Talk:C-class Melbourne tram

Capacity
what is the capacity of these trams? (passenger?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.55.210 (talk • contribs) 13 February 2008‎

conflict
this article says once that they run on 2 routes, then that they run exclusively on one. also does it need to say they were made in france twice? 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noofnoof (talk • contribs)

Proposed merger of 'C-class Melbourne tram' and 'C2-class Melbourne tram'
I think that the content from both C-class Melbourne tram and C2-class Melbourne tram could be safely merged together, neither will ever become a large article. They are both Citadis trams operating in Melbourne and therefore have about the same amount in common as either the Ws, Zs or Ds (ok, maybe less than the Ds, but the point stands). Liamdavies (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdraw this request, as on second thoughts two separate articles will be easier to maintain, and they have very different histories. (sorry I forgot about this) Liamdavies (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Splitting of infobox adds no value, is inconsistent with other tram articles. Help:Infobox states that infoboxes should be concise, splitting in 2 goes against this, just padding the article out. DCB1927 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not splitting the infobox, it's removing info that isn't need or is incorrect at a cursory glance, and adding a table with the correct labels and more information. The infobox is far more concise with just the bare minimum of information that the casual user would need. Among labels incorrect in this context in the infobox are: construction and articulation figures, they should be introduction and section. Your edit also removed all sourcing for the info, per WP:CITE (which is a policy, not a helppage) all info should be cited. I would further point out that infoboxes are not mandatory, and just because they are in an article does not mean they should be filled to their fullest (see: WP:INFOBOXUSE and WP:DISINFOBOX). There was discussion about these changes last year, and this format makes all Melbourne tram articles consistent, you are the one removing consistency. This was discussed just over a month ago where a third opinion endorsed this format. 211.28.146.128 (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems there have been other editors who are questioning the need to split.. It seems only you and a retired editor are pushing the case for the infobox being split. The whole point of an infobox is to create a common platform across all similar articles. By splitting, the Melbourne articles are now out of step with other tram articles. Agree templates should be filled to their fullest, did not suggest or act otherwise. If an extra field is warranted in the infobox, best to discuss on the template page so that it can be added for all future articles. But from what I can work out, all the fields in the specs box already exist in the infobox, which again begs the question why the need?DCB1927 (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a democracy, it's not about numbers, it's about consensus and what makes sense in each case. Being in step with other articles carries no weight, the fact that the infobox is ridiculously and unnecessarily long with every rivet-counting piece of information and that in turn causes image stacking was the reason to place much of the information that was previously in the infobox into a table (it is incorrect to say split the infobox, as that - incorrectly - portrays there as being two infoboxes, which there are not). The basic point is that this was discussed, there was agreement to do the change, it was subsequently questioned, and the discussion AND 3O that ensued affirmed the current situation; that is consensus decisions making. 211.28.146.128 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If the infobox is 'ridiculously and unnecessarily long' as suggested, how can transferring from one table to another be beneficial? Let's not split hairs, the fields in the new table are a replica of those fields already in the infobox table.
 * Surely the 'rivet-counting piece of information' should be deleted entirely if if fails WP:FAN rather than just moved? If the reason to split is to pad the article avoid image stacking, then the answer is cull the number of images with a link to the commons gallery as was previously done, not spread the article out to justify their inclusion. The image removed was not significantly different to that retained. Likewise on E-class Melbourne tram, image staking was eliminated by eliminating similar images. WP:THIRD states these are not binding, so by an article receiving one, does not rule out further discussion. DCB1927 (talk) 08:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It should be on one info box at the top. That way people can find the things they need in one spot. Otherwise you have two infoxes on the same thing which is stupid if we need to find infomationFremantle99 (talk) 01:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Infobox should be consolidated as one. Splitting adds no value, as it is just the existing infobox split in two and in some cases duplicated. Article is less tidy as a result and primarily appears to have been done to justify the inclusion of additional images, which are not required.
 * While it may be debatable as to whether the so called rivet-counting information is required, if there is a field in the infobox it should be populated. Although a single cite at the top of the box would suffice, is an overkill having 14 references to the one cite from the specs box as is currently the case. Mo7838 (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

File:C Class Tram, Melbourne - Jan 2008.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:C Class Tram, Melbourne - Jan 2008.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 28, 2016. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2016-04-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Removing hyphen from article name
I am proposing to remove the hyphen from the title of this tram article, as the official nomenclature from the Department of Transport and Planning is not to have hyphens in tram class names. Examples include on their official website, the Melbourne Tram Plan and the PTV website. Other common unofficial sources like Vicsig also do not have a hyphen. I'm also proposing to change all the other Melbourne tram class article names in a similar manner, any feedback welcome! Takerlamar (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

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

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