Talk:Manchester Metrolink

Lead

As an attempt to clean this up this section has been described as 'butchering' I will explain the rationale for changes:

1) Just because an article is flagged as a 'Good Article', doesn't mean further work is not required, Edinburgh Trams was similarly flagged, yet it was the opinion of most editors that the article had major issues. Achieving GA status does not insulate an article from major rewrites.

2) WP:LEADCITE states that as the lead should be repeated in the body, it best to cite in the latter...unless it is controversial and likely to be challenged, which given the subject matter, not likely

3) WP:LEAD states the lead should be a concise overview, detail that officially termed as LRVs, but known as trams is 'nitty-gritty' detail best covered in the body, likewise the history of liveries

4) background of how the line came to be, while certainly relevant and rightly covered in the Origins section, is a bit detailed and cumbersome for a lead

5) states fleet is composed of 94 trams, incorrect statement as these are still in the process of being delivered, and with a further order will total 104

6) statement that line is the 'largest light rail system', followed by statement that extensions will make it the 'largest light rail system' is clumsy, if already the biggest additions aren't going to change this

7) current line is 78 kilometres long and additions will bring it up to 60 miles (97 kilometres), measurement styles need to be consistent throughout

While not suggesting my changes are perfect, they do address the issues mentioned above. Mo7838 (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes in principle I think you're right. Personally I think the intro could usefully (and briefly) mention that the light rail system was conceived as a way of bridging a north-south gap in railway connections across the city, and that it was formed by converting suburban heavy rail lines to light rail operation, joined by a small on-street system in the middle... or words to that effect. But I don't disagree with the principle of what you're saying. Maybe some collaboration from other editors rather than reverting might help. Cnbrb (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that the article - including introduction - was peer-reviewed and adjudged to be of Good Article. Therefore unless you have a very, VERY good reason there is no reason to remove so much. From my perspective, the introduction has been butchered. Yes it was text heavy but you don't have to remove as much as you did. You say you have made it simple but it just reads like an incoherent set of lines. I politely disagree with and would favour reversion to something similar to the original introduction. Stevo1000 (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

To obtain Good Article status requires only one peer review, so its not as if GA status is necessarily the result of a consensus reached by a broad range of editors. As stated before GA status does not shield an article from further enhancement.

I have given the rationale for changes made, please feel free to challenge them. No suggestion that my work is the finished product, Cnbrb's suggestions for example are worth taking on board. Mo7838 (talk) 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I do plan to revert a lot of the edits that have occurred over the last month or so. Although well-meaning, it's actually spoiled a lot of the factual elements of the article and doesn't actually fall in line with source material. --Jza84 |  Talk  09:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Jza84 You appear to have reverted to superceded ridership statistics; please explain why; or restore as it was. TomHennell (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Help me out here.... Because it is not in the source provided! We need a reliable reference. Using my old reference for new figures is not good practice. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:00, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

T68s/T68As

Now that these are history ( and considering that they have their own article T-68 ) might it not be the time to excise all detailed discussion of the T68s from this article, just noting their previous use and retirement in a sentance or two? TomHennell (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree Mo7838 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

as discussed; I have removed the text below. I leave it to others whether some of this material might be incorporated into the T-68 article. TomHennell (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

, but also used Ansaldo Firema T-68/T-68As between 1992 and 2014. These vehicles were originally termed LRVs (light rail vehicles), but have become widely known as trams.

The T-68s were Metrolink's original passenger fleet. They were in passenger service from the opening of Metrolink in 1992, and were phased out between April 2012 and February 2014. They were 29 metres (95 ft) in length by 2.65 metres (8.7 ft) wide, weigh 48 long tons (54 short tons) and have a top speed of 50 miles per hour (80 km/h). The nominal capacity of each T-68 was 201 passengers, of whom 86 are seated; the maximum crush load capacity is 270 passengers. Each unit was given a number from 1001 through to 1026; number 1000 was given to a half length mockup displayed to the public before opening, and now exhibited at the Greater Manchester Museum of Transport. Each T-68 was also to have a nickname referencing the personalities, history and culture of Greater Manchester as chosen by the public. The names chosen in 1987 were Sylvia Pankhurst, Sir Matt Busby, Ben Brierley, The Lancashire Fusilier, Sir John Barbirolli, Pat Seed, John Greenwood, Squire Clark, Our Gracie, and C. P. Scott. Despite assurances they would all be applied, few were ever used, with a sponsorship naming scheme (to provide additional income for Metrolink) taking preference (for example, vehicle 1002 was named the "Manchester Arndale Voyager" to promote Manchester Arndale and its Voyager food court).

In 1999, Metrolink's passenger fleet was bolstered by six new vehicles to run on the Eccles Line. Numbered 2001 through to 2006, these T-68A vehicles were based on the original T-68s, but had modifications replacing destination rollblinds with dot matrix displays, and retractable couplers and covered bogies necessary for the high proportion of on-street running close to motor traffic. Three of the earlier T-68 fleet were similarly equipped, and were known as T-68Ms. Mechanically and electrically the T-68M vehicles remained essentially a T-68, but had modifications to its brakes, mirrors, and speed limiters to suit the Eccles Line. Initially only these vehicles were permitted to operate the Eccles line but the entire fleet was modified between 2008 and 2012 for universal running, under a program known as the T-68X Universal Running programme. The T-68As were retired on 30 April 2014.

I think this was a bad move. We've lost this information entirely from Wikipedia with this deletion of referenced source material. I think this was an important aspect about the history and infrastructure of Metrolink and had value. It was well researched and referenced and had no detrimental effect on the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Line length; System length.

There are numerous figures for line length and system length in the article, sourced from various publications at different dates; some of which were originally expressed in miles, some in km. They are not consistent (the post 3A system length is variously given as 59 miles and 60 miles); and the line lengths do not add up to the system lengths. There are clearly tricky issues with using particular quoted figures (whether a quoted Oldham/Rochdale line figure is pre or post the town centre extensions; whether an Eccle line figure includes the Mediacity spur). But from TfGM sources - specifically the TWAO application for the 2CC line - it appears that the successive total system lengths, rounded to the nearest km, were; 40 km for Phases 1 and 2, including Mediacity and Chorlton; 32 km for Phase 3a; 28 km for Phase 3b, including the Airport line but not 2CC. The application then quotes a total system length of 97 km for the post Phase 3b system; allowing that 3 km of track converted in 3a were taken out of commission for 3b. That might imply a total system length of 98 km when 2CC (1.3 km) is added, and of 104 km when the Trafford line (5.5 km) is added. But does anyone have a more precise and consistent set of figures with good authority? TomHennell (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Consultations/Metrolink2cc/Documents/Documents/13.%20Transport%20Assessment/13.%20Transport%20Assessment.pdf

Let's be careful

I see there is much more devotion and love for this article since I revamped it last year. This is great.

However, let's be careful. Take a look at successive revisions which show that source material is being misappropriated or not included at all. In some cases, references have been removed altogether! Where is the 2013/14 ridership figure from? Who says that the vehicles are universally known as trams (not true - a book published just this year says otherwise!!!)? And the speculative routes/services/colours need to go. I plan to make corrections to these soon, but would appreciate support. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I was also concerned to see the addition of speculative routes/services/colours. I think these kind of edits have brought the article downhill since the great work you've done to get it to GA status. I would have reverted them, personally, but am not an expert in the topic. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Just seen the edit you've made. I agree with it and support it. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Airport Line

Current edit states that the Airport line will run to Crumpsall once 2CC opens with no supporting reference. I think this confuses the Aiprot and Trafford Park Lines. The Trafford services will certainly turn at Crumpsall, but I understood the Airport services would turn at Victoria. Does anyone have a reference for the Crumpsall statement? TomHennell (talk) 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Airport will run to Cornbrook until 3rd platform at Deansgates finished then it will run there, after 2CC is finished its likely to run through to Victoria. WatcherZero (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating.

There are things on this page that need updating, to account for the opening of the Airport line. Most notably, the schematic and several maps like this one and this one are out of date. G-13114 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The second of your two is date specific and shouldn't be amended: what normally happens is that a new map is created with a different name and the newest lines added (see c:Category:Manchester Metrolink maps), and then {{Infobox Manchester Metrolink station}} is amended to pull in the new map. Many of these maps (including the coloured one) were prepared by Nilfanion (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done I have gone ahead and updated the colour svg map, as well as all the route information since this was out of date too. I do not like the "metrolink routes" in the Infrastructure section, it does not really work now, but I'm not sure what to do with it... ChiZeroOne (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Good work, I updated the RDT, it needed lots of work as well, it was quite mangled. G-13114 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Xania has added a sentence into the text noting the non-appearance of the airport line on a 'nearby' map. In my view, if such a note is needed, then it should be applied to the map itself (although even better to update the map). May I suggest removing the sentence? TomHennell (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The map in question is this one - it doesn't yet have the airport line. Instead of inserting awkward editorial commentary into the article, it might be more productive for someone to drop a friendly note to the creator of this map, User:Jza84, and ask him/her to update it. I'm sure they'll be happy to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I tried removing it, but I was reverted again, and Xania (talk · contribs) sent me this message. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose removing it, and informing Xania that notes as to updating the maps are best discussed here; not intruded in the main text. TomHennell (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I now suggeest removing the accompanying map altogether, at least until (like the big map) it can be updated? TomHennell (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Redrose64 § Please re-check my edit which you reverted

 – Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I know that the edit summary was a bit vague but the edit was perfectly valid. The map is outdated so I mentioned that in the description of the map. It's fairly critical information. I simply added that the map doesn't include the (very) recent extention. Would you prefer to show readers incorrect information? I will revert your changes but I'm not trying to start an edit war - I'm just curious as to why you reverted it (I did read your Reasons).--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 00:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xania: We don't put comments about the accuracy of sources (including maps and other images) into the text of articles; the article's talk page is the place to put comments like that. Since the map is inaccurate, it can either be removed or replaced by one that is accurate; you might also like to send a note to the person who prepared the map. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean about we? There is no policy about such things. I didn't add comments about the accuracy merely stated that it showed an old map of the system. Plenty of articles about railways, metro systems and tram systems show older versions of their maps (check out London Underground's article). There's no need to remove the map as it is still useful but at some point it would be nice to have it updated. A map is useful visually even if not everything is in the map. There is no rush as this change is very recent.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 18:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

My edit was reverted again with the Edit Summary stating as agreed; futher [sic] discussion on talk page. Quite pathetic. As agreed by whom? The map is useful - don't remove it. Update it when possible but for now just add a little note stating that it's a historical map. Alternatively just add the phrase as of October 2014. I am considering copying the comments on this page (and the various other pages) for future use in a newspaper article about how petty Wikipedia can be.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 18:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xania: By "we", I mean the Wikipedia community. It is a long-established practice that talk pages are where discussion about the validity of content takes place. WP:TPG might not be marked as policy, but it is very widely accepted. The discussion referred to in that edit summary is right here. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read all my comments again. I did not discuss the validity of the content on the article page. I simply added a little message saying that it was no longer current. In the same way that an article about Cher might contain old photos of her and would mention that it's not a present photo. And there was no discussion. Simply fact. Please stop being so aggressive and petty.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Xania. It was I who reverted your edits; and if my action has come across as aggressive and petty, then I apologise. I do aim to treat other editors with courtesy, but I accept I do not always succeed. I'm sorry if I have offended you. The question of how to update the article's maps on the opening of the Airport Line was a matter on which discussion was already proceeding here on the talk page, and I removed your text so as to avoid editing and discussion proceeding at cross purposes. In my view, while it is the proper function of an image in a Wikipedia article to illustrate the text, it is not a proper function of the main text to annotate an adjoining image. If a note is needed to an image, then it should be in that image's label. Intruding a comment specific to the map into the text rendered the whole paragraph disjointed and incoherent; again in my view. Happily, the large scale map in the article has now been updated to include the Airport Line; and I personally think that keeping this smaller, unmodified, map no longer serves at useful purpose; though I would be happy to follow the consensus otherwise. TomHennell (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right, glad that's all sorted out then. Everyone seems to be too busy debating the finer points of annotations to do the sensible thing, so I've done it for you - I dropped a line to the author of the map myself, politely requesting an update. Hopefully the map should be updated soon and everything will be all right again.Cnbrb (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks for keeping your heads everybody. I think it was me who was being aggressive.--XANIA - ЗAНИA^{Wikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk} 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Line articles

Does anyone think it might be a good idea to create articles for the individual Metrolink lines. Like has been done for the Croydon Tramlink lines, like this one? G-13114 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be willing to help. I've always thought it's something we're missing for Metrolink. Pjm0512 (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I have completed the first line article Bury Line. Feel free to improve or add to it. I will make more at some point. BTW is the MediaCity Spur considered a line in it's own right, or could it be integrated with an Eccles Line article? I was wondering what to do about that, so thoughts are welcome. G-13114 (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How do you decide which colour should be on the top of the infobox? You've put Green, but the Bury line has both the Green and Light Blue lines running along it, and the Green line also goes onto the City Centre and Altrincham lines. The Altrincham Line is as much green as the Bury Line is. The colours don't really match up with the lines anymore since the network has expanded. So far as I can tell, this is the current situation:

• Bury Line : Green and Light Blue
• Ashton Line : Pink (and soon to be Light Blue)
• South Manchester Line : Purple (and Dark Blue between Cornbrook and St Wergurghs)
• Airport Line : Dark Blue
• Eccles Line : Pink (and brown for MediaCityUK)
• Altrincham Line : Green and Yellow
• Rochdale Line : Purple
• City Centre : All colours (except dark blue but will be in future)

How do we sort these out? Shouldn't we instead have articles on the routes, like "Altrincham – Bury" (Green Line) the same way London Underground has articles on its routes (e.g. Northern line (Black Line))? This would also sort out the issue of how we cover MediaCityUK (i.e. we'd write an article on the Brown Line).

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

For the current situation, you just need to visit this page and download the route map. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. It seems that the "Bury Line" has two colours, not just green. I think it would be better if articles were created for the lines as described on the map. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was simply following what was at Manchester Metrolink#Stations and lines. The problem with your suggested scheme is that it would probably be original research, unless some reliable source outside wikipedia uses it. I'll try and add the different colours to the article.G-13114 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, though as far as I can tell, that list of lines is original research in itself. It references the Metrolink route map which clearly shows the 7 lines as they really are. The table in that section, for example, says that the Green line is from Bury to Piccadilly, which is obviously not true as the map shows it goes through to Altrincham. The lines, as shown in the official map, are:

• Altrincham – Bury (Green)
• Altrincham – Piccadilly (Yellow)
• Bury – Abraham Moss (Light blue)
• Cornbrook – MediaCityUK (Brown)
• East Didsbury – Rochdale Town Centre (Purple)
• Eccles – Ashton-under-Lyne (Pink)
• Manchester Airport – Cornbrook (Dark blue)

(I appreciate that due to ongoing construction some of these termini may change)

These are the same as described by the BBC and Visit North West. Any deviation from the official lines is surely original research? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added a logo for the line in the Bury Line article (link posted above). Please tell me what you think; I can make more if you want, however it's up the discretion of other members. Pjm0512 (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

What I think is that it's a copyright violation. I've started a deletion discussion. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The problems I can see with using the scheme you have outlined, is that we would have to make an article for things like Altrincham – Piccadilly, which doesn't really lend itself to being a wiki article, it's just a service pattern, same with Bury – Abraham Moss. Furthermore, forgive me if I'm wrong, but Eccles - Ashton is just a temporary arrangement, while Victoria is being rebuilt, so that doesn't really lend itself to being an article either. I've found some sources for the lines in the format of the lines section, such as the LRTA website and TheTrams website so, not original research. G-13114 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can agree on some changes to the current article so that it better reflects the services that travel on the line? I'll add some extra info about the services to the article. I like Pjm0512's idea for colour logos above the infoboxes. It would be good if they could illustrate the services on the line, so the Bury one would be Green and Light Blue. What do you think? :) Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Having line articles is generally a good idea. I think the problem is that Metrolink lines don't have such strongly distinct identities as, say, London Underground, and they could change in future. But they're useful for gathering information. A good use of line articles would be to aggregate some of the smaller tram stops which really don't merit standalone articles - but I realise nobody will agree with that idea!Cnbrb (talk) 22:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I was just trying to make a valid addition... you really could have worded that criticism more politely. It's people like you that put people, like oneself, off the internet. I was simply mimicking the London Underground 'Line Articles'. Well that's me done helping with this particular idea. Pjm0512 (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but we take copyright very seriously. You can't simply take an image that you found on the web, add two words on a coloured stripe, upload it to Wikipedia, and claim it as "own work". It is misrepresentation, and it is theft. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

All right, the guy was just trying to make a good faith edit and I am sure that criminal activity was not the intention. Thanks, Pjm0512, for your contributions. Unfortunately the image you created does contain a copyrighted logo, so it will cause problems. Maybe you'd like to come up with an alternative which doesn't have an official logo - as a suggestion you could use the arrow graphic on its own (somehow, this seems not to fall foul of copyright rules), or perhaps a tram icon or something similar. Hope that helps. Cnbrb (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; I'd thought if I used the pictures from the Commons I'd be alright - which clearly isn't the case. I'll let someone else have a go, maybe they can put an hour's time and effort into researching designs and uploading the finished product. Pjm0512 (talk) 18:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Using images held on Commons normally is alright; but if you upload a copyright violation to Commons, it's treated similarly to a copyvio uploaded to Wikipedia - with the exception that you can't claim fair use. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added an infobox logo to the top of the Bury Line infobox based on the one by @Pjm0512: but this one has a the same license as the logo on commons and so should be fine to stay there. It should be simple to create others with changed colours and text for future articles on the Metrolink lines. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template deletion proposal

Just a notification Template:Infobox_Manchester_Metrolink_station has been proposed for deletion. So any editors involved in this might like to have their say. G-13114 (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Map update required

The map in the travelling section needs updating again due to recent changes. The current official routemap is linked here. Does anyone have the know-how? The brown line needs extending to Piccadilly and the light blue line needs extending to Etihad Campus. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The best people to do that would be its creator, who is Nilfanion (talk · contribs); or somebody who has amended it, such as ChiZeroOne (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly my laptop has gone kaput and so I cannot edit svgs at the moment. Hopefully I will again at some point but in the meantime anyone else is welcome to give it a go. ChiZeroOne (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The map under Current Network - Routes and stops needs to be updated. The latest offical route map has the Trafford Centre branch, MediaCityUK to Etihad Campus service, the Eccles branch calling at MediaCityUK correctly reflecting the current services. Can we get this changed? Thanks! No1wafer (talk) 15:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Operations

The operations section claimed that Metrolink is operated as a PPP – This isn't correct and hasn't been since part way through the Serco period when the then GMPTE acquired the remainder of the infrastructure concession. From the commencement of the Stagecoach incumbency, it was an O&M contract. I have corrected this once before but someone changed it back and referenced a document from 2000 in support (when it was a PPP) - if someone is going to insist on changing it again please try and make sure you are correct any you understand the various contract types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.57.55 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tram stop naming conventions

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015. Thanks. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the article about Pomona has been proposed for a move as it is ambiguous and not primary compared to stations also known as such in the US. At the same time, a suggestion was made for all Manchester Metrolink station articles to be moved from the "X Metrolink station" to the "X tram stop" name in line with other systems in the UK, i.e. converting the {{mls}} template to {{tram}}. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Result of the discussion as below:

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as proposed (and the old title will be redirected to Pomona#Train stations). No one is really arguing that the Manchester station is more important/notable/well known than the California stations, the argument was that, because both California stations are not simply titled "Pomona", they are not ambiguous with this article. This is a reasonable argument to make and the votes were split about 50/50, but this argument (that they are not ambiguous) was debunked by James who showed that plenty of reliable sources refer to either California station as "Pomona Metrolink station" (and to a less extent Iridescent who showed the signage is also ambiguous). As such, I found the arguments in support of the move to be significantly stronger than those in opposition and that there is a consensus to disambiguate this article title. On exactly how this article should be disambiguated there were several good arguments not to follow the frankly counterintuitive naming conventions, but ultimately no consensus on that issue, so we will default to the status quo and use "Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station". I suppose I should also point out that UK stations are not the only articles to use the odd format of disambiguation 'inside' the title (looking at you, northeastern US townships). I do think that a good case has been made for using "X tram stop" for all stations in the Manchester Metrolink, but to get a consensus for that change a discussion will need to be had either at either Talk:Manchester Metrolink or the wikiproject talk page. A separate RM for Pomona railway station is probably also required to see if that title needs disambiguation (looks like it at a glance). Jenks24 (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As suggested above (and without prejudice to the Pomona stop naming debate); should we not anyway consider renaming all the Metrolink tram stop articles from 'station' to 'stop'? This would be in line with the Wikipedia naming conventions for all counterpart UK tram systems; and is also in line with the standard naming practice of Manchester Metrolink, and Transport for Greater Manchester. TomHennell (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps; but it should be on a general discussion page, not that of a specific article, as I noted at User talk:Redrose64#Pomona. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

May well be so; my problem being that I do not have the expertise (or indeed time) to offer to make such wide ranging edits myself. There should at least be a degree of consensus on this page, I would have thought, before discussing in detail on a general page. 11:02, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, as the Metrolink is the only UK tram system which doesn't use the 'X tram stop' format. G-13114 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I presume there must be someone willing to defend the current naming convention? or may we report it as the general consensus on this page that the change from 'station' to 'stop' should be supported? TomHennell (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

See my proposal below. We'll see if anyone disagrees. G-13114 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Eccles Line article draft

I've just made a draft for a new article on the Eccles Line, you can see it HERE. Any comments or suggestions would be welcome before it goes live. Also I was wondering whether it should go to just Eccles Line or Eccles Line (Manchester Metrolink) to avoid any possible confusion with the railway which runs through Eccles. G-13114 (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

As no-one responded I went ahead and created it, you can see it at Eccles Line (Manchester Metrolink). I intend to eventually create articles for all of the Metrolink lines. G-13114 (talk) 15:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Metrolink station renaming proposal.

I would like to propose that all of the articles currently named 'X Metrolink station' should be moved to 'X tram stop'. The reasons for this are as follows:

• 1) Metrolink appear to call their stops tram stops rather than Metrolink stations, as can be seen HERE or HERE for example.
• 2) It would make it consistent with the other UK tram systems like Croydon Tramlink and Midland Metro which have articles for individual stops, (e.g. Beddington Lane tram stop or Bilston Central tram stop.)
• 3) Using the 'tram stop' format would allow editors to use the Tram stop template, which would make editing quicker and more convenient.

Any comments? G-13114 (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. In addition, reccommend the same convention for Metrolink stops within articles for Network Rail stations or other transport interchanges; hence 'Piccadilly tram stop' within Manchester Piccadilly station, 'Victoria tram stop' within Manchester Victoria station, and 'Bury tram stop' within Bury Interchange. TomHennell (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. G-13114 (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no, no, this is the wrong venue. It concerns the article Manchester Metrolink and nothing else. Discussions about the naming of any article other than Manchester Metrolink are outside the scope of this talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Where else should we discuss a proposal relevant to Manchester Metrolink and its sub-articles where it is going to be seen by the people who edit them? Can we please keep this discussion to the relevant topic at hand please? G-13114 (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I already mentioned this at 10:56, 6 January 2016. There are several: at a WikiProject discussion page (there's at least four that are relevant). Or at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations). Or put a multiple request on WP:RM. You can link to the relevant discussion from here, sure; but don't discuss it here, because it is not about moving Manchester Metrolink in any way. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for mentioning that Redrose; since it would appear that you are aware of the WikiProject pages that will need a link into wherever the actual discussion is taking place, would it be possible please for you to arrange for this to be done; and either specify or initiate the discussion on the 'correct' page? Thank you. But wherever that may be, it is significant that, so far, there appears to be consesnsus that the change is a good one. Nobody so far has anything to say to the contrary. TomHennell (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Since it only concerns the Manchester Metrolink. I see no particular reason why other project pages need be bothered by it, as this is the de-facto project page for the Manchester Metrolink. I would still rather we discussed the topic at hand rather than nitpicking over proceedural technicalities. The simple question is, does anyone object to renaming the station sub-articles? G-13114 (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, it's right at the top of WP:TPG: "The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." --Redrose64 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly so Redrose; the proper function of this talkpage is to discuss proposed edit changes to this and associated articles (i.e. the linked sub-articles on Metrolink tram stops). Which is exactly what I thought we were doing. It is no function of the talkpage to express personal views on nice points of Wikipedia practice. TomHennell (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Its associated article. Singular, not plural. There is only one associated article, and that is Manchester Metrolink, which is not about a station/stop/whatever. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Given that this article is, for want of a better term, a 'parent article' to all of the tram stop articles, agree this is the most logical place for a discussion to be had. Seems to be a discussion people want to have, getting bogged down in the technicalities of where it should take place won’t help resolve.

thanks for clearing that up Est8286. And I note that, in the closing decision on the Pomona Metrolink disambiguation determination qoted above, Jenks24 specifies this talk page as an appropriate place for a further discussion on Metrolink tram stop naming to take place: "a good case has been made for using "X tram stop" for all stations in the Manchester Metrolink, but to get a consensus for that change a discussion will need to be had either at either Talk:Manchester Metrolink or the wikiproject talk page". I can understand that Redrose64 may wish to challenge that closing decision, but I do not see this as the right forum to pursue issues of that sort. TomHennell (talk) 10:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

To address the out of scope issue, a note placed on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) page and some of the larger stops (probably an overkill to do all 93) advising of this discussion would be a solution. I have done so at Piccadilly Gardens Metrolink station as an example. Alternatively this discussion could be closed and transferred to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations).

In regards the suggested move, Support both the suggestions of introducing the x tram stop format in line with all other UK tram articles and introducing the same format into the Manchester Piccadilly station etc articles. Est8286 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I put a note at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways alerting to the discussion here. I hope that pleases everyone. G-13114 (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've copied your note onto the Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station page; hope you don't mind. TomHennell (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - this has always been an oddity. Pretty much every other tram system in the UK has x tram stop, except where there are multimodal stations. Before anyone asks, the Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway are NOT tram systems. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Where is the distinction between tram and light rail system though? The government at least considers all UK tram and light rail systems (Including Tyne, Docklands and Midlands 'Metro') as the same thing with the exception of London Underground and Glasgow Underground and that is how they are written into law, the manufacturer of the vehicles considers them light rail rather than tram. The Office of Road and Rail defines the difference as trams operate on streets via trolleys or streetcars while light rail operates on segregated alignments either street, off street, tunnel or viaducts with occasional shared on street running, older tramways will also not have platforms but stop on street. WatcherZero (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting arguments WatcherZero, but they could equally well be applied to the Midland Metro, the Sheffield Supertram or the Croydon Tramlink - all record their stops according to the proposed format "X tram stop" - and that is clearly now Wikipedia standard, UK Government notwithstanding. To maintain your argument, you need to demonstrate not only that Metrolink is recognised as fundamentally the same as DLR; but also that it is recognised as fundamentally different from Tramlink etc. TomHennell (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It may be an interesting argument, but it's also untrue, since a glance at the manufacturer's website would show they use the term "tram"; a recent Bombardier press release explicitly describes the M5000 as TfGM’s trams of choice. ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support - If the Metrolink think they're a tram, and the people making the rolling stock are making trams, let's call it a tram. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - per G-13114. Useddenim (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, obviously, as the one who originally suggested a mass move (at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station). ‑ Iridescent 15:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a tram, talks like a tram, walks like a tram (you get the idea) Jeni ^(talk) 20:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think we can call it now? It looks line there's a pretty overwhelming consensus in favour. G-13114 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'd give it a few more days personally, let it run for at least a week. While I can't see the discussion going any other way, I can hardly call it a snow decision. Jeni ^(talk) 21:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok I'll wait till the 13th, that's one week, if nothing major has changed by then I think it can be called. Although I'm not sure what a snow decision is! G-13114 (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As it's been a week now since I put this here, and it doesn't look like the result is going to change. Shall we call it now? G-13114 (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ok by me. TomHennell (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's been done, took me quite a long while. I'll get onto the templates and stuff next. If anyone wants to help that would be nice. G-13114 (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We are all enormously grateful, I'm sure; I'm afraid I wouldn't have known where to start. TomHennell (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have edited Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations); but it still remains to insert the new template onto that page. TomHennell (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Should this convention also be applied to the articles on the Welsh Wikipedia about the stops (i.e. Gorsaf Metrolink Piccadilly Gardens becomes Gorsaf tramffordd Piccadilly Gardens, or something similar)? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That's up to the Welsh Wikipedia to decide. G-13114 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Future disambiguation

What I don't know (maybe someone else has already tested this) is whether the proposed format 'X tram stop' creates clashes betweeen Metrolink stops, and those on any other tram or light rail system. And if it did, how we would disambiguate - perhaps 'X tram stop (Manchester Metrolink)'? TomHennell (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't by all means checked all the pages, but out of the obvious ones I can't find any that would need disambiguating initially. But it'd be a good idea to agree on a plan if a clash comes up in the future (more likely as various networks expand). I'd probably suggest 'X tram stop (Manchester)' as a disambiguation if we ever needed it, I don't feel we need to specify the name of the network too Jeni ^(talk) 16:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere as yet that this would actually be an issue. But if it did come up then we should probably use the same method as the current railway station convention which would be to put 'x (Manchester) tram stop'. G-13114 (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If it's not going to come up, then it's moot, but a lot of the stations aren't in Manchester. Just saying. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep. There are Metrolink stations in all of the GM Metropolitan Boroughs except Bolton, Stockport and Wigan. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, just put in the relevant GM borough then. G-13114 (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Template

I'm probably stating the obvious here but if\when everything gets renamed, we should send {{MLstation}} to TfD. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 17:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I wondered whether there were any other systems called Metrolink that it could be used for. But looking at them, most of them are in the US and use a different format for station naming. So if there's no other use for it....... Mind you we would have to make sure every instance of its use was changed if it was deleted, otherwise we would end up with red links. G-13114 (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Or just redirect it to {{tram}}. Presumably any moves would leave redirects behind at Metrolink, so there wouldn't be any redlinks. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Related categories and templates

I guess the related categories and templates (e.g. Category:Manchester Metrolink stations and Template:Manchester Metrolink stations) should also be renamed? Can these be done via speedy rather than discussion as it is for consistency with articles? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The former probably should be. But the ones that aren't going to be seen by the public can probably be left alone. Unless you want to do it. G-13114 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A request has been made to rename the various station categories to tram stops at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. Est8286 (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Line articles completed

I have now finally completed articles for all seven Metrolink lines. You might like to take a look at them and improve on them if you want, or maybe put them on your watchlist, so they can be kept updated and free of vandalism etc. Here they are:

• Airport Line (Manchester Metrolink)
• Altrincham Line
• Bury Line
• East Manchester Line
• Eccles Line
• Oldham and Rochdale Line
• South Manchester Line

G-13114 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your work on this G-13114, much appreciated. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on history section.

We have an article called History of Manchester Metrolink, but we seem to have the situation here where the history section in the main article is longer than the dedicated history article, and it takes up least half of the article, going into intricate detail.

Does anyone think that most of the current history section in the main article should be moved to the dedicated history article, and a summary left on the main page? That would go a long way to reducing the bloat on the main page. G-13114 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Alarics (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I did it I trimmed lots of bloat and unnecessary detail from the main page history section and moved the full text to the History of Manchester Metrolink. I think it has made it more readable without sacrificing essential information, and has cut down the article size by about 9,000 bytes. What do people think, is it too much or too little trimming, or about right? G-13114 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this - coming back to this today 10:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC), I'd say this history section is still far far too big - it's about 4 times as big as it needs to be and duplicates much of the History of Manchester Metrolink article. It's also expanded since your efforts to reduce it! It could easily be stripped down and content merged into the history article. I'll add a template to recommend merging content.10:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Splitting future plans into a sub article.

One idea I've had, is to split the section on proposed future extensions etc of the network into it's own article, say Proposed developments of Manchester Metrolink. This would help bring the article to a more manageable size. Does anyone (dis)agree? G-13114 (talk) 14:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it as no-one objected. I think the main page is a more manageable size now. G-13114 (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Trafford Park extension

• The lede says "work on the Trafford Park Line extension from Pomona to the Trafford Centre is expected to commence in 2016", but year 2016 has finished. This web page says "Manchester’s civic leaders have broken ground on the £350 million Trafford Park line.", but does "breaking ground" mean literally? Has any earth been disturbed there, and where and when? Has any construction vehicles worked there? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

MEN report, see the picture near the bottom. Don't play the video without muting your speakers. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Station photos

I am going along all routes this weekend (28th - 29th January) and photographing every station. I'll add these in to each individual station page and possibly a couple on here so that we have up-to-date photos on each page.Zackhally (talk) 09:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the stop photos. Probably best to focus on the Altrincham, Bury, and Eccles lines plus the City Zone though. The stops on the newer lines haven't changed much since they opened in the last few years apart from look a bit more untidy through general wear and tear. However, if you can take a better pic than any of the ones already on the articles then that would be most welcome! Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Great, more pictures of Manchester in the rain. :) Mr Stephen (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would second what Delusion23 has said, A few of the Bury Alt and Eccles line stops need updated pictures. You should probably only replace the ones on more modern lines if they are photographically better than the existing ones. There a few on the East Manchester Line which aren't very good, such as Etihad Campus, Velopark and Droylsden for examples. So they could use some attention. G-13114 (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have done the Bury, Altrincham, Rochdale and City Zone (Excluding New Islington) lines. I'll begin uploading now. Zackhally (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded Bury-Victoria. I will do the Rochdale and Altrincham lines tomorrow Zackhally (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Good work updating the Bury line pics, some of them were over a decade old! Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Just spent my spare time going out and photographing the Eccles line, especially Pomona and the new bridge which has nearly finished construction. Most photos were at least 10 years old, however they have now been updated to photos from Nov 23rd 2018. Zackhally (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Service patterns

As the second city crossing opens on Sunday 26th February (subject to change) Service patterns will be changed to the following; A - Altrincham to Bury - 12 min frequency - 07:15 - 19:30 Mon - Fri, 09:30 - 17:30 Sat, no Sunday service - Orange colour \\\ B - Altrincham to Etihad Campus - 12 min frequency - Red colour \\\ C - Bury to Piccadilly - 12 min frequency - Dark green colour \\\ D - MediaCityUK to Piccadilly - 12 min frequency - 07:15 - 20:00 Mon - Fri, 09:00 - 18:00 Sat, no Sunday service. - Light blue colour \\\ E - Ashton-under-Lyne - Eccles - 12 min frequency - Pink colour \\\ F - Deansgate Castlefield - Manchester Airport - 12 min frequency - Dark blue colour \\\ (Early bird services) 03:19 - 6:00 Mon - Sat, 03:19 - 07:00 Sun - 20 min frequency - Dark blue colour \\\ G - East Didsbury - Rochdale Town Centre (VIA 2CC) 12 min frequency - Purple colour \\\ H - East Didsbury - Shaw and Crompton (VIA 2CC) 12 min frequency - 07:15 - 19:30 Mon - Fri, 09:30 - 17:30 Sat, no Sunday service. - Light green colour. [1] Zackhally (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge & shorten History section

I think that the history section should be cut down to a much shorter summary, as it is far too long and detailed. Good work has already been done to split the article with the creation of the separate History of Manchester Metrolink article, but for some reason, the original material has been left on the main Manchester Metrolink article, duplicating (often word-for-word) the History article. So I propose reducing the History section on the main article, and merging into the History article any worthwhile additional copy. Any objections? Cnbrb (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't object. I actually moved the stuff that was here onto the history article, as it was wayyy too long, and cut down the main page version. But I would be fine with cutting it down to a few paragraphs or something of summary. G-13114 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree It should be cut down to a summary with a link to the history article for more detail. Also think "Travelling" section should be higher in the article. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Agree When I created the History page I cut and pasted 27,000 characters leaving only a single paragraph but can see that its gradually creeped back up to almost the same length again. WatcherZero (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. In the spirit of WP:TOOMUCH, I've carried out a considerable reduction on the section and put the remainder into a new Construction section. I've tried to keep the key points of interest but took out all the granular detail to reduce article bloat. If anyone feels that important detail has been lost, please note that the original copy is still to be found in History of Manchester Metrolink and can be edited and improved there. I would like to suggest that editors do not add more detail to the History section on this article, but turn their attention to History of Manchester Metrolink.17:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Additional note to the above - I've tried to maintain useful citations, but if anyone is able to do a sanity check on the references to make sure they support the content, and make any improvements, that would be very helpful. Thanks. 17:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC),

This is probably more relevant to the history article than here, but as we're discussing it here: Does anyone thing the lonnnnng text in the history article would be better replaced with my cut down edited version that used to be on the main page. I thought my version was a lot better, and more readable as it cut out much of the excesses and bloat? G-13114 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I have just carried out a massive bloat reduction exercise on this main article, which I think has improved the history section immensely. But yes, the History of Manchester Metrolink article is pretty bulky and seems to detail the costings for every nut and bolt! However, I'd take this question over to the History article talk page to avoid confusion.23:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, I went ahead and did it. I think it's an improvement. G-13114 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, good to de-bloat. All the successive edits have made the sentences hard to read, so it's good to have a re-edit. Thanks also for carrying over the table - I should have thought of that.15:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Tram stop categories by line

I believe Category:Manchester Metrolink tram stops by line is now out of date. I propose that new categories be used to categorise by line (e.g. Altrincham Line, Bury Line etc.) rather than by the old services. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they have changed recently, so a reshuffle may be required. Incidentally the categories on Commons still refer to "stations" - I thought the consensus was to change everything to "tram stops"? Cnbrb (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the consensus changed on en.wikipedia but I guess a new consensus would need to be gained on Commons as a separate project. I'll create new categories when I have time and propose the obsolete ones for deletion. Cheers, Del_♉sion23 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that's just a leftover from when we called them 'Metrolink stations' rather then 'tram stops'. I guess no-one's got round to changing it to reflect that on commons yet. G-13114 (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Metrolink logo to be deleted

A user on commons is currently on a major logo deletion mission. File:Manchester metrolink logo.PNG is nominated for deletion, despite being clearly tagged with template:PD-textlogo. Editors may wish to comment on the deletion nomination page. Several British Rail logos like this one are also for the chop. Cnbrb (talk) 12:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018021056/http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-metrolink-line-wythenshawe-manchester-7927130 to http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-metrolink-line-wythenshawe-manchester-7927130
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327122642/http://www.salford.gov.uk/milestones_v2.pdf to http://www.salford.gov.uk/milestones_v2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100923105728/http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/public_transport/s/1328314_metrolink_trams_pull_in_to_mediacityuk_station_for_first_time to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/transport/public_transport/s/1328314_metrolink_trams_pull_in_to_mediacityuk_station_for_first_time
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1150326_signalman_reaches_end_of_line
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1069009_end_of_era_as_loop_line_is_replaced
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/Metrolink/met_roch.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226053951/http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/city_south.html to http://www.lrta.org/Manchester/city_south.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121113051255/http://www.metrolink.co.uk/futuremetrolink/Pages/new-trams.aspx to http://www.metrolink.co.uk/futuremetrolink/Pages/new-trams.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tfgm.com/corporate/documents/metrolink/metrolink_newsletter_260608.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) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/Information/11-0807-CTLZ-2011-Campaign-A5-AW.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130729005656/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/light-rail-and-tram-statistics-2011-12 to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/light-rail-and-tram-statistics-2011-12
• 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
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140302015458/http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/AnnualReportsBusinessPerformancePlans/11-0909-Ann_Performance-Report-AW.pdf to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/Documents/AnnualReportsBusinessPerformancePlans/11-0909-Ann_Performance-Report-AW.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303233802/http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/LTP3/Documents/Greater_Manchester_Local_Transport_Plan_Core_Strategy.pdf to http://www.tfgm.com/journey_planning/LTP3/Documents/Greater_Manchester_Local_Transport_Plan_Core_Strategy.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) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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/20130523001932/http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=175 to http://www.tfgm.com/Corporate/media_centre/Pages/News.aspx?articleId=175
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419033155/http://www.manchesterfa.com/partners-pages/partners/metrolink to http://www.manchesterfa.com/partners-pages/partners/metrolink
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130605175237/http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/Metrolink-Completes-Move-To-Old-Trafford to http://www.manchesterconfidential.co.uk/News/Metrolink-Completes-Move-To-Old-Trafford
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://manchestergazette.co.uk/manchester-unveils-revised-superconnected-cities-plans/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://manchestergazette.co.uk/wi-fi-tram-test-trial-on-track-for-metrolink/

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) 01:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Greater Manchester Railways map.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Navigation boxes on tram stop articles

In some articles, the navigation box, such as at Wharfside tram stop#Services, is showing Intu Trafford Centre as the destination. As this stop (and the corresponding article has been renamed), does anybody know how this can be changed from Intu Trafford Centre tram stop to Trafford Centre tram stop? Krampyno (talk) 04:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

For each page that is having this issue, find the template that needs to be fixed. For example, for Wharfside tram stop, I "edited" the page to check which templates were actually being used. One of them is Template:S-line/MML left/Trafford Centre – Cornbrook. I updated that template.[2] Now Wharfside tram stop works. Similar changes will need to be made to other templates that have the phrase Trafford Centre=intu Trafford Centre in them. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Krampyno: After I made the change above, I did a "search" for "intu Trafford Centre" in "Templates" and found nothing else. Are all of the problems fixed? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Pedestrian collisions

Are these noteworthy enough for a mention in this article, even if fatal? I ask because we do not normally mention road traffic or single fatality railway accidents unless they are in some way individually notable. Britmax (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally remove the lot - maybe keep the ones the RAIB investigated. To borrow from the notability criteria for aviation incidents, none are likely to have any significant changes to design, operations, or procedures etc. Obviously not great that they happened, but none are likley to have any signficant lasting impact. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Note - almost all collisions with a pedestrian have to be notified to RAIB, that may not be the best metric to set for notability / inclusion. RAIB quick reference on what has to be notified - gov.uk. --RedHillian | Talk 17:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

If you take them off this article (which I support) then you should also take them off Sheffield, Croydon, Blackpool, etc. For some reason the UK tramway articles seem obsessed with pedestrian deaths. Look at any other European city with trams and it hardly warrants a mention. To present a counterpoint - how many people are killed in accidents on the M6/M60/M66/M62/M61 etc. in the Manchester area each year, and how many of those killed on that particular transport medium are mentioned on Wikipedia? How many individual people who step off the platform at nearby Warrington Bank Quay railway station (UK's biggest suicide train station) are mentioned? How do we get consensus for all the UK tram articles? I'd say just boldly remove under WP:NOTNEWS. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I also agree we should remove the pedestrian collisions, since no-one has objected I will go ahead and do so. Vanteloop (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2024 Service Change

Hi all, first time poster so sorry if this is against forum rules/standards.

On Tuesday 2 January, Metrolink changed their service pattern meaning that they now operate some service daytime only (Mon-Fri 7am-8pm, Sat 9am-6:30pm) and an extension to the Altrincham to Piccadilly service to Etihad Campus evening only (Mon-Fri 8pm onwards, Sat 6:30pm onwards) and all day Sunday.

See here [3]https://tfgm.com/public-transport/tram/tram-schedule

How do you propose we amend the page to reflect this? 82.30.243.224 (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the suggestion. It's not a problem to suggest changes to an article here - in fact, that's what a talk page is for, so you're in the right place. Concerning the Metrolink changes, I would say it's best not to go into much detail about service schedules in an article and not include this. If it changes again in 2 months, then the article has to be amended again. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide, so it's best to avoid going into service detail in articles. Cnbrb (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Map Update Needed/Trafford Park Issues

First time poster again so let me know if ive done wrong!

Ive just noticed that the map used on this page is out of date and is missing a few service changes done over a year or so.

Also, I've noticed that across alot of metrolink pages in general the Trafford Park line is still listed as terminating at Cornbrook despite being extended a long time ago to Deansgate-Castlefield. Can I have some help dealing with as its not good having inconsistant pages some refering to Deansgate as the terminus while others still refer to the terminus as Cornbrook. JamesOnWiki101 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Is this serious enough to mention?

Yesterday, a bus and tram collided head on in Manchester city centre seriously injuring several people. Is this a serious enough incident to mention in the article? G-13114 (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not really tram related, the driver of the bus had a medical episode and started driving the wrong way up a one way street. --WatcherZero (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)