Talk:List of town tramway systems

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

Start[edit]

I started this page as an "all-time" list of cities and towns that have, or once had, "town tramway" service, also known as "urban tramway," "streetcar" and "light rail transit."

The intent is to list "all" tramway cities, including type of traction (horse, cable, electric) and key dates by year (opening, electrification, closing).

The distinction between "town tramways" and other rail transit service is not "well-defined." For example, some short "interurban electric railways" in the U.S. might also be considered as "town tramways," serving two adjacent (or nearby) towns.

Although it is not the intent to duplicate the "List of light-rail transit systems," separate lists for "closed" and "operating" systems might be confusing. For the time being, I have included "operating" systems together with "closed" ones.

I have "complete" information for a handful of countries, but partial (or none) for others. I'll make the list of countries and continents, and add the information I have on hand. Ldemery 00:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have divided the list into three sections to keep file size under control. Ldemery 23:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn’t the size of the files justify splitting further into North America, South America & Oceania? While Oceania is first, South Americans have to page thru all of Oceania and North America to get to South America? The Trams in Australasia article needs splitting into Trams in Australia & Trams in New Zealand (where I am) too; will do when I have time (& add NZ refs). (Australasia being roughly equivalent to Oceania, though there may have been the odd horse system in Fiji or PNG; leaving out Hawaii which is part of Oceania!). Hugo999 12:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the answer is "yes, and then some!" That is my "next" project folowing completion of "wikitabling." Ldemery 05:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have split the "Oceania, North America and South America" list into three parts: "Oceania," "North America" and "Central and South America." I have also moved Hawaii to Oceania (. . . which will probably attract multiple re-edits . . .), retaining a link in the "North America" list. I have also added links as appropriate for "transcontinental countries," e.g. Turkey. Ldemery 08:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From checking “Cane Train” there were tramway systems in Levuka from 1884 and Suva from the 1880s – horses and manpower. Mentioned in passing as outside the scope of the book. Plus the 1986 (from cane railway gear) the 16 km Coral Coast Railway Co for tourists to Natadola Beach (well that’s a railway). Will add to Oceania. Hugo999 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "Cane Train" to the book list. 71.217.50.180 05:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“Rail transport in Fiji” seems the best page to have for both the “Cane Railways” which are usually called tramways though really light railways and the two urban tramways; two 19c passenger tram systems in Levuka & Suva does not justify a separate page/article! (Or call it Railways and tramways in Fiji?). Hugo999 09:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "Van der Gragt" in: Gragt, Frits van der | ibid. added second Dutch source of HTM LRV nl:GTL8 / Borgdorff ing.D.A. & Ploeger (LL.M.) mr.Dr.H.D. / The Hague, Netherlands - 2000 / HTV (association) --- about Hague articulated tram GTL8 ISBN 9090139354 = 86.83.155.44 13:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References - please cut the vandalism, "DAJF"[edit]

I have removed the "unreferenced" tags that "DAJF" has placed, repeatedly, on "sub-lists" for various countries, "broken" out of this list for the purpose of reducing file size.

This repeated placing of "unreferenced" tags - together with removal of the "References" line, with the internal link "Books, Periodicals and External Links" on each "sub-list," constitutes vandalism.

It is also not consistent with practices related to 1.) formatting ... and 2.) common courtesy ... that I have seen elsewhere in "Wikipedia" articles.

If "DAJF" wishes to divide the "Books," "Periodicals" and "External Links" sections of this list among the sub-lists, then he certainly should not hesitate to do so. Whether this is a "good idea" is not clear, because it would generate significant duplication, so "DAJF" might want to outline his scheme before executing it. Ldemery (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about book added by (co-)author[edit]

About a week ago Beetstra unblocked dAb and wrote on my talk page:

"I would like to hear your side of this, and I may invite User:Eric Baas [sic] to this discussion as well. In all cases, I would like to invite all three of you to discuss the edits." [1]

The edits he was writing about were edits where dAb inserted self references in the articles List of town tramway systems and Tram while Erik Baas and me were removing those references. In the quote above Beetstra was inviting three users: Erik Baas, dAb and me to discuss those edits. As a result of that invitation I have some questions for dAb related to his book "Compilatie HTM Light rail vehicle GTL8" he put himself in the article this talk page is about. I hope he is able to answer those questions so we can work towards a consensus.

  1. On July 21 you wrote about your book " .. this reference written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger .." [2] but a week later you wrote " .. I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration." [3] That's confusing to me. Can you explain how both statements can be true?
    → This is an illustration for you, no contradiction at all to be read.
  2. Do you know where this book can be found in public libraries inside but especially outside the Netherlands?
    → As said on TP: e.g. 3 = Hague Archive, Royal and 3TU Libraries.
  3. Do you know how many books were printed and if it is still for sale?
    → See below: Van Stockum, said earlier 1992 (ed): Dossier GTL8.
  4. Is this book completely in Dutch or is there also an English section in it?
    → Of course, but mainly in Dutch because compilation of sources.
  5. If it is completely Dutch, do you know of any book in English about the same topic? I ask you that question because this is the English Wikipedia and only a tiny percentage of the readers of this article will be able to read Dutch.
    → No, is exclusively rare, but refered in ↓[6]↓ and e.g. [4] too.
  6. The book seems to be about a specific type of trams in The Hague. I understood there are several kinds of trams in The Hague. Is there some more general book about trams in The Hague and if so, is it English?
    → No, "only" GTL8 - & - Yes, historical: Dutch = ISBN 9080251410
  7. Do you know of some general book on trams in the Netherlands in Dutch or English?
    → Several in my Bibliography, and Van der Gragt: Moderne Trams.

Best Regards, Robotje (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

→ I meanwhile did reply within above indentations. dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC) - I'm also requesting all the deleted same refs in Dutch articles to be replaced too, as they were stated for more than 11 months therein as well: D.A. Borgdorff - e.i. 86.83.155.44 (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
I just noticed dAb wrote a few days ago the following sentence on the talk page of the article Tram:
"About this here mentioned HTM LRV GTL8 book were a couple of hundred copies available, exclusively sold for ƒ 35,75 in the autumn 2000 catalogus of Van Stockum Booksellers store: The Hague" [5]
I think that answers question number 3 (although if more information can be added, that's welcome too). - Robotje (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Few points:
  • I still don't understand what you mean with your answer for question 1. How can it a book be written by person A with person B only as co-author and at the same time be written primarily by person B?
  • On the English Wikipedia we cannot discuss references in articles on the Dutch Wikipedia, so that's something you really need to discuss once your 3-month block is over there.
  • You mention 3 libraries in the answer for question 2. Can everybody without a yearly subscription or student-card or so, see that book at all those three libraries?
  • In your reply to question 3 you mention a book of 1992 while the current article lists a book from the year 2000. Was that a reprint (2e druk)?
  • In the above text you linked 3 times to the article namespaces 'articles' that don't exist and most likely will never be made anyway: "Hague Archive, Royal and 3TU Libraries", "Dossier GTL8" & "dAb". Please remove the brackets there to unlink them (especially the last one that caused already enough trouble).
Well, thanks again for the answers because now at least we can continue working towards a consensus about your self reference. - Robotje (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same, and shortly: it's obvious that I am the compilator, and dr. Ploeger has done co-author editing as "Hoofdredacteur" → (ed), we collaborated for his text where I put in all sourced letters, calculations, diagramms, syllabi etc. Well, I don't waite much longer for that absurd blocking, while you and others can be very helpful, further with permission it is accessable, except regarded HGA archives as stated there, the 2000 edition was concised 3rd reprint from an earlier raw "Dossier GTL8", and the last remark I don't understand but only into the eyes of some very unmannerly persons who are irritating themselves only. Kind regards as usual: D.A. Borgdorff MASc PE by 86.83.155.44 (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine for some publications the job of a chief-editor (hoofdredacteur) is smaller than the other editors but in this case you wrote about the chief-editor of this book: " .. this reference written primarely by mr.Dr. Ploeger .." but still you didn't change your other statement " .. I'm the writer and mr.dr. Ploeger co-author only as editor in collaboration." Secondly, as I see the job of a chief-editor the compilation process is mainly his job. The more you write about the who was doing what in writing the book, the more contradictions I notice. Well let's forget about who did what in making the book for now, because I don't think it will get clear soon and it is not of major importance here.
Discussions about references in articles on the Dutch Wikipedia have to be done there and preferably in Dutch. That's obvious. Since you were blocked for a 3 month period, you can read but not write on that Wikipedia. If somebody else is frequently adding your comments to a Wikipedia you're block on then effectively that's the same as you editing under a different IP address (like using the PC of a neighbor, at an internetcafe or public library) or under a different ID. If you would do so, the block on the Dutch Wikipedia would be doubled (from 3 to 6 months) and the 'sock puppet' would be block for an undefined time. So anybody 'helping' you that way runs a big risk of being blocked for a very long time and you won't be unblocked until early next year. So that's definitely not an option.
About accessibility in the 3 libraries you wrote ".. further with permission it is accessable, except regarded HGA archives .." That's still vague to me. As for HGA it is not accessable at all or no permit is needed? What kind of permission is needed for the other two? Maybe it is just easier if you answer for all three separately the question: Can everybody without a yearly subscription or student-card or so, see that book at that library?
I guess you did get my last remark because you did remove the brackets around "dAb". The other two you didn't change so far. Do you really think at any moment in the future there will be an article written on this Wikipedia with the title "Hague Archive, Royal and 3TU Libraries"? To me that's extremely unlikely.
Finally I would like to ask you, not to write comments/answers between the comments of another wikipedian. If more people start doing so, it will become very hard to find out who wrote what. - Robotje (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
→ Even now, that I've answered all your questions which apparently have no relation with any Traction equipment or Tramstructure at all, but aware of the disruptive removal of my edits in related articles by mr. E. Baas, W. Waggel, mrs. MoiraMoira, but especially You (strangely reacting on mr. D. Beetstra's talkpage and mr. Fram to only dispute my works in this field) ... not on topic themselves, I clearly do see the purpose of "deleting" contributions; the only goal you people seem to be here for is talking and writing about blocks (that are obviously wrong), totally unimportant s.c. redlinking as: dAb, the way of comments etc., so herewith disrupting the related talkpages -- as this one -- for only using WP to make your Point. Very much patent, obvious completely not with any aim to discuss matters involved, nor having any such respect for specialists in the field of Light Rail and Tram Transit. Only the blind can't see what you are looking after, but fortunately, mr. Beetstra was aware of it, the class of solely countless small edits only to make one "special" to hampering into mine. This apparently was your only purpose in Holland too. I surely like to inform you about Tram- and Railways, but not these absurd inquisitioning. What is your CV and expertise if at all, but interrogator? I'm really done with you and will be referring to the page talk:Tram. D.A. Borgdorff: 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC) - PS: This all about ISBN 90-9013935-4.[reply]

This discussion started because the admin who blocked and later unblocked you invited Erik Baas, you and me to discuss the edits concerning adding/removing a reference to your book in two articles: 'List of town tramway systems' and 'tram'. First there was such a discussion on the talk page of the article tram, after that discussion was finished we continued here. All the 7 questions I asked above were related to that book (the first 4 about the book itself, the next 3 about the existence of similar tram books). Your last reply you starts with:

"Even now, that I've answered all your questions which apparently have no relation with any Traction equipment or Tramstructure at all, but aware of the disruptive removal of my edits in related articles .."

Well, no relation at all seems to me to be not a correct statement. But even if so, the reason to start this discussion was about mentioning the book in the articles and that book is what to questions were about. If you were really expecting the questions to be about "Traction equipment or Tramstructure" I would like to suggest to you to reread the introduction of this topic.

In your first reply on this page you requested " .. all the deleted same refs in Dutch articles to be replaced too ..". After I explained that that is something that should be discussed on the Dutch Wikipedia which you can only do after your block there is over you wrote in your next reply " .. Well, I don't waite much longer for that absurd blocking, while you and others can be very helpful, .. " In my reply I explained that everybody 'helping' you in inserting your contributions to a discussion on a Wikipedia you're block on, runs a serious risk of being regarded as a sock puppet and be blocked for a long time while your block will be doubled. Instead of appreciating the effort I made to explain that to you, you start complaining that I like writing about blocks. That's weird to me.

My CV has nothing to do with cooperating to the invitation of Beetstra to discuss the edits. As an admin on the Dutch Wikipedia it is sometimes necessary I block users or protect pages. As a result of those admin actions every now and then admins on the Dutch Wikipedia receive threats on there talk page or by email or encounter different kinds of retaliation for their actions. You yourself have been blocked on the English Wikipedia for revealing private information on this Wikipedia about an admin who blocked you on the Dutch Wikipedia. In the last few years several of my colleague admins have even received rather serious dead threats for blocking and protecting actions. Mainly for the safety of myself and my friends/relatives, I've already years ago decided to minimize writing about myself in a way that can disclose my identity.

Back to the original topic. You wrote about the three libraries that have your book in their collection that for two of them visitors cannot just walk in without any special card to see the book. For the third library (HGA) it was different. You didn't make it clear to me, whether that means it isn't accessable at all (even if you have some card) or that the book can be seen without any need for a special card. So please clarify the situation about that last library. - Robotje (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cfr: [6] and also: If this discussion continues, in the current manner, then I shall raise it at the Admins noticeboard. Olana North (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC) → As Before: D.A. Borgdorff E.R.E. FRIEN 86.83.155.44 (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Not much use, why I can't help you if you can't read: "papers not public".
Already several times on this page I asked you to explain the accessibility of your book at HGA. The last link is not helping at all and I still haven't got an answer. So once again, please explain and stop dodging that question. This way we cannot make any progress! - Robotje (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only after dAb added the PS above (i.e. after my reply was written), it becomes clear the book is in the 'not public' part of the city archive of The Hague. OK, that helps to clarify the situation. - Robotje (talk) 10:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far dAb didn't explain why he thinks this book should be listed in this article. In the answers above I see a lot of reason why not (most obvious one: the accessibility of the book is almost none; even in the Netherlands). So I hope he can explain why he added this book here in the first place and why he thinks it is so important the book should stay listed. - Robotje (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat per 86.83.155.44 (talk) 10:51 August 19 2008 (UTC). I surely like to inform you about Tram- and Railways but not these absurd inquisitioning. What is your CV and expertise if at all, but interrogator? I'm really done with you and will be referring to the page talk:Tram. D.A. Borgdorff 86.83.155.44 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC) - PS: This all about ISBN 90-9013935-4.[reply]
I didn't ask you a question, I just gave you the opportunity to explain why you think the book should be listed. We started this discussion because the admin who blocked you and later unblocked you invited us to start this discussion. It would have been very normal to me if you had used that invitation to explain that already. Pointing out to you the possibility to explain that has absolutely nothing to do with my CV. By the way I never saw your CV either on this Wikipedia or on the Dutch one. And there is no need for that anyway. Well, if you as the person who started adding this book in the article don't want or cannot provide the readers of this discussion with reasons to list the book, then that's OK too. - Robotje (talk) 05:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My CV is stated on all Wiki's, mostly ample on Dutch as here too. To repeat from here with fellowships mentioned on Light rail =+> PS: Ich bin ehemalig Haupt-Entwerfer der de:Straßenbahn Den Haag as graduated Dipl.-Ingenieur de:Quantenelektrodynamik / de:Leistungselektronik = VDE: 546934 & 28878 - VDI: 19958957 - KIVI: 6638 - COITI: 1940. Immer Achtung 86.83.155.44 <+= Graduated: 1967 E.E.(electr.ing.) 1968 MASc.(E.P.ir.) TUDelft IRI-HEF Nucleair Reactor (.) ELDO = European Launcher Development Organisation, now: ESA; 1969 IBM: Data Processing Division; 1970 IJkwezen Central Lab now: NMI (N. Measurement Institute) + 1970 Laméris Medical Equipment ECG-EEG-EMG Audiological\Ophthalmological\Electrophysiological Testing. From 1970/71 onwards with HTM & NS, in collaboration with (T) Universities: TUDelft & TU/e co-founder of Power Electronics: see my simple Bibliography D.A. Borgdorff = dAb = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at this moment 264 wiki's ([7]) and on a vast majority of these 264 you never edited at all (unless you did so under a different IP address or a user name which I doubt; please give me link to your CV on the Sranantongo wiki and the Lao Wiki to prove otherwise) so how can you write "My CV is stated on all Wiki's .." ????

An overview like above I never even saw on the Dutch Wikipedia (again please provide me with a link to prove otherwise). By the way, in my previous edit on this page I wrote "there is no need for [your CV on the English Wikpedia] anyway" but now that you added the information, what is that with all those numbers like "KIVI: 6638"? I guess KIVI stands for Koninklijk Instituut Van Ingenieurs which existed until 2004. But what is that number and the other numbers? And how come, you usually sign with "ing." but there is no HTS mentioned for the education in 1967. At what school did you get the ing. title? According to this CV you're still working, but elsewhere you mentioned you are retired. Which one is true? - Robotje (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently asking for the known old way, Robotje: → it's obviously possible to being graduated in The Hague and Delft, which are still closely connected, as numbers are given for several memberships, and working though being retired seems appropriate too. So usual: with kind Regards: D.A. Borgdorff MASc PE FRIEN = 86.83.155.44 (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many times I need to ask you: can you please stop 'correcting' [8] a comment I wrote and I put my sig under? This time it was a minor edit (but on the official site the word "Van" is capitalized [9] so it wasn't even an improvement) but in the past you also 'corrected' my text giving it the opposite meaning or destroying a purposely chosen layout. Just stay away from editing in comments of others on talk pages; this habit of you to 'correct' comments written and signed by other wikipedians is one of the mayor reasons you got blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia for longer and longer periods (currently 3 months). Continuing to so on the Dutch Wikipedia will cause you big trouble; there are only two more levels (6 month block and 1 year block) before you reach a block of an undefined period. - Robotje (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in the mean time, it's very clear to see above why and what you here are editing: not at all related to this very list nor contents of town Tramway systems, but solely to your disruptive POV-pushing regarding me personally, about what I did complain of much earlier many times, apparently keeping on this: absurd inquisitioning. There was no correction but in your mind, only "an" improvement ... hardly noticeable or remarkable to being observed. - Further threatening is inverting effective. So: I'm really done with this, as said before. With reference again to page talk:Tram and also: ISBN 90-90-13935-4, I am D.A. Borgdorff MASc = 86.83.155.44 (talk) (EC), 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please stop it, both of you. CV's, expertise, ... are not important (for neither of you). Situation on the Dutch Wikipedia is not important. Old history is not important. Discuss the article and the references you want to include or exclude, without arguing about the authors or each other. Other problems should be adressed elsewhere, through dispute resolution if they are relevant for the English Wikipedia, or off-wikipedia if they are not relevant for us. Fram (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram, I agree with you that CV's and expertise are not important here. That's why I wrote yesterday on this page:
"I didn't ask you a question, I just gave you the opportunity to explain why you think the book should be listed. We started this discussion because the admin who blocked you and later unblocked you invited us to start this discussion. It would have been very normal to me if you had used that invitation to explain that already. Pointing out to you the possibility to explain that has absolutely nothing to do with my CV. By the way I never saw your CV either on this Wikipedia or on the Dutch one. And there is no need for that anyway." (underlining added))
Still dAb didn't explain why according to him listing the book is relevant but instead he put his incomplete CV here (suggesting he keeps working at the same company he retired from). I'm still curious why he cannot explain his reason(s) to add the book on the list in the article. I will wait for a few more days for dAb to add his explanation. No matter if he does so or not, after those few days I will give my final opinion about the need for adding/removing dAb's book on the list in the article. - Robotje (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've repaired the reintroduced fault that you were not able to spotting. Fram requested us to stop but you can't still follow his advice. I will do however as promised, letting you go on to disruption if you're not being able otherwise. As Usual: dAb 86.83.155.44 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC) See still all the refs: nl:Gebruiker:86.83.155.44/Bibliografie[reply]

Table feature improvement[edit]

I think this table current arrangement isn't so good as it could be; specifically, the first column Name of System is:

  • ambiguous, since it could be referred to A) the official name of the tram network, B) the official name of the operator, C) the unofficial name that one city's people nicknamed the tram network (or the whole TPL service);
  • inaccurate, since in most cases the related cell shows the name/title of the Wikipedia article for the system;
  • slightly useful for readers, since it's an information one is keen to know only at a deepest level of research than that those general list are typically conceived for;
  • unfit to be the first item for a record, since it lies empty in a lot of row;
  • difficult to handle with, in some cases: when different names refer to the same city system (e.g. when a tram network is opened decades after the previous was closed).

So, I suggest the table shape should be changed swapping the first column and the second one, and renaming the former “Relevant Wikipedia article” (in the same way it is in List of tram and light rail transit systems). With this, the table shape would become more rational, clearer by far and more useful for readers.

Here, an example of what I'm speaking about; current:

Name of System Location Traction
Type 		Date (From) Date (To) Notes
Trams in Padua Padua (Padova) Electric 1907 1954 Gauge: 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in)
Electric 29 October 2007 Translohr.

after the change:

Location Relevant Wikipedia article Traction
Type 		Date (From) Date (To) Notes
Padua (Padova)   Horse 1983 1907
Electric 1907 1954 Gauge: 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in)
Trams in Padua Electric 29 October 2007   Translohr.


I also suggest a format change applicable whenever there were (or are) two or more independent tram systems operating concurrently within a single metropolitan area: in order to give a clearer and more intuitive view of the situation, I think there should be a row that identifies the metropolitan area (bold, gray-written with a big diagonal arrow), under which we put a row for each separate system, each of them preceded by an indention and the diamond.

Here, an example of this latter suggestion; current:

Name of System Location Traction
Type 		Date (From) Date (To) Notes
Trams in Trieste Trieste Horse 1876 1914 Gauge: 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in)
Electric 1900 1970 Gauge: 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in)
Trieste–Opicina tramway ♦ Trieste – Opicina Electric 1902   Gauge: 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in)

after the change:

Location Relevant Wikipedia article Traction
Type 		Date (From) Date (To) Notes
↘ Trieste  
♦ Trieste urban network Trams in Trieste Horse 1876 1914 Gauge: 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in)
Electric 1900 1970 Gauge: 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in)
♦ Trieste – Opicina Trieste–Opicina tramway Electric 1902   Gauge: 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in)


I'm well aware the whole change will require a lot of work - there are several separated articles "List of town tramway systems in XXX" to modify - therefore I willingly will offer myself to make it thoroughly, if there's consensus about my suggestions. I’m not sure in which article talk page I had to put this post in order to ensure it the highest possible visibility, so I chose the “mother” list hoping that IJBall, SJ Morg, Ldemery and other contributors could tell their opinions about proposed improvements. Yak79 (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of town tramway 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: 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) 03:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_town_tramway_systems&oldid=1203697287"