Talk:History of Manchester Metrolink

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / in UK / UK Trams / Streetcars Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Trams (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

Conversion to a timeline

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

With the Manchester Metrolink article at WP:GAC standard, this page looks pretty shabby, and needs a lot of work. Would there be any objections to covert this article into a (referenced and illustrated) timeline, like Timeline of London Underground? I have created a draft example at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. It should be much easier to write, update and maintain, and a proper prose-based history article can always be recreated again in the more distant future. --Jza84 | Talk 15:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

God Yes, Wiki is an encyclopedia not a collection of lists. An article should inform and educate not simply serve as a lookup table. Besides the London Underground timeline is in addition to an article on its history, along side seperate articles on infrastructure, trains and stations which all include extra historical detail.WatcherZero (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Confused sorry WatcherZero - is that God yes go for it, or God yes I object!? If it's the former, then great - if it's the latter, then any viable/alternatives to improving this page? Just to clarify, I'm proposing we do something about the poor state of this article - like the original Metrolink article, if you take out all the unreferenced stuff and the copyright violations, the current history article would amount to about one or two paragraphs. I could copy over the histoy section from the Metrolink article, but I think that renders the point of this page redundant. Thoughts? --Jza84 | Talk 16:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

God yes I object, removing valid material and just leaving a list behind with some vague aspiration of going back to it in future? While not fully referenced the existing article is already B grade, all the images are ccreative commons opyright granted or public domain. I seriously see no problem and object furiously to wiping it. WatcherZero (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey - a "vauge aspiration" is a little unfair - I've just spent a month rewriting the Metrolink article, and have contributed about a dozen featured articles to Wikipedia, some of which have been "Today's featured article". I'm also a fan of Metrolink, and want it's content to be complete and look good. I'm coming at this from a totally different angle here. This page is really bad, and I can demonstrate why....

"All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source" and "Readers must be able to check that Wikipedia articles are not just made up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" are core policies of editing Wikipedia, so much so, that about 80% of this article could be justifiably and instantly removed (despite protest) on the basis that it has no references; a futher 5% could be removed because it is based on two promotional brochures, not a published works - i.e. they're primary sources; and a further 5-10% could/should be removed because around a third of the urls are dead links.
This is a copyright violation. The two artst impressions would probably be deleted by admin for not being true fair-use- they are not creative commons or public domain images!
There are several errors in this article - for instance, the Metrolink brand wasn't revealed until June 1988.
There is a fair whack of weasel words and grammatical redundancy. For instance:

a) "Steam locomotives returned briefly to the line between Manchester and Bury in 1991" - how breifly?

b) "Metrolink's own new trackwork in Manchester's city centre required reinstalling twice in the first years of operation, caused by allegedly inadequate quality controls and poor design work" - according to who?

c) "Since opening in 1992, Manchester Metrolink has suffered a number of major safety incidents, including a number of derailments" at worst should read "The following incidents have occured on the Metrolink network...".

d) "Obtaining Government grants towards development was not easy and subject to certain criteria" - not easy by who's standard? Why certain criteria not just criteria? And what was the criteria anyway?

e) "and it was proposed to build the system in phases" - by who? when? why?

The page is outdated. A lady was killed last week on the Oldham line, but we have reports going to December only. And no mention of the Droylsden line opening? (perhaps my biggest issue with this page - it's unloved)
The formatting is very poor. Look at the way the references are presented to readers, in raw format. And the Further Reading section recommends only one book (infact, just one page of one book if you look twice!!!). Why is this page in Category:Bury?
Who built Phase 2? Who opened it? When did the network open to Oldham Mumps? Shaw and Crompton? - this history of article doesn't tell me! Grrr!

...I don't need to go on, surely?

I'm trying to help here and think of ways by which we can make tangible improvements. The status quo is not the answer, and if a timeline isn't, then what is? --Jza84 | Talk 16:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Okay to address your list.

1) Okay your not completely quoting the rules, "However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the ^{[citation needed]} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article is unsourced, you can use the template; for sections requiring sourcing, is available. Absurd unsourced claims and original research should be deleted rather than tagged or moved to a talk page." The rules clearly indicate that unsourced material should not be removed without first challenging or attempting to verify, so deleting the article and converting to a timeline is clearly in breach, if you feel an article is severely uncited you use the uncited template. Primary sources are also fine if the claims made can be checked by someone with specialist knowledge.

2) Image was uploaded to page by the author who granted copyright, another editor transferred the image from English Wikipedia storage to Commons storage in line with the Wiki policy to centralise image storage across all Wikifoundation websites.

3) Article cites a 1987 publication, "Metrolink – Light Rail in Greater Manchester". publicity brochure (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Authority and Executive). if you dispute that citation then do so, likewise with errors its the editors responsibility to correct them if they see them.

4)

a. That is a sufficent wording, if you want more detail then add it, its not the articles fault if the reader has questions beyond the detail of the article.

b. I agree it needs a citation

c. Feel free to alter, that material was very recently moved from the mainpage as a compromise to defuse a edit war, I didnt think the list was notable myself.

d. I dont think obtaining government grants is easy by anyones standards unless you would like to cite an example of easily obtained government infrastructure grants? Though it is not npov and should be removed. As to the other wording obtaining grants requires meeting certain (specified) criteria not general (unspecified) criteria so thats correct. If you want to know the list of criteria to be met to recieve grants its dozens of pages long and you can research it yourself, explaining government grant criteria is outside the scope of the article.

e. Both statements provide citiations to support them, a proposal to construct in phases would naturally to most readers come from the scheme promoter, if you dont think thats clear then feel free to alter it.

5. Any page on Wikipedia as a static without additional edits will eventually become out of date. Its a given that most edits are flyby improvements made by the reader with the occasional major refresh and that contributors are not expected to still be updating their content years later.

6. Most of the content of this page was created more than a decade ago, wikipedia standards and conventions (as well as tools like tables, citations and others) have changed and evolved over that time, often updated or converted by bots rather than humans. I have no idea why its in category Bury, presumably Bury editors decided that their railway was notable to the understanding of the areas culture and history.

7. The second operating consortium, your moaning about an event that happened within weeks not appearing on a history page? if you feel information you want is missing on the original read then add it, dont moan about it.

To sum up, its the editors responsibility to add material they believe to be missing or correct errors or ommissions, the rules clearly indicate that even questionable material should never be removed unless its offesnive or can be cited as incorrect. Wikipedia is a collective work not the work of an individual, improvement is a gradual and communal process. WatcherZero (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

OK. It's clear you're in favour of the status quo. You're lending support to this article by saying I'm moaning, and that my points have virtually no validity. Equally I feel I'm being taught how to suck eggs re polices etc - again, I've a lot of experience in bringing articles to the best of standards, and I've confidence in that record - so much so that I'm trying to use it as leverage here to say "what is the point of this article in its present format?". I suggest some broader views from other editors may help bring some clarity on the best way forwards. --Jza84 | Talk 14:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes I am advocating the quo but im sorry if my tone is abrasive, I just like to respond in detail to the concerns raised. WatcherZero (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

We shouldn't see it as an all-or-nothing choice between the status quo and a complete change. There are some good points above and some I don't really agree with. I'll try to re-verify the dates on the historical brochures but I don't have the physical copies to hand just now. I take the point about primary sources and it's fair to raise this; bear in mind that WP:WPNOTRS does not prohibit primary sources but says they must be used with caution (secondary sources are of course preferred). In this case, the historic Metrolink brochures cited do provide some useful material about the history, but arguably one or two points in this part of the article may stray into the realm of interpretive claims or analysis. So the solution would be a slight edit whilst retaining the body of material, which doesn't seem as drastic. I can do this if you like and take one area of concern off your list. Wikidwitch (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned references in History of Manchester Metrolink

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Manchester Metrolink's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "saldel":

From Manchester Metrolink: "Salford Infrastructure Delivery Plan" (PDF). Salford City Council. February 2012. Retrieved 22 January 2013.
From Greater Manchester: Salford City Council (February 2012). "Salford Infrastructure Delivery Plan" (PDF). salford.gov.uk. Retrieved 22 January 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Manchester Metrolink. 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) 05:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Manchester Metrolink. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520202448/http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/salford-idp-light-rail.pdf to http://www.salford.gov.uk/d/salford-idp-light-rail.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/Metrolink/met_brochure_0303.pdf
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/Metrolink/The_Link_3.pdf

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) 19:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)Reply