requested by another interested editor... --IJBall (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Could you please kindly undo the revert regarding an edit unrelated to the dispute, that IJBall disregarded and removed altogether while he was disrupting the page, that is, the footnote on the transborder nature of Basel's tramway? Thanks. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
If there is consensus that the edit is appropriate I can of course do it.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The proper procedure for asking for edits to this page by administrators is explained, right there at the top of the page. But, to answer Ymblanter's question, no, I personally do not object to the Basel note (just to everything else 116.48.155.127 did...). --IJBall (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
You don't object, but you reverted them. And according to your dictionary that wasn't disruption. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Because of the ham-fisted way you did your revisions (i.e. piecemeal, in multiple, multiple revision versions), there wasn't a "clean" way to revert them without reverting back to a previous version of the page. If you have made your changes more cleanly, in fewer revisions, I could have reverted just the objectionable ones, and I could have left the Basel one alone. There was no intent on my part to get rid of your Basel addition, which was the one good addition you made... --IJBall (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I see. So that was laziness, and therefore that wasn't disruption even if it was disruptive as an outcome. Cool. (And as a matter of fact, those were separate edits. All you had to do was to take a quick glance at the edit summaries and press to see the diffs. The Basel one, in particular, was mentioned, more than once, clearly in the edit summaries.) 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
No - the disruptive edits you did were piecemeal, and so could not be easily reverted with a single 'undo', which forced me to do a global version rollback. I'm not sure why you're still complaining though, as thanks to Ymblanter, your Basel note is now part of the table. --IJBall (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
You may undo only those you don't agree with, or reinstate those you agree with after a roll back. Piecemeal isn't an excuse. What Ymblanter did (thank you so much, Ymblanter, by the way) doesn't and won't make your behaviour less disruptive. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues on the Table

Now that the recent disruptive editing and edit warring has been rolled bad and we have some time for discussions, it would be nice to hear from some of the other editors of this page on the main issue in question - Based on the "Country" definition used in the 'Legend', does anyone else have a problem with putting Isle of Man under the UK? And does anyone object to removing Aruba, as it doesn't seem to qualify as the kind of public "transit" service we generally list around here?

Heck, we can use this time and even talk about any other issues that people currently have with this list (e.g. we can revisit SJ Morg's earlier proposal to "simplify" this list as well).

One issue I currently have is that we have some systems 'double-listed' here and in the List of metro systems (e.g. see this topic at the Metro List's Talk page) that should only be listed at one of the two articles not in both...

Also, now that Liamdavies has apparently retired from Wiki, I think we need to take a look at some of the heritage lines listed under 'Oceania' to check that they are functional "transit" lines as well. --IJBall (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Isle of Man should, and have to, have its own entry under the country column. Pls refer to the section above regarding Aruba, and discuss there. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you re-review the "Sort by country" topic first. --IJBall (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
IJBall, I'm still happy to answer questions and help out, my reasons for retiring are not due to Wikipedia per se (email me if you would like clarification, or a quicker response to a question). I'm pretty dubious on what to call them, some are clearly tourist services, others are tourist services with extensive operating hours. I would also add that it is not an exhaustive list, it includes only some, and omits others, for example Whiteman park has very limited operating hours ([4]) and has been added, while a number of other heritage tramways with similar hours have been omitted. Listed below are the operating hours of the tramway operations that have been added recently:
  • Ballarat Heritage Tramway - Sat, Sun, public holidays (except Christmas), and during school holidays, 12:30pm-5:00pm ([5]) (Wiki article = Ballarat Tramway Museum)
  • Bendigo Heritage Tramway - daily (except Christmas), 10:00am-5:00pm ([6]), ([7]) (Wiki article = Trams in Bendigo)
  • Whiteman Park Heritage Tramway - Tues, Fri, Sat, Sun, and public holidays (except Christmas), midday-2pm (minimum operating hours) ([8]) (Wiki article = Whiteman Park))
  • Auckland Heritage Tramway - daily (except Christmas), 10:00am-4:30pm/5:00pm (although currently suspended) ([9]) (Wiki article = Trams in New Zealand#Auckland Waterfront Tramway 2011)
Personally I think an argument can be made for the inclusion of Bendigo and Auckland (although it would be pretty much on the edge of inclusion) and that it could be extended to include Chirstchurch, NZ (Christchurch tramway system, daily, 9:00am-6:00pm ([10])). I hope this helps in deciding which should stay, and consult Template:TramsAustralia for a full(er) list of heritage tramways in Australia.
On other matters raised here, a system should only be either here or on the metro list, not both. The Isle of Mann is not part of UK, it is a crown dependency protected by the UK and to some extent legislated by the UK (it's really odd). Aruba is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it is not sovereign, the issue here is that there is probably going to be confusion between Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands (just like how England is part of the United Kingdom, but also a country). All cities currently listed as Netherlands (Amsterdam (twice), Rotterdam, and The Hague) along with Aruba should all be listed under Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is the sovereign nation, much like all systems in England are listed under the United Kingdom. Liamdavies (talk) 13:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Aruba, Curaçao, Netherlands (which includes Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba), and Sint Maarten, are the four constituent countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maartin are represented in the kingdom cabinet by ministers plenipotentiary, along with Dutch ministers.

Meanwhile, as for heritage tramways, it's better to include than to exclude them, since basically ordinary citizens who aren't tourists can take them too. Further, there are many more tourist systems which operate peak and non-peak hours, seven days a week, that no locals would actually travel on them. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see above - this list is designed only for "transit" systems. --IJBall (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
But it's difficult to define. Say, what if a system operates from 8am to 7pm seven days a week, but the locals simply won't travel on it (for many different reasons, say, too expensive, or it serves only tourist areas)? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Your hypothetical example would likely qualify for inclusion. I suspect other editors like Liamdavies and SJ Morg would agree. But the Aruba system included here only operates 3 hours a day, six days a week - that probably doesn't cut it as a "transit" system. --IJBall (talk) 15:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then where to draw the line? Would such a line be potentially arbitrary and/or OR? And would the example above genuinely qualify as transit? On the other hand, would lines or services that provide revenue operation only in one direction during morning peaks, and in the opposite direction in evening peaks, qualify as transit? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
It would be open for discussion to attempt for a consensus view on it. In most cases, though, it is clear what is a true "transit" system and what isn't. It's only some of the heritage lines that tend to be borderline... --IJBall (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Liamdavies, this is great stuff. We should definitely keep Bendigo and Auckland (I didn't realize Auckland's tram had resumed service again (it had been previously deleted from the list when its service was suspended after the earthquake...) - I guess that happened just a few months ago...), and we can add Christchurch. But my recollection is that we previously deleted Whiteman for the reasons you outline, and we should also remove Ballarat.
As for Isle of Man, it looks like that is a really special case. My concern, though, is that it is listed under the UK in the List of sovereign states not on its own. I'd prefer that it be listed that way in this table as well then, in a way similar to Hong Kong is currently, but I don't have as strong an opinion on it, and I'd like to hear from a few more editors on this one. --IJBall (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Dependencies are nothing special. They're simply another subset of countries, alongside independent states. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No problems, glad I could help. The problem with the Isle of Mann is that it (along with Guernsey and Jersey) are not part of the UK, but crown dependencies - they literally are owned by the crown - as the crown is the sovereign of the UK, they are almost part of it. It is a very special case, but they are not legally part of the UK, nor are they sovereign in themselves, as they are owned by the sovereign of the UK (it would be a really tricky one if the UK ever became a republic). Read up a bit more here: Crown dependencies, The Crown, and Special member state territories and their relations with the European Union#Channel Islands and Isle of Man. The Manx situation is completely different to Hong Kong, which is legally part of China; Isle of Mann is not legally part of the UK. Liamdavies (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The title Lord of Mann could, theoretically, be passed on to the British (or English–Welsh–Northern Irish) president, in similar manner like how French presidents double up as one of the co-princes of Andorra. And there's indeed a similar discussion on the constitutional framework of the Cook Islands (and Niue) if New Zealand goes republic. They are currently three countries within the same realm, with the same Queen of New Zealand as the head of the realm.

The question on whether a dependency is part of the sovereign power that controls it isn't that clear cut. E.g. Hong Kong isn't considered to be part of China as far as customs and trade matters are concerned within the WTO framework. (Whereas for some matters the UK along with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are considered one jurisdiction.) And more importantly, most inhabited dependencies, including Hong Kong, Aruba, Isle of Man, Puerto Rico, and many others, conventionally appear on lists of countries along with independent states. It's on the edge of OR for Wikipedia to create its own rule to stick only with independent states and kick all dependencies out. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it is you who is engaging in WP:OR here, Hong Kong is under no stretch of the imagination a sovereign country, it is legally part of China[11] - this cannot be disputed. The Isle of Man on the other hand is odd, it is neither sovereign OR part of the UK, it is legally separate from the UK, but does not have full sovereignty.[12][13] This makes it both odd, and different to Hong Kong, which is analogous with Norfolk Island to Australia, the British Overseas Territories to the UK etc etc. Liamdavies (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd never argue that Hong Kong is a sovereign state, or independent. I only stated the fact that for some matters dependencies aren't readily part of their sovereign powers, and that it's conventional to list all dependencies as countries, alongside independent states. The UIC do so in their publications.[14] So are The Economist,[15] [16] THE,[17] the National Science Foundation of the US,[18] Mercer,[19] World Economic Forum,[20] the RSF,[21] and the Fraser and Cato institutes.[22] 116.48.155.127 (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
That is all irrelevant, the legend here states that country is defined as a sovereign state. As such Isle of Man sits alone in being a curiosity, not sovereign but not part of a sovereign state, almost the country equivalent of a stateless person, while Hong Kong is listed as China. If you disagree with the inclusion criteria that is what you have to get consensus to change. Liamdavies (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case, the definition of country under the legend is on the edge of OR, and, on the other hand, editors have demonstrated by action that it isn't conventional nor natural to place countries like Aruba under the sovereign powers over them. The rule on Wikipedia for most other lists is to list dependencies along with independent states. In some cases, the sovereign powers of these countries are specified in brackets. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Liam, for context, this is longer-term discussion/argument with this particular IP editor at various different Wiki articles (and with multiple editors besides myself). Basically, this IP user totally rejects the idea that country has multiple definitions, including that one definition of "country" is synonymous with "sovereign state" (even despite this), and thus rejects the idea that certain pages are allowed to define country that way (mostly in pursuit of the idea that Hong Kong should be listed separately on every list on Wiki).
I think the rest of us feel, as long as each Wiki article is clear about which definition of "country" is being used in each article, there is no issue. And this page is very clear about which definition of country is being used (and is the consensus choice). --IJBall (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that (I've seen the history on this page and a couple others). The base point is that most people understand country to mean sovereign nation state, not a constituent part within a larger nation. For Hong Kong to be included would axiomatically mandate that the constituent countries of the UK to be listed (ie all tram systems in England be listed as England rather than the UK) same for Russia and a couple of others, this is an absurd and confusing preposition. I don't see why anyone would object to the current situation or, if any special consideration has to be given, the HK flag icon in parenthesis next to China in the country column; or possibly a note explaining the Hong Kong situation placed next to China. But back to the more important matter, should the suggestions you made regarding the inclusion of Oceanic systems be carried out? Liamdavies (talk) 16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Liam, I think those changes should be made, but I don't know if those edits need to be made right now, or if we should just wait until April 19. Perhaps, @Ymblanter: can weigh in here, as it seems like there are no objections to what you and I have talked about re: the Oceania systems. --IJBall (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I am here, but I do not quite understand what are the changes propoposed. Is there an exact formulation up the thread?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: Let me just summarize the changes requested:
  1. From Oceania, please delete: the Ballarat Heritage Tramway and the Whiteman Park Heritage Tramway rows. (Reasons: These are not true "transit" systems, and so do not qualify for inclusion in this list.)
  2. As Auckland's tram is apparently not currently operational... eh, just leave it for now, as it's already listed - but change "Relevant Wikipedia article" to: Auckland Waterfront Tramway
  3. For Bendigo, please change "Relevant Wikipedia article" to: Trams in Bendigo
  4. To Oceania, please add the following (you can probably just lift the 'row' code, as is):
 
Location Country Relevant Wikipedia article Year opened Stations System length Type
Christchurch  New Zealand Christchurch tramway system Heritage tramway
— Preceding unsigned comment added by IJBall (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 April 2014‎
Thank you. I will wait for a day, and, if there are no objections, will add them to the article.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
These two don't appear to be systems used for usual public transport. But, as I've raised above, where to draw the line, and would such a line be OR and/or arbitrary? And on the other hand, would there be a separate list for all these tramways not covered by and kicked out from this list? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The answer to your second question is definitely "Yes" - they'll be included in other lists like Trams in Australia or the various "Lists of town tramways systems", etc. --IJBall (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
What about, say, a list for all these heritage tramways not primarily for public transport? But back to the first question, where and how to draw the line? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there's a formal answer on this. This would be a good time to get the opinions of a longer-term editor like SJ Morg... --IJBall (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
In that case I'm afraid I'd have to say hang on to #1 (and just to #1). 116.48.155.127 (talk) 20:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Whiteman operates 2 hours a day - it is clearly a tourist system (when I looked it up in the past, IIRC, it doesn't even "go" anywhere...) - it's been cut from this list before for these reasons, and should be cut again. Ballarat basically only operates on weekends. Neither of these can remotely be considered to be true "transit" systems - they're clearly tourist systems. You asked where the "cutoff" is - I don't have a simple answer on that. What I can tell you is that neither Whiteman or Ballarat are remotely even close to that hypothetical "cutoff" - they're not even close to being considered "transit" systems. Asking what you're asking may be constructive - but forcing the list to keep in systems that clearly don't qualify is not even remotely constructive. --IJBall (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I have the utmost respect for the volunteers who operate Whiteman Park (PETS), and Ballarat (BTS), but neither qualify as a tram transit system, they are tourist operations. If they are retained then Sydney Tramway Museum (SPER), Portland Cable Tram, Haddon, Victoria (MTPS - no article), St Kilda, South Australia#Tramway museum (AETM), Victor Harbor Horse Drawn Tram, Brisbane Tramway Museum, Tramway Historical Society (Ferrymead Heritage Park), and MOTAT should also be added - all of them operate (and TMSV and Hawthorn should both be added when operational). And that's just in Australia and NZ! I hope I didn't leave any out (if I did it was an innocent omission and sorry), but a list of tram museums in Australia and NZ can be found at COTMA's website. Classifying them as 'transit' is like classifying the City Loop as metro, sure one could do it, but it's a really far stretch of the term. Liamdavies (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
What I said was hang on. Some systems should certainly be deleted from this list. But only if we're able to draw a line, an objective one. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that either Whiteman Park or Ballarat are transit systems? Liamdavies (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
All I said was hang on. I didn't suggest what they were or what they weren't.

Meanwhile, the word 'transit' does not necessarily refer to public transport no matter which dictionary you look into. Not to mention 'light rail transit' is itself a noun phrase and this title doesn't suggest that those included have to be 'transit systems' or 'public transport systems'. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the word "transit" does in fact in the case of this list mean "public transit". The word "transit" would not be in this article's title otherwise. (Again, if the use of the word transit wasn't deliberately there to mean "public transit", the title of this page would simply be the "List of tram and light rail systems"...) Almost no one uses the term "light rail transit" as you are implying, anymore than they use the terms "heavy rail transit" or "metro transit" - in nearly all cases, the terms used are just "light rail", "tram", "heavy rail" and "metro" and the word "transit" (meaning "transport" in this case) is omitted. But, as you seem unwilling to take my (or Liam's) word for it, or to check the edit histories for yourself, you're going to have to 'ping' one of the longer-term editors like SJ Morg and have them convince you that the use of the word "transit" in this page's title is deliberate and specific and meant to mean "public transit" systems only for inclusion here. --IJBall (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The word 'transit' here is part of 'light rail transit'. 'Light rail transit' is a noun phrase. Regardless, there's no dictionary that would suggest that the word 'transit' could refer only to public transport. I agree some of the museum routes should be removed, but there should be a list to contain them, and there has to be an objective and non-arbitrary line. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
No it isn't. But I am done talking with you on this, and pretty much all else, because I am getting nowhere. Ping SJ Morg or another long-term editor if you want to know why transit is in this article's title. And there are other lists that contain those systems you are worried about (and if there are not, nothing prevents you from creating them). --IJBall (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone object to putting Christchurch (NZ) back in to the table, now that it has resumed service, post-Earthquake? Because, if not, we can ask Ymblanter to add that one back in too... --IJBall (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Liamdavies (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Why not? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't reject the fact that the one definition that synonymous with 'sovereign state' exists. It's you who reject any other definition. I oppose using that one definition because it isn't common. This isn't just because of Aruba, Hong Kong, Puerto Rico, or any other particular dependencies. It's simply because that one definition isn't common at all. Any reasonable editor can tell if he or she does read across and outside Wikipedia, not just Wikipedia lists regarding rail transport. (I'd love to see actual examples outside Wikipedia that adopt the synonymous definition, if there's any.) 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Liamdavies (16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)): You may perhaps regard it as most people, but apparently not The Economist (along with the EIU), Times Higher Education, the National Science Foundation, Mercer, World Economic Forum, the RSF, and the Fraser Institute and Cato institutes,[23] nor the majority of lists of countries and lists by country on Wikipedia. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
As it appears you may probably be more familiar with Australia, you'd perhaps be interested to take a quick glance at how Australian governments deal with dependencies. (Hong Kong is taken as an example here not because that's where I am currently editing from, but because it's the most populous dependency, the one with the highest total GDP, and probably the one most connected with Australia.) - ANSTO,[24] DestinationNSW,[25] Reserve Bank,[26] Law Reform Commission,[27] The Treasury,[28], and Roads and Maritimes, NSW.[29]

Actually section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act, 1901 provides that '"foreign country" means any country (whether or not an independent sovereign state) outside Australia and the external Territories.', and in Tjhe Kwet Koe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Ors the Australian Federal Court ruled that a country need not be a sovereign state under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am essentially retired from wiki, I really don't have the inclination to argue this with you. Your problem is with the criteria under which a country is defined in this and other lists, arguing and alienating editors on talk pages like this is unlikely to win anyone to your side. I can see your perspective, but if you fail to gain consensus there really has to be a time to move on. Liamdavies (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that there's a general practice on Wikipedia and elsewhere in other publications on how country is defined. We really can't have a peculiar definition just for this small circle of articles/lists on Wikipedia just because a couple of enthusiastic editors. I did nothing to alienate anyone, and you alienate yourself along with this list and a handful of related ones from the rest of Wikipedia and from rest of the world. Consensus building isn't just about stating one's own opinion, but also presentation of arguments backed by facts and evidence. So far I haven't yet seen any material submitted to the discussions here which doesn't present dependencies, alongside sovereign states, as countries. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@Liamdavies (16:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)): Liam as for your worry that England would replace United Kingdom under the country column, a quick answer would be no. Dependencies are eligible to be assigned country calling codes and ccTLDs (country code top-level domains). That isn't the case for cases like England, or perhaps Tatarstan. There's a reason why only dependencies are assigned country calling codes, ccTLDs, amongst others, but not readily constituent of countries like England, Tatarstan, Victoria, Ontario, or Bavaria. The definition of country, for the purpose of these lists, stops at dependencies. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, as I said before, I will not engage you in argument or discussion. It's time to move on. Liamdavies (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

And I'm afraid that's exactly the same thing that I'd want to say to you. Stop sticking with a peculiar definition that no where else adopts. The UIC would probably be a good enough reference point for Wikipedia articles and lists around rail transport to refer to and base upon. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
You may not have noticed, but I have not actually stated what I think vis-a-vis Hong Kong as a country, all I have said is that it does not meet the criteria as set out in the legend, I have also not stated an opinion on the legend, nor have you requested mine. However, your tact and tendentious nature has completely turned me off and alienated me from your viewpoint, it is for this reason alone that I will not engage in further discussion about the matter and think you should Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Please do not try to argue with me on this or 'convince me', simply view what I am saying as advice on how you should compose yourself here. Liamdavies (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It isn't about what you have or haven't stated, or what criteria were set out in the legend. It's about how other sources, within and beyond Wikipedia, deal with this same matter. No one turned you off or alienated you. It was you who held yourself within this tact or tendentious illusion, turned yourself off and alienated your own self by having this 'do not try to convince me' attitude. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem not to grasp that on Wikipedia, "lists" are allowed to establish their own list parameters. This is why some lists have an inclusive definition of "Country" while others have a more exclusive definition. Consider this my last comment on this particular subject, because it's clear to me that the consensus here isn't any more in your favor than it was at List of metro systems... --IJBall (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
On Wikipedia all pages, lists, categories, and so on and so forth, are allowed to establish their own parameters, as long as these parameters stick with the norm within and beyond Wikipedia. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I like it, it's my fault not yours, that you alienated me from your view point. One last question: Does the Hong Kong government consider Hong Kong a country? Liamdavies (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
This is how 'Hong Kong' appears on lists or tables published by the Hong Kong Government: [30] (under 'Participating Economies'), [31] (see lower half of Page 3, and note that Jersey, Guernsey and Bermuda also appear in the same table). 116.48.155.127 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
It also says (China) to the right, much like one could write California (USA), yet makes no mention of Hong Kong as a country. Does the government of Hong Kong claim it to be a country? Liamdavies (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the second link, the one that leads to a .Pdf document of the HK Monetary Authority, too?

Just in case you don't already know, with all due respect: Usually the expression with brackets is used for dependencies. And that's the way dependencies are presented on many lists of country on Wikipedia, [32], [33], [34], to name a few. Is California a dependency? Or, has Queensland got its own listing as 'Queensland (Australia)' alongside Australia under Hong Kong Government's list of APEC members? 116.48.155.127 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quote from www.gov.hk: "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. Following British rule from 1842 to 1997, China assumed sovereignty under the 'one country, two systems' principle." The "one country" here obviously refers to China, not Hong Kong. In other words, the HK government does not consider Hong Kong a country. -Zanhe (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this. This won't shut 116.48.155.127 (or Citobun over at Metro systems by annual passenger rides - in fact, I'm going to pull the gist of your post and put it over there too...), or other HKG-pushers on Wiki, down, but it is an important reference point for this discussion. --IJBall (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Zahne. 116.48.155.127: if we're going to even consider this we really need something from the government where they claim to a country (not headings on a table but actual prose, ie a sentence that contains the terms "Hong Kong" and "country" preferably with "is a" between them), if not even the government of Hong Kong consider Hong Kong to be a country I don't see why wiki should. Liamdavies (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Both the Hong Kong and the Chinese governments consistently present Hong Kong alongside other countries, not alongside Chinese provinces and cities, for whatever international comparison or listing purposes, as you can tell from the links above, e.g., the HKMA one which also includes Bermuda, Jersey and Guernsey.

And here's how Hong Kong deals with other countries: [35], [36]. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Zanhe I'm afraid you're cherrypicking, not presenting the full picture, and taking words out of contexts. In the 'One country, two systems' saying, the word 'country' is actually a direct (mis)translation of the Chinese vocabulary guójiā. Chinese languages lack the separate concepts of 'sovereign state' and country, and the term guójiā means '(sovereign) state(s)'. 116.48.155.127 (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I should have thought of this earlier, there's good reason to believe that 116.48.155.127 is the latest sockpuppet of User:Instantnood, who's used a large number of dynamic IPs (mostly from netvigator.com, like the current one) to continue pushing his POV since he was banned years ago. I've opened a new SPI investigation. Feel free to add your comments there. -Zanhe (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Thinking outside the box A non-involved editor's take on the dispute.. if listing the countries is causing edit wars and disruption, why not simply omit the "by country" column entirely? Is there a real need for it? The text at the top of the list says it is a list of cities with light rail... is it really important in the context of this topic to note what country a city with a light rail system is in? If we simply cut the column, then no one has anything to argue about. Blueboar (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Cutting it would be bad because it provides clear informational value (i.e. if you could name all of the countries for the cities in this list, you're way smarter than I am!!). Meanwhile, splitting this list into sections by country would cause exactly the same issue (and would largely duplicate what the List of town tramway systems articles are trying to do, anyway). The fact of the matter is, the only problems here are being caused by one long-time banned Wikipedia troll, User:Instantnood, whose sole purpose is Tendentious editing, primarily by the use of manifold SOCK accounts. Once you give in, and start pulling information from articles to avoid the vandalism that such "editors" instigate, and you've already lost the battle for Wikipedia's heart and soul. IMO. --IJBall (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I could easily name all the countries for the cities on the list... and for someone who can not, the information is but one click of the mouse away ... that's why we have blue-links to point the reader to other Wikipedia articles. My point was this... in the context of a list of cities with light rail systems... mentioning what country the city is in doesn't actually have much informational value... it is actually trivial (or irrelevant) information. If someone wants to know what country the city is in, they can go to the article on the city itself. Blueboar (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Why bother with the city at that stage then? Really, stop humoring a sockpuppeteer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Because it's the city that has the light rail system (not the country as a whole). Listing the city is the entire point of this list... but the country is superfluous information. Also, if we don't list the country, the POV pushing ends... because there is nothing to POV Push about. Blueboar (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's put it another way. There's no reason to feed a troll.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Unsplit table

Why divide it by continents? I understand the rationale, but having all the data on one single table, as for the metros, allows for quick comparisons and sorting. Just an idea. --31.33.60.75 (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tram and light rail transit systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Ridership

Shall we add ridership data here as well as done in the list of metro systems? --86.6.157.78 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea – it would be very difficult to get ridership figures for all of the systems here (even harder to get ridership data for all systems within the last 3 years). Indeed, there were previous discussion about dropping the "stats" from this list entirely, and I'm beginning to come around to that line of thinking (and will fully come around to it, if a few issues can be worked out...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it would probably be just too much work. How about keeping the opening year and length alone then? I notice some of the continents are more in detail than others, and I guess the number of stops is somewhat hard to find for a lot of old world systems. --31.221.57.38 (talk) 08:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of tram and light rail transit systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Feature uniformity between sections

I noticed this article has an odd feature: the list is split in continental sub-tables (for obvious practical reasons), but the shape of those tables are different from each others: some have two extra columns with data about system dimensions. Finding this lack of uniformity both wrong from a scientific point of view and unfair toward those countries (which are incidentally those outside the so-called “white nations”), I started to make even the whole article, adding those columns where they're missing, but IJBall undid my edit with this reason: “see Talk page (or Talk page archives): it was decided that this info was inappropriate for this particular list-article (and should actually be removed from the other sections...)”.

I read carefully the whole talk page (archive included) and I didn't find anywhere a hint about intentionally excluding those columns only for some specific sections, which would be an unjustifiable discrimination against some countries/continents. Conversely, I found the suggestion (or strong recommendation, I should perhaps say) that “number of station” and “system length” are to be deleted from the table in the whole article, but at that time (two years ago) there wasn't consensus about this proposal and - if I correctly understood (and I'm quite sure I did) - it was agreed not doing anything of that in the near term, or rather until the list will be split into two separate article (one for light rail and the other for tramway/streetcar systems). However, it's fairly clear to anyone who knows this subject that the splitting will likely never happen, because the assignment to one or the other list will lead to an endless controversy in almost all cases; moreover, over two years have passed without further discussion about this point since when SJ Morg deleted “statistic columns” from some tables (which are then empty at all), and the inequality between continents remains plain and simple.

IMHO, statistics about system length and stations/stops number, albeit incomplete, inaccurate and not up-to-date, are very useful to give the readers a clue about system “magnitude”, and are also not too much difficult to identify in operator's website (which is the explicitly mentioned source for these figures, as you can see in the “legend” section) even when those websites aren't written in English: the stations number can easily be obtained from the official system map (which is almost always present) and the system length is very often clearly stated on a “general information” page. Therefore I intended to add those two columns in sections which are currently lacking it, obviously filling also a reasonable amount of empty boxes with actual (referenced) figures - my now undid edit was only a first step (creating room for these figures), and the IJBall deleting came before I could add anything much to the table - and I still plan/would like to do that, unless other editors can give a rational reason to leave only some continents without these statistics or it's shown large consensus about deleting them from the whole list. In case the two “indicted” columns are retained, I also think it would be appropriate to rename “stations/stops” the first one, and to add a notice to readers into the legend, like this: “system statistics are subject to change from time to time and those listed above cold be outdated; be carefully and verify from the sources before using them”. This way, useful data can be kept available to readers avoiding the risk of misleading them. I also intend to create a specific references section “Statistics references” for those columns (just like the “Ridership references” in the twin List of metro systems article). Yak79 (talk) 13:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose your specific proposal... Now, let me explain – Patience will be required here. Since SJ Morg and I (and you should have "pinged" both SJ Morg and I to this discussion – I've just pinged SJ for you... I will also ping Mattximus, as he'll probably be interested in this too...) had that discussion about a year and a half ago, I have come around to agree with the point SJ was trying to make. But, the issue is this: what to do with the data that has already been collected here? In the case of North America, that problem has now been solved (the data has been moved to other articles such as Light rail in the United States and Streetcars in North America, etc.), and I'll go ahead and remove those "stats" columns from the North American section later today... That leaves the Europe and Oceania data. I would have already moved the Oceania data to another article, but I couldn't find one that was a good fit (I didn't really think that Trams in Australia was well set up for a summary data table...). In the case of the Europe data, I intended to ask for advice on where to move that data that we've collected (e.g. would it be better to move it to Trams in Europe, or to each "Trams in [country]" article (e.g. Trams in Germany) – I personally lean in the direction of the preferring the latter course of action in the case of the European systems), but just kept getting distracted by other things... Bottom line: I now agree with SJ Morg that a general listing article like this one should NOT include system stats (there are simply too many systems to keep track of at a "general list-overview" article like this one...) – the "system stats" should instead be included in less "general" articles, such as Light rail in North America or Trams in France -type articles; the stats you want to add can instead be added to Trams in Asia (just copy the table from here over there, and start adding the columns and data you want...). But actually moving the stats we have to the proper articles will not be a "quick" process, and I bet might take up to a month to figure out and carry out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Also, linking to the previous discussion on this topic: Talk:List of tram and light rail transit systems/Archive 1#All statistics relating to size should be excluded. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I strongly disagree whith your opinion, but since I'm clearly outnumbered I'll accept your decision; in my opinion, the most information it's removed, the least useful this article becomes: the only “opening year” isn't really relevant, if it's taken individually - and despite being stable data, they're alike questionable (at least for early systems) - and this way even the sortability of the table becomes pointless: it'll be more rational to revert the article to a mere, simple list as it was before 2013 (if I correctly saw in the “history”). Conversely, the reader's usefulness of collecting statistic data in such a global list is far bigger than adding that to a nationwide/continental list: if you're interested in some specific system you can go directly to their individial Wiki pages, while if you aim to a world overview, it's somewhat tiring to “search, open & match” a handful of different article. Don't take it to heart, but I don't intend to further contribute to this list: good luck with your project, but from my personal point of view as reader/user it doesn't worth the needed time and effort. Yak79 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
The point is this: this article is too general to contain the level of detail you want – this article is actually just supposed to be a list of the systems with almost no other data (you could argue that even the 'Opening date' data could be cut...). I don't know how many systems are listed here, but it's got to be at least 3 times as many as listed at List of metro systems. This list is just too big to keep track of system stats (it would take far too much effort from individual editors to maintain that data, and as the guy who's been primarily maintaining that data here, it's a real chore, and I get almost no help on it...). But that's not to say that such data shouldn't be tracked – I strongly believe it should!! But the better place to do that is at a more narrow-scope article like Trams in Asia – then we just need to link to that article from here, make clear in this article's lede that systems statistics aren't included here but instead can be found at Light rail in North America or Trams in Asia -type articles that we link to, and then everything should be good to go. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
From an editor's point of view, maybe tracking data in separate article can be easier - although I don't quite agree: if someone want to keep the global data set to right and updated, he'll have to follow some article, instead only one - but from an user's point of view this arrangement is worse by far: he'll must check a lot of pages, plus this kind of sortable data are more obvious and rational to find in a “list”, rather than at the bottom of “descriptive articles” (such as e.g. Trams in Asia).
If it was only a matter of collecting & maintenance toughness, I'd be here available to give an hand from now on, but since I think I understood there's an “ideological” stance - which I doesn't agree with - in your decision, I come back to suggest cutting also “Opening date” and the higly debatable “System classification” and reverting this article to its previous “simple list” feature: it would be more “fair” toward readers who aspect “too much” from this list (i.e. exactly what the very well set List of metro systems give us). Yak79 (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I stopped participating in these discussions because there was far too much original research in determining if a system is light rail or tram. The problem is definitions are not universal and I have no solution. If the system is "light rail", then system length and stations should be included. I agree those are valuable fields for comparison purposes. If it's just a streetcar or tram, where stations are ambiguous (no more than stops in a street), then that field would not be needed. Dividing the tables into light rail/tram/heritage tram would be more reasonable than by continent, because now it is very difficult to compare between, say Australian and Canadian systems. But alas that is a lot of work. Anyway, that's my two cents. Mattximus (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yangon tramway

Some months ago, when I read about some ex-Hiroshima tramcars having been given to Yangon in order to start a new public transport service in the former Burmese capital, I baldly thought the whole thing wasn't likely to go anywhere. But clearly I was wrong: accordingly to a fairly trustworthy source (a Railway Gazette online article), on January 2016, 10th the first of those tram - the articulated 3001 car, which dated back to the sixties - made is operational debut plying Yangon's streets in regular passenger service.

I'm well aware that a single vehicle and six runs a day for each direction are a far cry even from the bare minimum to be regarded a real tramway service, but nevertheless I consider it's a quite bold move for a city where this is the first electric (from World War II) and almost the only - the other being Yangon Circular Railway, a diesel worn out commuter suburban train - urban rail service. So I've added Yangon to the list simultaneously to this post, hoping no one will delete it: despite being formally unexceptionable, the choice of excluding it would be both narrow-minded and basically wrong, since every thecnical evaluation must take in account the context. Yak79 (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Yak79: While this probably doesn't qualify for inclusion here quite yet, I do think it would be worthy of inclusion at the Trams in Asia article. My $0.02, for what it's worth... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Track length vs. network length

It seems that for many system lengths total track length (together with depots) has been entered in network (system) length section. I suggest everyone entering new systems and knowing facts about already entered systems double check their entry because, as it is, these numbers lead to wide discrepancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.60.33 (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

The issue is that many of the figures listed in this article are unsourced, and in some cases the only sourcing available gives track length rather than network length. For example, you just changed a sourced figure for Zagreb – what is your source for this figure? Because I would be very interested in knowing where this "system length" figure for Zagreb came from... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of tram and light rail transit systems. 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) 21:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

populations size of tramways

Is there a table anywhere showing size of population per tramway? ThanksEngineman (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on List of tram and light rail transit systems. 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) 04:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Aubagne tramway

Morphenniel (talk) reverted once more my edit about Aubagne tramway, listing it again under Marseille, and he wrote (in the edit summary) he added two reference that - in his opinion - make it clear that this will become an extension of the Marseille system. However, the second source[1] doesn't say anything about this matter, it merely highlights that Aubagne is located east of Marseille (about 20 km, to be accurate). Conversely, the first one[2] talks about the early Aubagne's tramway project, stating that, after the completion of third phase, Aubagne tramway would have been connected to the Marseille transit network (sera connecté ensuite au réseau de transports marseillais), and not to the Marseille tram network; anyway, both the second phase and the third phase of that project were later shelved [3][4]. On Marseille side, there's actually the aim to reach Aubagne's “border” with the tram tracks, in order to connect the two systems,[5] but A) it's postponed in the long term (beyond-2025 scenario) and B) according to the current proposal, rather than a single line they're thinking of two distinct lines (one Marseille-bound and the other Aubagne-bound) with an interchange terminus halfway. Therefore:

  • Aubagne tramway wasn't in the beginning conceived as a part of Marseille one and no source depicts things this way; conversely, plenty of them clearly talk about a network serving the city/town of Aubagne and don't even appoint Marseille (e.g. [37] or [38]);
  • extension plans that would bring the two sistems to touch each other are currently indefinitely on hold (Aubagne-side) or posponed to a distant future (Marseille-side);
  • even when - if ever - those plans became a reality, it wouldn't mean the merging in a single system or the entrance of the Aubagne one into Marseille orbit; in the Rhine-Ruhr region there are some intertwined tram networks that are also managed together (VRR - Verkehrsverbund Rhein-Ruhr), and yet they're still regarded as separate and serving distinct cities (and are listed here consequently);[6]
  • as I already said , this list refers exclusively to the current operational set-up and, by now, Aubagne tramway and Marseille tramway are two separate and distinct systems, serving two different cities, run by two different operators and managed by two different authorities.

Rebus sic stantibus, I really don't see how the current version of the list could be logically sustained and instead strongly reiterate my support to the previous one (two completely separate rows, one for each system); I wonder what IJBall, SJ Morg, Mattximus and other main contributors of this article think about it. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I am abstaining from this discussion, as I don't know anything about the Aubagne project/system and don't have (don't want to spend) time learning about it so as to be able to form an opinion. – SJ Morg (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Probably where I am too – it loos like arguments can probably be made in favor of either arrangement. Personally, though, without knowing the details, two separate entries would seem to make more sense to me than both entries bundled under Marseille. But I don't have a strong opinion on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I respect your choice of stepping out this discussion, nevertheless I still think that even from a fleeting glimpse the weakness and inconsistency of the current arrangement is evident and I don't see which arguments (at least, which well grounded ones) could be made in favor of it:
  • Aubagne and Marseille are just 20 km away? There are also other "tramway cities" so close to each other - about 20 km between Galați (~250000 inh) and Brăila (~180000 inh), about 25 km between Erfurt (~210000 inh) and Gotha (~45000 inh), etc. - and yet they have separated entries in the list;
  • Aubagne and Marseille tram networks may be both extended to a common interchange point or even to connect each other (albeit not before a decade from now)? There are systems that now are connected/entagled together, where one's lines reach the center of the other - the already cited case of Mülheim (~170000 inh) served also by a line from Duisburg (~490000 inh), Bonn's (~320000 inh) stadtbahn tunnels used also by two lines from Cologne (~1.06 Minh), etc - and yet they have separated entries in the list;
  • Aubagne and Marseille have recently become part of a single Métropole? Yes, but - as its name Métropole d'Aix-Marseille-Provence and its special status suggest - it's a polycentric metropolitan administrative entity where the cities that was formerly core of smaller separated administrative entities keep with Marseille a relationship in many ways very different from the one that typically exists between the main city and its suburbs/satellite towns (e.g. between Paris and Saint-Denis);
  • Aubagne and Marseille tram networks will be soon managed by a common authority (the Métropole itself) and maybe both run by the same operator? There are also other such cases, and yet the systems involved have separated entries in the list.
Last but not least, I didn't find a single source - neither the supporters of the current arrangement adduced one - that explicitly depicting or implicitly talking about the Aubagne tramway as it was a Marseille system: conversely, all of them say more or less clearly that it serves the city of Aubagne. Yak79 2.0 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ "Aubagne orders Citadis Compact". Railway Gazette International. 7 October 2011.
  2. ^ "Aubagne: les travaux du futur tramway ont commencé". France 3 Provence-Alpes. 25 February 2013.
  3. ^ "Aubagne: le Tram n'ira pas plus loin". www.auriolensemble.com. 12 May 2014.
  4. ^ "Tramway: un terminus brutal et des rails d'incertitudes". La Marseillaise. 9 May 2014.
  5. ^ "L'agenda de la mobilité métropolitaine" (pdf). 2016. p. 41.
  6. ^ For instance, Mülheim city center is reached by lines belonging to the tramways of the bigger neighbouring city of Essen and Duisburg (the latter's one even uses Mülheim system tracks), and yet Mülheim/Oberhausen tramway network is seen as a stand-alone system and has its own separate row in this list.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_tram_and_light_rail_transit_systems/Archive_2&oldid=1081210657"