Wikipedia

Talk:West Midlands Metro/Archive 2

< Talk:West Midlands Metro
Latest comment: 1 year ago by 185.69.145.65 in topic Maps are out of date!
Archive 1Archive 2
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Midland Metro. 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) 00:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Midland Metro. 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) 00:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ridership and Overcrowding

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The tram is usually crowded when I get on it. Last time, it was quite a squeeze! So, unless the designers got confused about how many passengers it could carry, I don't see how they could have made such a bad estimate. So can we have a source for these figures?

The West Midlands Passenger Transport Executive claimed 15 million passengers would use Line One in its first year of operation.

Jecris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecris (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Somebody took exception to a link to topic:transport, stating there was "no balance" in its content, but saw nothing wrong with a link to the Light Rail Transit Association (which is engaged in the promotion of light rail). In the absence of an explanation, it would seem appropriate to restore the link.

Jecris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecris (talk • contribs) 12:32, 30 April 2005 (UTC)

Split history section

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I think that the history section is quite long for the article and I have proposed that the history section be split off into History of West Midlands Metro (there was a tag but this has helpfully been removed by another editor). Does anyone think this is a good/bad idea? Cnbrb (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that you can't tag it with {{split section}}; but if you do so, there needs to be a discussion for it to link to. That discussion now exists, so there is nothing to stop you from now adding a {{split section|History of West Midlands Metro|date=August 2019|discuss=Talk:West Midlands Metro#Split history section}}. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:43, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
As you may see, I've been busy making some substantial improvements to the article, so I hadn't quite got around to initiating a discussion. Cnbrb (talk) 10:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't be in favour of splitting the article, as I don't believe it is excessively long, and it provides context and background. G-13114 (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have performed a major cleanup of this article this week. It was suffering from several years of edits, and had very poor readability. In line with WP:DETAIL and in an effort to make this more readable, I have performed some substantial edits to reduce unnecessary wordiness, improve references, remove some uncited statements, and organise content under more meaningful headings. To reassure editors, the bulk of the content is still intact, but in a more concise form. I have also replaced some outdated photos. I hope other editors will consider these improvements favourably, and I am happy to discuss any perceived problems. Cnbrb (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Cnbrb - thanks for this. Please note though that "outdated" should not be one of the criteria for photos - unlike, say, technical quality. Ineptly taking a photo of half a tram, for example. Indeed, I feel that we need a selection of photographs covering a range of time periods from opening to the present day. Can I ask therefore which photos you've added/removed? Tony May (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Tony - thanks for your comments. I take the point about retaining older photos to show how the system has evolved. My feeling is that older photos should not be excised, but used in a historical context, e.g. placed in the sections discussing older rolling stock or former branding. I think it is preferable to focus on up-to-date images to represent the current system, but yes, to also illustrate historical aspects in such a way that doesn't confuse past and present. I've just checked and actually the only one I think that I have replaced is File:Trams on the Bilston Road - geograph.org.uk - 236002.jpg, whose purpose seemed to be to show a tram on a street-running section of Wolverhampton. There is now a photo of an Urbos in a similar location. Hope this all makes sense. Cnbrb (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Batteries in trams, sections with no overhead

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is at least one street section without overhead wires (personal observation recently), and there are reports online about batteries fitted to the trams. See for example: [[1]] This does not seem to be included in the article, therefore it needs updating. Sangwine (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Urbos 3 - already covered at West Midlands Metro rolling stock 10mmsocket (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Maps are out of date!

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Map Midland Metro.png and File:Midland Metro Line 1 Birmingham Extensions Map.png are long outdated as they don't show the latest completed extensions. Can someone update these maps? 185.69.145.65 (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Midlands_Metro/Archive_2&oldid=1235835187"