Talk:E-class Melbourne tram

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

Notability and number of links.[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability states general notability guidelines;
Significant coverage
A quick Google search shows that the 50 new Melbourne trams are mentioned many times;
The Age - Dandenong plant to build 50 trams
The Age - Melbourne's new trams revealed
The Age - New trams to start next year
The Age - Disability rules bypassed in low-floor tram rush
Herald Sun - Brumby Government will spend $300m not $807m on 50 new Bombadier trams
VICSIG (an enthusiast site) - E Class
Yarra Trams - Fifty new trams for Melbourne's network
Minister for Public Transport Terry Mulder - FIRST LOOK AT MELBOURNE’S NEW TRAMS
Bombardier - Bombardier Wins Contract for 50 Trams for One of the World's Largest Tram Operations in Melbourne, Australia
Department of Transport - 50 new low-floor trams
Reliable
All sources above are from either newspapers, reliable enthusiast site, involved government/corporate departments.
Sources
The first six are secondary sources, not being connected to the E class trams.
Independent of the subject
As above.
Presumed
I feel that the above forms presumed notability (although others may disagree) this is a rather large tram order for the largest tram system in the world, and will make up about 10% of Melbourne's tram fleet. The order is confirmed, with vehicles being built, a mock up has been built and put on display and the first new trams should be on Melbourne's streets next year.

Regarding links, it's linked into the main article concerning Melbourne's trams; Trams in Melbourne, and the only reason other Melbourne trams have so many links is because they are included in the Melbourne Tram info box under current fleet. Would it be appropriate to include the E class in this info box with a "future" in parenthesis following?

Having said all this further discussion would be nice and if it's felt it should be deleted I would like to be able to move it to my userspace so when the trams are delivered we can reinstate the article. And this isn't to say that the article is great, it's just a stub, but will get bigger when more info about these trams is available and they start running on the network. Liamdavies (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's anyone that wants this page deleted. I've removed the 'notability' tag (you've demonstrated that quite well). The orphan tag remains, though
I've removed the orphan tag in line with Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria, the article now has three pages linking to it (the recommended minimum for removing an orphan tag). Liamdavies (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed reorganisation of specification data[edit]

I have raised the option of moving much of the specification data from the infobox to a table at Talk:Z-class Melbourne tram#Proposed reorganisation of specification data. Reasoning and a mock up are available at said page, input from editors would be greatly appreciated on that page. Liamdavies (talk) 08:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have reconsolidated infobox & specifications as one. Don't think splitting has added any value and has made the article less tidy. Have consolidated the cite for facts & figures at the top of the infobox, is an overkill citing every line + given that infobox already has lots of numbers, cite numbers make it harder to read. Propose to perfect on this article before rolling out changes to other Melbourne tram articles.Mo7838 (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the changes for a few reasons. It causes a massive stacking issue with the images, forcing all the images next to the cites. This is far from ideal and was one of the reasons I moved the data to start with. The info should all have cites, all information should be cited and properly attributed, and the infobox doesn't have information, or falsely represents information, for example they have been built since 2011 but only operating since 2013: how would the infobox represent this nuanced information without extra padding? If you wish it to all be in the infobox then all the pictures have to be placed into an image queue on the talk page, is that what you want? Liamdavies (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of image stacking is resolved by reducing the number, 3 of the 4 are very similar 3/4 shots than can be consolidated to one, a link is provided to the commons gallery for the rest.
Help:Infobox states 'should primarily contain material that is expanded on and supported by citations to reliable sources elsewhere in the article'. As the infobox is by its nature 'number heavy', adding multiple cite references creates a 'numbers on top of numbers' scenario which clutters, particularly when 15 out of 17 point to the one source. If it were to be included, one link at the top would suffice as I had proposed as a compromise.
As to when construction commenced, is it relevant? Surely the date it entered service is more so, in the absence of such a field, that is why I used. Mo7838 (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of image stacking is only resolved by either removing the images, or moving the info to a table. Your screen may be lower resolution than the average - about three quarters of internet users use 1366x768 or above. At that resolution only one image, next to associated works, should be included, and we don't even have an image for that ([1]). I have no problem removing all the images bar the infobox one if that's what you want, but that is what should be done if you want all the stats in the infobox. I also disagree with your misuse of construction instead of introduction, it is not true, they have been built since 2011 not 2013, to state otherwise is false. And irrespective of where the information sits, it should be cited with inline citations per WP:CITE. I further reiterate my opposition to the changes, the current situation provides the correct information in the correct field, correctly cited, and is aesthetically more pleasing. Liamdavies (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many E's are on the network?[edit]

A quick search of tram tracker told me 6001, 6002, and 6004 are on the network. I've seen 6003 in service as well. However, the info box says there are three on the network and the specifications box 5. On top of that, in the specifications box the figures have been slapped with the VICSIG seal of approval even though they say there is only 2 in service. I say there are 4. Fremantle99 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vicsig has not been updated since 4 November 2013,[2] 6001 to 6005 have entered service.[3] Mo7838 (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw 6005 on tram tracker so it is on. 6006 isn't though. Should we say 5? Fremantle99 (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has been updated with a cite from YT. 6006 has been delivered but is not in service. Liamdavies (talk) 08:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Response to third opinion request:
I think thiswould be a fine version if the infobox in the specifications section were smaller in size. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 17:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the prompt response. Is this more along the lines of what you were thinking? Liamdavies (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that looks much better. I'll leave the rest of this to the regular editors of the article. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which trams are the predecessors of the E's[edit]

Which trams are the predecessors of the E's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fremantle99 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There isn't really one. Predecessor assumes it replaced something, usually it would be the model previously produced, which doesn't work in this sense (see Škoda 15 T, which replaced the Škoda 14 T). The only other option would be the trams that it replaces in services, ie Ws and Zs, but that would be odd and potentially misleading to have in the infobox. 211.28.146.128 (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory capacity stats[edit]

There seem to be contradictory figures floating around on the capacity of the E-class. According to the latest PTV load statistics report (here page 23), the tram has a maximum standing capacity of 180, whereas the article states 150. Could somebody help to clarify this please? Takerlamar (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of R70a[edit]

Just noticed that an edit I made earlier has been completely reverted. The edit was made under good faith, and consistant with the status quo that exists for mention of 70a services for D's, which also do not usually run on Camberwell routes, however Southbank frequently send on 70a/75a's. Surely if it is notable for D1/D2 to be running 70a's, surely it should be as notable at least for E's -- sandgemADDICT yeah? 11:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on E-class Melbourne tram. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing hyphen from article name[edit]

I am proposing to remove the hyphen from the title of this tram article, as the official nomenclature from the Department of Transport and Planning is not to have hyphens in tram class names. Examples include on their official website [4], the Melbourne Tram Plan [5] and the PTV website [6]. Other common unofficial sources like Vicsig also do not have a hyphen. I'm also proposing to change all the other Melbourne tram class article names in a similar manner, any feedback welcome! Takerlamar (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-class Melbourne tram which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-class Melbourne tram which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E-class_Melbourne_tram&oldid=1196101409"