Talk:Tram

Article Division?

This article is waaay too long. Perhaps we could consider moving sections to new articles (which I've done for the "Design" section) and providing a summary in their place, or removing information that is already present in existing articles. There are two things we could do:

• The history section should be checked to see if it shares the same information as the History of Trams article, and vice versa. If there are differences in the two articles, the differences should be merged into the History of Trams article and a summary left instead in the "History" section of the main Trams article (this one).
• The lists of trams systems and statistics should similarly be checked for differences and be merged with their respective main articles. Similarly a summary should also be provided.

Jh15s (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Late here, but I agree. I read the History of Trams articles and there are so many similarities. Not to mention, there are practically no sources on this very long article - I found 3 pages and several other sections with absolutely 0 sources! ChillyDude153198 (talk) 01:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Debate Section Needs Sources!

There are proportionally far more advantages than sources, and far more advantages than disadvantages. However, the amount of sourced advantages and disadvantages seems very similar. This brings factual accuracy of the section in to question. There are several points that are unsourced and expansions on points that are not verified by the sources.

In addition, there are some points I find to be debatable when met with no source: "Being guided by rails means that even very long tram units can navigate tight, winding city streets that are inaccessible to long buses." While it's true that long busses cannot navigate tight corners, many modern trams have a pretty limiting upper value on track curvature. What I'm trying to say, to clarify, is that the points are simply not reliable. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm kind of inclined to chop the debate section entirely (as I did to the excessive list of global examples of systems which was simply an inferior version of List of tram and light rail transit systems). We are an encyclopedia, not a debate team. Benefits and drawbacks should be integrated neatly into the article's prose. Unfortunately, the sourcing currently is poor in this section so doing this is not easy. I consider deleting the whole section in question more controversial than my previous edit which I did boldly, so looking for others' thoughts on the matter. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the statistics section should really go. It's outdated and we generally don't do trivia sections anymore. This also is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not the most active so forgive me for being slow to reply. The debate section should be removed as pro and con lists are forbidden on wikipedia. I'll do this later if it hasnt already been done. As for the trivia, I think it also deserves the chop block due to the insane length of this article. ChillyDude153198 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Way way too many images

It's nice to include some images that are important for readers to understand a heading.... but 40 images??? Goodness. Tennis Project has a limit of 10. Sure a superstar like Federer or Serena might have 11 or 12 and no one is going to argue, but 40 images really detracts from the subject matter. This isn't a 400 page book on the history of the tram, this is a concise short summary of what a tram is. It's overloaded on historical tram pics, maps of tram lines, silly things like signs in Portland, etc... We have articles like Trams in Melbourne to be more thorough. I'm not saying you have to follow Tennis Project with their 10 pic limit, but this should easily be able to be cut in half to 20 pics. Reading this article I still don't know what the definition of a tram is. Lightrail and subway systems in the US are called just that. Trams, streetcars, and trolleys are a totally different subset. San Francisco has light-rail (Bart) and also has trollies or street cars. They are not the same things. It seems like this subject could be split into two separate articles so readers understand that fact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

It used to be 50 images before I took a chainsaw to the article earlier this month. But I agree, this article needs significant cutting of images still. It is still messy and unfocused. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, "a picture paints a thousand words" so images are very useful. Instead of simply deleting them; how about uncluttering the mess and replace image with a better focus on the existing text? KatVanHuis (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

There was no world in which fifty images were appropriate for this article. A number were simply not right to use here period. When you have images running off the end of the page and on top of each other, there is a problem. Image selection should be about quality, not trying to jam as many images as possible into an article. But what has happened here over the years is people adding images with zero regard for if they fit where they are placed, if they illustrate anything new, or if there is even room in the article without causing problems. I disagree with your reflexive attitude that images cannot be removed. Some might be replaced by better images, sure, but the total number is excessive for the length of this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Everyone is free to participate on the talk pages, however remarks like "A number were simply not right to use here period." and "the total number is excessive for the length of this article." are up for debate because Wikipedia is all about consensus. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

And that is why I am participating in a discussion on the talk page rather than unilaterally implementing changes. However, I've made a number of bold cuts and reorganizations and of the >400 page watchers (granted who knows how many are active), nobody has contested them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

That's very true. But I have several hundreds page on my watch list and need to use my time wisely. Some of the cuts and reorganisations I agree but not all. But so far there are too many for me to assess them in this period. KatVanHuis (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

BART is not light rail. But who is claiming this on Wikipedia? Anyhow: I counted way more images here. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You'll notice that unlike in this article, the images are arranged well and there is white space in the article. In this article, the images are everywhere to the point there's very little white space. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Also the biggest problem with that article is the clump of pics for greatest male and greatest female players. No sure who added those but they need to go. I'll fix it in the next few days. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Well again: let us focus on arranging the images. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

eBART is light rail.

Anyway, a lot of what we have here is the same issue we always have in this article is the same problem we always have in all these types of articles, namely that people from around the world think the article needs an image from their country or city even if there's nothing particularly distinctive or remarkable about it compared to other systems. This article definitley can use a trim of images that are purely decorative, not illustrative. oknazevad (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

eBART is hybrid rail.

Indeed: the worst case I've seen is three images from one city in another page, but that problem has been solved recently. To all three of you: which images should go first here? KatVanHuis (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I might "keep" the following from top to bottom:

• Tatra T3
• Two horsedrawn pics
• Under cable hauled keep Melbourne and SF
• Keep electric Ohio
• Keep the battery tram pic
• Keep overhead line
• Keep track cross section
• Keep one tramstop pic
• keep cyclist dismount tram pic
• keep tram network world map
• keep historical Paris
• keep trackless train Universal

The rest don't really add anything new to the article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I would cut the "go by streetcar" sign, most of the system maps ("The fragmented tram routes of Paris are slowly being joined up" particularly annoys me), several of the photos of modern systems that are similar, one of the cable car pictures, and at least one if not both of the trackless train photos. Trams operate on tracks. Those photos are not of trams. Why are they in the article? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think the "go by streetcar" is a brilliant way to illustrate the text left of it. Many years ago the tram and the streetcar articles had to be merged, the least we could do now is to add an image to illustrate that streetcar is still common term in the USA.

  Trainsandotherthings, even though you are entitled on your opinion: stating ("The fragmented tram routes of Paris are slowly being joined up" particularly annoys me), lacks any logical reasoning and is not going to make a difference for me. I did though trim that specific text. Lastly, trackless trains are called trams in some region. Even my area has trackless trains, however they are called tourist trains over here, so this very image served me well to discover what is meant by a trackless train and I assume it does to many others.

  • I just did remove two images, do you still see white space on your screen?

  KatVanHuis (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only time in the US where I hear the word "tram" is at the Disneyland parking lot where a "tram" will take you back to your car. Otherwise it's streetcars, buses, subways, and trains. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  The situation is somewhat better now. There's less overlap and sandwiching. There are probably a few more photos I'd remove. I am not advocating for having few or no images, I am advocating for a reasonable number for the article's length. Take a look at anything I've written (e.g. Cedar Hill Yard) and you'll see I make plenty of use of images. But I do so in an organized fashion to create a well formatted article that is better for the reader. Images there are generally placed in the appropriate locations in the article relative to the prose. I also took care to select images of at least decent quality and of clear relevance to the subject. You don't see 100 word captions or images on top of each other. That is what I strive for in terms of organization and having a reasonable number of images in the article. I did the same thing when I rewrote Train, though it has regressed slightly since then, and that's an article where it used to be such a severe issue that to this day there's an editnotice up reading "This article is at high risk for accruing too many images." We are editors and should be using editorial discretion when working on articles.

  Images are important, but they must be used with care, not just thrown in without any thought. That is what caused issues in this article; well-meaning editors showed up over the years to add a photo of a tram near them, but this one action multiplied many times led to chaos. Broad topic articles are hard (the only GA I ever had delisted was train), and I don't claim to magically have all the answers. But there are things that can and should be improved, and sometimes improvement is as much about what is excluded as what is included. Many editors are reluctant to remove content, but sometimes that is what is needed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your extensive reply and also for sharing some context. At least it shows that we are on the same page to make Wikipedia a better product. The Cedar Hill Yard article surely does look great, though there's still 12 images (and one map) which is still quite much for such a narrow subject. Anyway, if you watch my recent edits here, you'll notice that I also don't like 100 word captions. The train article (though "only" having 31 images now) seems worse image-wise than the tram article.

  "Images are important, but they must be used with care, not just thrown in without any thought": here I fully agree. Lastly: which image do you think is currently most out of place? KatVanHuis (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately the images started growing again when I stepped back from that article. I do not like the 8 images at the start, I had 6 images carefully chosen to give a variety of perspectives and I may raise going back down to 6 on the talk page there.

  As for the tram article, I find it absurd we have four images from Melbourne specifically when there are many hundreds of tram systems around the world, enough that we could thoroughly illustrate the article without repetition. Some of those should definitely be replaced with other systems that are not represented. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  Those 8 image seem like a but much... So: good luck finding some time.

  Melbourne is now honoured with two images instead, and two other low quality images have "merged" into one. The total number is now 35, wich is at least significanlty lower than 50. KatVanHuis (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Fyunck for putting effort in making a list. However, it is advised to make enganging articles. And research shows that images (and video) have a far greater appeal to (by far) most people. It may explain why YouTube, InstaGram and TikTok are so populair these days. Why would you want to create a n article with hardly any visuals while the global trend is exactly the opposite? KatVanHuis (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion on what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. You are comparing them to blogs that have limited reliable info and use pictures to help sustain their limited unsourced content. This place is completely different, and your idea for the global trend for intelligent dictionaries and encyclopedias is not substantiated anyway. Many of the photos here don't help at all. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Concur with User:Fyunck. The article has far too many images and too many are only minimally relevant. The English Wikipedia is not a textbook for 10 year olds with limited attention spans. See WP:NOT. We have Simple English WP for people with short attention spans. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

What's relevant is up for debate here. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comparing these three sites/apps to Wikipedia. I'm only stating that these are so popular because they are engaging. Again, it is advised to make engaging articles, and images are key here. KatVanHuis (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

No, you're citing a mere informational article that does not reflect community consensus when I'm citing policy (WP:NOT) that has been formulated by the consensus of the WP community over 20 years. Specifically, WP:NOTGALLERY, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and WP:NOTLAB. If people want to see lots of tram photos, they can go directly to Wikimedia Commons. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

A "mere" information page written over 23 years ago by a co-founder of Wikipedia. And I'm not interested in making slide shows here, I'm only trying to explain why I think this article needs more than ten images. KatVanHuis (talk) 21:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's one thing to say the article needs more than 10 images... I can agree with that statement in this case. But this article has 37 images!!!! It certainly doesn't need more than 20. If it had 25 I would have said it's too many but I wouldn't have started this topic. Right now it's ridiculous. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Shifts away from private cars

Note 76 in the "Debate" section is intended to provide evidence (and a reference) of the fact that tramways "leads to higher ridership and mode shift away from cars compared to buses". However, the (quite old) cited OECD document does not contain any evaluation of the effects of any type of public transport in this regard. This point is thus not supported by any evidence while the provided reference is pointless and should be omitted. 87.18.66.182 (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, I've added a doi link to the cited document and a tag that the page number cited doesn't exist. I haven't had time to read the document and confirm whether it verifies the statement or not. If you are sure that it doesn't, feel free to add a {{failed verification}} tag. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

As I've said previously, I'm of the opinion the debate section should be removed entirely. This is a good example of why. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Bribery and corruption

"Improvements in other vehicles such as buses led to decline of trams in early to mid 20th century."

The story has it that in Sydney in the 1960's, part of the decision to phase out the tram system and replace it with busses was motivated by bribery by the Goodyear rubber company. 203.13.3.89 (talk) 04:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)