Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide/Archive 3

Photo of the first SA Tesla Supercharger


Image description: The first Tesla Superchargers (also with generic chargers) to be rolled out and installed in South Australia, pictured on Franklin Street, Adelaide, available to the public from 28 September 2017, completing an Australian Tesla charging network that stretches as far as the Queensland capital over 2,000 km (1,200 mi) away. One 30 minute quick charge of a Tesla Model S or Tesla Model X yields an approximate driving range of 270 km. See http://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-charging-stations-link-adelaide-worlds-largest-battery-20202/ for more information.

I took the photo in Franklin St today next to the bus station. Apart from the Franklin Street, Adelaide article, i'm not sure where else the image might be suitable for addition, so I thought i'd park it here if others have ideas. Timeshift (talk) 07:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Update of list of participants
I've just updated the list of WikiProject Adelaide participants. classing all those who have made at least one edit in 2013 as "active". Of the 32 users on this list, about half have made less than around 25 edits this year. The remainder can be considered highly active, but some have not contributed much in the past few months. A cursory glimpse of the editing history of these most active participants seems to show that they edit widely, with a relatively small proportion of edits to articles relevant to Adelaide or South Australia. However, I do know that there are other editors making quite significant contributions to Project articles, who have never added their names to this list. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just gone through the list of active participants again, keeping only those who have made at least 1 edit in 2014, or later - and moved about half-a-dozen to the inactive list. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated list again, just one editor moved to "inactive" list, as his last edit was in May 2014. Bahudhara (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Updated the list again - changed status of 3 participants from Active to Inactive for those who haven't made an edit since 2016, and of 4 participants from Inactive to Active. Bahudhara (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template Transclude lead excerpt.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you. &mdash; The Transhumanist  07:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:University of Adelaide
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:University of Adelaide. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
 * – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

event at south australia history festival
anyone possibly able to check this out? interested inter-stater unable to attend would be interested to know if any locals likely to check it out:

Event Type: History Hub Date: 10/05/2019 Start Time: 12:30 PM End Time: 1:30 PM Description: The National Archives and State Records of South Australia have been delving into their records of crime and investigations in South Australia. From murder to mayhem, robbery to espionage the archives contain a wealth of tragic, scandalous and bizarre stories. Come along to hear about the state’s colourful and notorious characters and how their crimes were uncovered.

Join us in celebrating the South Australia History Festival! Library: City Library Location: Studio 1

please contact if anybody is likely to check it out. JarrahTree 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Upcoming conference - Wikimedia Australia Community Conference, Sydney, 15 June 2019
For more information, please see Wikimedia Australia Community Conference, Sydney, 15 June 2019 JarrahTree 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Forthcoming loss of portal
Project members or watchers might need to heed the critique of the soon to go portal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Abandoned_micro-portals_for_Australian_state_capitals

JarrahTree 13:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Trams
We currently have an article Trams in Adelaide which is primarily focused on the tram network before 1956, and an article Glenelg tram primarily about the line and services that remained when most tram lines were ripped up. I have just added a bit to the first article about the next expansion of the current tram line. Since this will include a four-way junction, it's not really the "Glenelg tram" any more if you are travelling between the East End and the Entertainment Centre. I can't find "AdeLINK" anywhere on Wikipedia, but I wonder if it's time to rethink those two articles and their hatnotes. The Trams in Adelaide article is now almost twice as long as it was in 2009 when it was last reviewed for GA, primarily because of additional information about the rolling stock. Perhaps we should have a major shake-up, then work to get one or more of the articles back up to GA or FA standard. Thoughts? --Scott Davis Talk 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that changes and clarifications will need to be made. I see the modern network and the historical network as two distinct things, despite the shared heritage of the Glenelg line. I think we should keep the Glenelg line article, create a new article about the modern network and keep Trams in Adelaide as the article for the historical network. This is similar to the approach in Sydney, where Trams in Sydney deals with the former network and Light rail in Sydney covers the current network. Newcastle does the same thing - Trams in Newcastle, New South Wales for the former network and Newcastle Light Rail for the forthcoming network. I would split Adelaide's articles at 2005 - this was when the dilapidated Glenelg line was extensively upgraded and before the new trams were introduced and the extensions built.


 * Here in NSW, our transport authority refuses to use the word 'tram' and brands the current network as 'light rail', so the tram/light rail split is quite natural. I notice Adelaide Metro does use 'tram', so perhaps Trams in Adelaide should be repurposed as the article of the current network and the current article at that title moved to Trams in Adelaide (historical) or similar.


 * Regarding timing, I think we should wait until more information becomes available on the network's operation and branding once the extensions open before making significant changes to the current article structure. Gareth (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that "Trams in Adelaide" should be the overview/summary article, with subordinate articles as required. We still use the word "tram" to refer to them, rather than "light rail". It seems that most of the current and future expansions will be on-road, so the Glenelg route will become more "different" as being predominantly on its own right-of-way (I'm not sure how reserving part of the road median is counted). Things I noticed to be missing at the moment included (and perhaps this list belongs in a separate section of talk:Trams in Adelaide eventually):
 * Detail of the Port Adelaide network (closed 1935)
 * Any mention at all of the Gawler tram (were there any other isolated lines not mentioned?)
 * A clear delineation of where the "Glenelg tram" ends (at the city/entertainment centre/Ayers House/Elder park end).
 * An explanation of why it was important that Port Adelaide to Albert Park needed to accommodate steam engines
 * Was the rest of the Port Adelaide network also built to broad gauge, was Albert Park eventually converted to standard gauge, or did it always need separate rolling stock?
 * I accept that starting to make large changes would break the GA assessment. Other than that risk, I don't see an issue with making the structural changes "now" so that updates as (and if) the network expands, there is somewhere sensible to document it. We know that it will go to Ayers House/Old RAH and it already goes to the Entertainment centre. There is a plan, but no present funding commitment for a few more extensions, and a hand-wavy idea for a few more. --Scott Davis Talk 10:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like a couple more articles to consider are Municipal Tramways Trust and Trolleybuses in Adelaide. The MTT article contains a list of tram types as well. The Trolleybus article says they supplanted some of the tram routes. I have added the current extension to the Glenelg tram route map, but that can't go on if there are too many longer new routes. --Scott Davis Talk 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I support the idea of giving the Adelaide tram articles a refresh. I have a few points:
 * the "Trams in Adelaide" article is becoming (or currently is) "uncomfortably long" (Article size). We could consider splitting this into multiple articles that describes the: (1) network, possibly history and current network; and (2) the trams themselves. I can visiualise the "Trams in Adelaide" article becoming a summary/overview. In addition, I believe the "Electric tram types" section in "Trams in Adelaide" could be in a separate article because of its length and detail.
 * I oppose having tram types in a plurality of articles. I believe it becomes difficult to maintain as compared to having all the tram types in one article (I'm referring to the section in Municipal Tramways Trust).
 * I believe the GA assessment should be the last priority and should not restrict our editing. The tram network is changing and so should the article. And if I recall one of Wikipedia's policies, articles are never finished...they will continue to be improved.
 * It may be a good idea to create a template (to place at the bottom of every Adelaide tram article) for everything related to the Adelaide trams. It could show readers which tram types or routes are in service, discontinued or in planning.
 * Honette 03:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's a quick attempt at a navbox. I went wider than just trams, as they overlap with other modes of public transport, and there didn't seem to be a navbox for any of them except the broader South Australian Railways locos. --Scott Davis Talk 10:01, 23 July 2017 (UTC) (substituted from historic copy 8/2/19)


 * I think that's good. It gives the reader an overall scope of Adelaide's public transport. Honette  10:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks great. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 13:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It turns out that "my" template was late to the party. Adelaide public transport was created a week earlier with pretty much the same intent. --Scott Davis Talk 13:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

In regards to reformatting the Trams in Adelaide article, I have a proposal based on the current structure of similar articles for Sydney. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 05:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Trams in Adelaide is maintained in its current form to cover the historic tram network and former rolling stock, similar to Trams in Sydney.
 * 2) Glenelg tram article is maintained in its current form to cover the light rail line in its present form (Glenelg—Ent Ctr; Festival Plaza, East End).
 * 3) A new article, named Light rail in Adelaide to be created as an outline of current operations, and detailing the "AdeLINK" network proposal, in line with Light rail in Sydney. Any future light rail developments not directly concerning the Glenelg line can be listed here.
 * Questions I don't think are resolved yet include:
 * Where should the descriptions of tram types (retired and current) belong? Currently, types A-H are described in Municipal Tramways Trust, types A-H1, plus the Flexity Classic and Citadis are described in Trams in Adelaide, and H, Flexity Classic and Citadis are in Glenelg tram as well.
 * Where is the "end" if Glenelg tram, and will it shift in future? Until 2007, it was Victoria Square, then Adelaide railway station (the "City West" stop), then from 2010 it has been the Entertainment Centre. Will it still be the "Glenelg tram" when it sprouts more ends and the ends are (besides Glenelg) at the Entertainment Centre, Elder Park and Ayers House? What about when the ends are at Prospect and Norwood? If we think the end will recede back to Victoria Square or North Terrace junction, then why not document it that way now, as the Government literature says the east end extension is the first stage of EastLINK.
 * Why choose to use the term "light rail" when the sources generally don't? AdeLINK is described as a tram network, not a light railway network like Sydney's is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottDavis (talk • contribs) 07:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2. There are no currents plans to further expand the current Glenelg line, rather add a series of new, separate lines. These lines can be covered initially in a collective article, then go into more detail in separate articles (see Light rail in Sydney or Trams in Melbourne).
 * 3. True, if we do end up splitting the rolling stock into a separate article, there would be more space for current operations to be listed, similar to Trams in Melbourne.
 * 3. True, if we do end up splitting the rolling stock into a separate article, there would be more space for current operations to be listed, similar to Trams in Melbourne.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Mitchell 98 (talk • contribs)
 * My point at 2) is that once EastLINK and/or CityLINK are built, it won't be the "Glenelg Tram" to the East End stop (in front of Ayers House/OldRAH) then EastLINK beyond, it will stop being Glenelg Tram somewhere short of that point, so we should not keep incrementally adding to that article, we should keep Glenelg tram about that route and start a CityLINK or AdeLINK article or keep the extra bits in Trams in Adelaide until there's enough to write about one of the other routes. In fact, there is a diagram somewhere from DPTI that shows the track layout on North Terrace without a right turn track from King William Street to North Terrace (East), so that might never be "Glenelg Tram". What I don't know yet is where "Glenelg tram" ends and the rest of the network starts. --Scott Davis Talk 14:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Glenelg tram", currently and in future government AdeLINK plans, is defined only as Glenelg to Entertainment Ctr. My suggestion was to keep this article as it currently stands (including Festival Plaza and East End, for now).
 * CityLINK will form an independent loop within the city, incorporating the East End extension. CityLINK will share part of the Glenelg line on North Terrace, but only between King William St and West Tce; it is still a separate route. Once CityLINK and the other routes begin construction, they can get their own articles.
 * We can keep a general overview in Trams in Adelaide (in line with Trams in Melbourne article). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 09:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Article split proposal
I have put split tags on the top of both Municipal Tramways Trust and Trams in Adelaide pointing to this discussion. I propose to cut out the long lists of tram types from both articles, and combine them in Tram types in Adelaide. --Scott Davis Talk 23:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC) It has been over a week. I am about to implement this. --Scott Davis Talk 08:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: This would certainly free up space on existing articles and collate related information into one article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Having them in one place will make maintenance easier and reduces data fragmentation. I believe the tram types section is long enough to have its own article. This course of action will reduce the size of those two articles and make it more comfortable to read as per WP:SIZE Honette  02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Update - I have finished for tonight. If someone else wants to tidy up further, you are welcome. My followup thoughts are:
 * Did we make the Tram types in Adelaide article big enough it should be split per (major) class, like Melbourne tram vehicles?
 * Is the correct style "X type tram" or "type X tram"?
 * Have I completely destroyed Trams in Adelaide such that we should pre-emptively remove the "Good article" status, and consider what needs to be done to get it back?
 * Thanks for help and comments so far. --Scott Davis Talk 10:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I thoroughly support your splitting efforts, Scott Davis, for what it’s worth. Comments on your follow-up thoughts:
 * "Tram vehicles/types in [Melbourne/Adelaide]" is better from a Wikipedia search viewpoint than "[Melbourne/Adelaide] tram vehicles/types". See the categories "Railways in [city]" vs "[City] railways". The latter reflects a city focus, the former a railway focus. Hence I'd recommend staying with "Trams in Adelaide". Of course, "Tram lines ..." could be considered....   ;-)
 * All MTT drawings and documents I have seen over the years are in the form "Type [letter]", i.e. "Type H" etc.
 * Re the "Good article" status, in this case I think the saying "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission" might apply. SCHolar44 (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Organisation of tram articles
(Nick, I apologise if I have affected any of your latest edit -- I didn't notice it until I had finished. Please let me know if I have.)

For the past few weeks I’ve been thinking about the way in which the Adelaide tram articles are organised, prompted by the comments above and my own feeling for a while that their organisation isn't as good as it could be. I have very carefully read the views on article splitting.

After sketching up various ways in which it could be done (and going back to the sketches in the cold light of morning to see often that they weren't adequate), I believe the best way would be to structure the articles as shown in this overview diagram:



The diagram could be included in the main article, i.e. Trams in Adelaide.

This isn't too far different from the ideas of Scott, Honette and Nick – and the consequences would be a firmer structure that the 140-year history and organisational complexity demand.

Following this through would give rise to: • trimming some of the main "Trams in Adelaide" article (not deleting any content — just shifting some detail to subsidiary articles, e.g. some of the description of the first electric trams, mid-century decline, patronage), so that the coverage will be uniformly at overview level, incorporating all key events and characteristics but not getting into into great detail — a good quick read for the casual visitor

• tidying up some content in the subsidiary articles after the text has been added from "Trams in Adelaide"

• creating two new articles: Horse trams in Adelaide and City Tram Extension project

• creating two new sections in the "Trams in Adelaide" article: a brief coverage of tram types (as with other sections it would be linked to the article of that title), and a summary of the various transport management agencies.

This table summarises what would be involved:


 * Infobox in the "Trams in Adelaide" article

Separate from the above, I thought the infobox could be much more helpful, and I have spent some time on reorganising and expanding it. I've put it on the Trams in Adelaide page.

Presentation of the infobox in chronological order of eras will help to give a clearer picture – this is supported in Template:Infobox tram network guidance. I have added some important details including kilometrage, agency dates and exact locations of the Hackney and Glengowrie depots. This may make for a long infobox, but by starting with key dates in the non-collapsible start of the infobox, with the eras initially collapsed, this should be enough to satisfy many casual readers (not everyone curious about Adelaide's present-day trams will be interested in horse trams, say) so they can choose what they want to look at. You'll see I have hyperlinked a lot of relevant sections or articles throughout the infobox too.

I have included dates in the infobox headings for the eras to accommodate the fact that the dates of operation do not exactly coincide with dates of ownership – such as when the MTT ran horse trams for 7 years while electrifying. Where there has been such an overlap I've made it evident in the "Operator(s)" section for each era (e.g. "MTT extant 1907–1975" in the MTT street lines section).


 * Mention of related articles

At present there are 8 valuable subsidiary articles in addition to "Trams in Adelaide". If we add new ones on horse trams and the City Tram Extension project, there will be 10. I have designed a quote box, initially collapsed, to make it easier for readers to go straight to them – all items will be linked. Here's what I have in mind:


 * Doing the work

I would be willing to implement the improvements as outlined, provided there is consensus on the way ahead (which I realise may not be the same as above).

This would involve transferring material between all the articles for better placement and to avoid duplication, creating the two new articles, and contributing a little "smoothing out" editing. Shouldn't take too long ...

Hmm, I get like this when I'm about to go down with the flu ...

I'm looking forward to hearing your comments and ideas! Cheers, Simon. ==>  SCHolar44 (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support It looks like a well-thought-out plan to me. Thank you. --Scott Davis Talk 22:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Partial Support You present a firm argument and I support the creation of a Horse trams in Adelaide article. However, there are some elements I personally disagree with:
 * The term "City Tram Extension" relates only to the current East End/Festival Plaza extension project, as stated in the DPTI article you referenced and on the DPTI website. It does not cover all twenty-first century expansions, which were undertaken as part of separate smaller projects over the past decade. The twenty-first century expansions are already covered in slightly more detail in the Glenelg tram article as that is the route that they pertain to.
 * There is a distinction between the small isolated projects to extend the Glenelg line over the last decade (as above), and the proposals of new lines and a new network. Current network expansion plans are detailed in the main Trams in Adelaide article under "Proposed expansions".
 * The idea that was put forward in previous discussions was to keep the Glenelg tram article related to the primary Glenelg-City route; and once new routes are constructed they will be covered in their own separate articles similar to the Melbourne routes articles. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 04:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Another possible section or article(s)
I am not sure if I have thought of content that is missing from Municipal Tramways Trust and for the future Horse trams in Adelaide article, or if there need to be more new related articles. The topic I am thinking of is other trams in South Australia that were never connected to the main Adelaide network. The MTT article says there was a depot at Port Adelaide, but doesn't indicate why, so I'm not sure if the Port Adelaide network was ever connected to the Adelaide network, or was taken over then closed. Gawler, South Australia mentions the horse tram there (with a photo) which did not close until 1931. It suggests that was a broad gauge line as locomotives could be delivered from the factory via the tramway. Several early rural freight railways were operated by horses and called "tramways", but they may be out of scope for inclusion here. --Scott Davis Talk 07:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the corresponding article on the St Kilda Tramway Museum website, the Port Adelaide-Albert Park horse tram line was purchased by the MTT in 1912. The original Albert Park route (terminating at the depot) was electrified and reopened alongside the new Semaphore, Largs and Rosewater routes in April-May 1917 (all lines originated at "Black Diamond corner" Commercial Rd/St Vincent St intersection). The S/L/R routes closed in July 1935 while the Albert Park route closed November 1934 (shared portions were still used by the other routes). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * So bought by MTT, but not connected. There's a 1907 route map in Commons that shows one line from Port Adelaide (I guess Albert Park). Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 15:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct. There are north/south and east/west maps from the old versions of the Tramway Museum's line articles that may help, it wasn't pulled over to the updated versions. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 13:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Article 1: Draft of new article on Adelaide’s horse trams
Dear people,

Following the ideas I put forward on this page on 2nd April last year for some substantial upgrading of Adelaide tram articles (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Adelaide), I was fortunate to have time in the subsequent four months to put in some really intensive effort -- a rare opportunity for me -- on research and on sourcing of images for two new articles and upgrades to others. In more recent months, more sporadically, I have been mainly fact-checking, making improvements after independent review, and generally mopping up.

I have almost concluded my work on all articles and have finished the first one, which I have uploaded for the time being on a subpage of my User page for your comment. Others will follow.

The first article is one of the two new ones I proposed. Covering the horse trams, it expands on the current horse tram section in the Trams in Adelaide article.

The consequential change in the Trams in Adelaide article is to reduce the horse trams section to a summary level. Similar reductions have been drafted to make "Trams in Adelaide" a high-level overview of the entire subject of Adelaide's trams for the general reader.

A lot of new coverage has been added to what was in the Trams in Adelaide article. The new material is backed by 20 references in addition to the earlier 17. There are more photos too, chosen for relevance. These are mainly from the marvellous State Library of South Australia collection or have been provided by friends and colleagues, including several from prints obtained from SLSA in pre-digital times (remember them?).

I revisited all existing references because, as might be expected over time, some sources are no longer accessible (e.g. the Tramway Museum St Kilda's "yellow brochure") and some were incorrect or vague. As always, the National Library's Trove for Adelaide newspapers has been invaluable. Seven publications have been added to the "Further reading" section. I've been hugely fortunate to have had help with source text, photos, suggestions and fact-checking from several established tramways authors.

Back in April I said (under the heading "Mention of related articles"):


 * "At present there are 8 subsidiary articles in addition to 'Trams in Adelaide'. If we add two new ones on horse trams and the [tramways revival] there will be 10. I have designed a quote box, initially collapsed, to make it easier for readers to go straight to them – all items will be linked."

I have included this panel and intend to have it in the other articles.

You can see the draft article on a subpage to my User page: User:SCHolar44/subpage1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SCHolar44/subpage1).


 * Please comment, including "support / do not support" moving to the Mainspace

Please state on this page, below, whether you support or do not support the proposed article being moved to the Mainspace. This is where you can make any comments not specific to the horse trams article – e.g. about the "Links to other articles about trams in Adelaide" panel.

Please also leave any comments or queries about the content of the horse trams draft on the draft's Talk page – User talk:SCHolar44/subpage1.

Soon I'll upload a table updating the earlier proposed structure of the articles.

I look forward to hearing your comments. PS: Please be gentle! ;-)

Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 06:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Looks stellar - can't see why it'd be remotely controversial to move it to mainspace. Almost a Good Article right off the bat! The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * support it looks like a pretty good article to me. Well done. Rather than the custom box at the top for other articles, I'd consider a template using sidebar that would then be the same on all the tram in Adelaide articles, and appear below the infobox. --Scott Davis Talk 01:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestion, Scott. I did consider a sidebar, but ended up preferring a collapsible box on the left because it's seen first by the new reader, whereas under the infobox it isn't so prominent. I also noted that the sidebar isn't visible on mobile devices. See what you think when a few more articles are uploaded? SCHolar44 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Article 2: Draft of new article on Adelaide’s tramways revival
Dear people,

The second of the two new articles I proposed last April was to have been called, using the terminology of that time, City Tram Extension Project. With a change of government and public transport direction I believe it best to avoid all ephemeral project titles. I've therefore named the draft "Adelaide’s tramways revival". (The City Tram Extension Project is included, of course – it's mentioned under the Labor Government section.)

The article covers the changes since the Glenelg line was re-engineered in 2005 – i.e., all route extensions and rolling stock acquisitions. I envisage this page is the one on which future developments can be written about, instead of in the "Glenelg tram" article.

You can see the draft article on a subpage to my User page: User:SCHolar44/subpage1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SCHolar44/subpage2).


 * Summary of proposed structure of Adelaide tram articles

As promised, here is an updated version of the structure I proposed last April (updated 20 February 2019):

I look forward to reading your comments.

Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the "Adelaide's tramways revival" title is awkward (it's a bit of an essay title) - maybe "Trams in Adelaide in the 21st century"? I'm not sure - maybe someone else has a better idea. The content is, as always, great, and the logic for dumping the previous title sensible considering the change of government. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, I thought it was a bit evangelical. In the end I kept it because I think the revival after 47 years of near-death experiences is the major point. I did give serious consideration to "Trams in Adelaide in the 21st century" but since we're near the end of the second decade I thought it was a bit passé -- and it omitted the major point. However, if people prefer that I would be equally happy. SCHolar44 (talk) 06:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Just remembered (10 months later): another title I thought about was "Tramway extensions" -- but the substantial re-engineering of the Glenelg line wasn't an extension. "Renewal" I thought was a possible alternative, though it contained less of a "back from the half-dead" element. "Renaissance" could suit but is probably more overblown than is justified, especially since the wings of visionary route extensions have been clipped to the stump. So I kept returning to "revival". But still OK with 21st century if people prefer that. Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Holdfast Bay railway line was ever a tramway. It was acquired by the MTT, but then closed rather than converted. I'm not sure if it belongs in this series. Incidentally, I added stuff about the Bakewell Bridge to Currie Street, Adelaide tonight, with a couple of newspaper references which make an interesting read. It appears that Glover Avenue only existed at the end of Currie Street since 1925, when the Bakewell Bridge was built to reduce (tram and motor) traffic in King William Street. Before that, Henley Beach Road had a level crossing, but I didn't find a reference for where it went through the parklands - Hindley Street? --Scott Davis Talk 14:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right of course -- it never was a tramway. This was an element that I had parked to one side very early on so some reference to it wasn't lost in coverage of the early Glenelg line, and it stayed there. Thank you for that, Scott -- I'll remove it from the navigation list and just cross-refer to in the Glenelg line article -- and thank you also for your addition I've now had a look at your addition to the Currie Street article; interesting refs.


 * The source for the Henley Beach tram proceeding through the west Park Land from Hindley Street, as shown on my map of horse tram routes, was the City inset in Map 1 on page 159 of Adelaide road passenger transport 1836-1958, drawn by Chris Steele based on information compiled by the meticulous Lionel Kingsborough. Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have that, but I found an online 1920 street index map that shows Mile End Road across the parkland from Hindley Street to Henley Beach Road, and the tram line along North Terrace, Port Road then parallel to the railway (Google Maps calls it Deviation Road, but Streetview looks like it's a shared path) to then go west on Henley Beach Road. I've updated the Currie Street article as that seems to be the current place for HBR. Perhaps horse trams could cross railways, but electric ones couldn't because of the wires. --Scott Davis Talk 10:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting. The Kingsborough/Steele map names "Mile End Road" as the thoroughfare and the map shows a slight northward curve at the very end of Hindley Street towards the west. I annotated Mile End Road as "15" on my horse tram map on account of lack of space for text in that position.


 * Re tramway/railway crossingss, this may interest you -- from page 58 of Adelaide road passenger transport 1836-1958:


 * The Exeter crossing affair
 * The lines to Semaphore, Rosewater and Albert Park were officially opened by Mrs. J. Sweeney, Mayoress of Port Adelaide, on April 3 1917. However, problems had by no means yet been solved over the Exeter crossing. Six weeks later, on May 15th, one tram was allowed over the crossing. It operated in splendid isolation a service between the crossing and Largs. Passengers were required to walk over the railway line to another tram on the Port Adelaide side of the line when they wanted to return to Port Adelaide. The Trust soon tired of this grossly inconvenient arrangement, and commenced running a full service over the crossing on May 28th, without the Railways Commissioner’s consent. The showdown occurred at 11-21 a.m. on May 30th, when a Railway gangers’ trolley arrived at the crossing laden with sleepers and red flags. Burly gangers threatened to block the passage of any tram over the crossing by the simple expedient of dumping the load of sleepers on the tramway tracks. Passengers again commenced walking over the crossing. This continued 10-30 a.m. the following day, when a truce was arranged. The Trust was permitted to operate trams over the crossing on condition that a signal cabin be installed to control the trams.[Port Adelaide News, 1 June 1917] The signalman was to cut off electric-power from the tram wires over the crossing whenever a tram approached, thereby preventing trams from proceeding onto the railway tracks. This system was instituted, and it was not surprising that on September 9, a tram happened to be using the crossing when the power was cut off. This arrangement left the tram neatly stranded on the railway line, and a major accident was only barely avoided [The Advertiser, 22 August 1917]. The switches for cutting off power to the trams were then hastily removed. In 1931, the tramway signal cabin was replaced by a system of coloured light signals operated from the Exeter railway station.


 * Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I found the St Kilda Tram Museum map of the electric tram network. It has photos and descriptions for just about every stop on the MTT tram network. It says Deviation Road was used by Henley and Hindmarsh tram services from March 1910 until 1925 when Henley tram services were instead routed to the City via the new Bakewell Bridge and Glover Avenue towards Currie Street. There is very little information on it about horse trams prior to electrification, however another page talks about the horse trams on Hindley Street and Mile End Road, but doesn't specifically talk about crossing the railway lines. --Scott Davis Talk 01:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've just added a category and some links to Tram types in Adelaide. As a general comment, I would suggest that that article be shortened by transferring a substantial amount of its content to the individual articles about the individual types. At the moment, the individual articles are less detailed than the general article, which is the opposite of the usual arrangement. Bahnfrend (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment, Bahnfrend.


 * I definitely agree with your comment that the individual articles are less detailed than the general article. In fact far less detailed: most of the ones about MTT trams are four or five-line stubs, with no "in service" photos and for some not even an image of a preserved example. And the "main article" about the 200 Series is the worldwide Citadis article, which has only one row in a huge table.


 * The draft of my upgraded "Tram types in Adelaide" article, which I hope to upload in a few weeks' time, is even longer. There's a reason for that. At about this time last year, when I was scoping the upgrading work I would commit myself to, I first got feedback from some other people. The clear conclusion (bearing in mind this is an encyclopedia, not a fanzine) was that readers with a mild curiosity about Adelaide's tram types (as distinct from fleeting visitors who may only look at the overview, "Trams in Adelaide") would get a much better feel for the subject by looking at the types in the one article. I therefore proposed last April that I would improve "Tram types in Adelaide"; I didn't include the individual articles in my proposal.


 * Even though the upgraded article is longer, it features a prominent panel at the head of each tram type titled "At a glance", which for the typical reader will provide enough of an overview for their purposes. More detail follows the panel in each case.


 * Given the unique history of Adelaide's tramways, I don't think there are strong reasons for having the "Tram types in Adelaide" article as a cut-down overview (which will be in the "At a glance" panels anyway) and the detail in the individual articles. The upgraded "Tram types in Adelaide" article allows things like easy comparison of specifications, discussion of the reasons over time for new designs, economic constraints and so on.


 * My suggestion would be that when the upgraded "Trams in Adelaide" article is uploaded someone might re-work the individual articles taking advantage of the new material I've put into the "Tram types in Adelaide" article. In the meantime, the "Trams in museums" table needs updating by someone with good published sources. ;-)   Cheers, Simon. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In principle, I don't have a difficulty with your comments. However, I would suggest that you have a close look at WP:AS, and especially the WP:SPINOUT section of that page (and also WP:SS), before finalising and uploading the upgraded general article.  As I indicated in my earlier comment, a general article on any particular topic is usually less detailed than the individual spinout articles. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bahnfrend. You are doing a great job SCHolar44, but if you are essentially writing a large article about the various types with an intro, a section for each kind of tram, and a footer, then it would probably be fairly straightforward to use each section as a upgrade/replace the extant tram type articles, then raise to the summary the key feature that distinguished each new type (bigger, faster, lighter, more comfortable, tighter turn radius, ...). The detail pages, summary of types, and other articles all need to be made consistent on whether they were "Type X" or "X Type" trams too - were some each way or is it simply that editors here have been lazy? I'm happy for the first two to be moved/merged into the mainspace articles if you want to. --Scott Davis Talk 11:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm familiar with the policies you mention, Bahnfrend.


 * I will soon be uploading the draft, and I think it would be better to discuss this further then, when you'll see the totality, rather than "sight unseen".


 * "Type X" or "X Type"?


 * Scott, you mentioned 'The detail pages, summary of types, and other articles all need to be made consistent on whether they were "Type X" or "X Type" trams too - were some each way or is it simply that editors here have been lazy?'


 * As far as the MTT was concerned, I've never seen anything other than "Type X" on all the MTT drawings I've come across: for example, on these end elevation drawings.  None of my colleagues have been able to come up with anything that contradicts that.


 * The problem as I see it is that almost everyone in the enthusiast community has become used to hearing and reading "X Type" – it trips off the tongue more easily when you're used to referring to trams in other states as "X class", and of course it's correctly "100 Series" in the contemporary DPTI nomenclature. (I confirmed with DPTI what their usage was for Flexity and Citadis trams and have incorporated that into the articles I've been working on.)


 * Given the documentary evidence, and despite the colloquial use of "X type", I don't think there is any case so far to depart from the terminology used by the MTT: Type X. My 2 cents worth….


 * I propose to change the mentions of X Type to Type X throughout. SCHolar44 (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Article 3: Draft of upgraded article on Tram types in Adelaide
Dear people,

This is the third article I've moved to the Draftspace (User:SCHolar44/subpage5) for your comment, as a component of the upgrading of the articles about trams in Adelaide. The earlier two are now in the Mainspace.

This update to the earlier table summarises the present state of play:

To the "Tram types in Adelaide" article: in April last year, when I scoped some changes to the structure of articles about trams in Adelaide, I had concluded that this article would generally need only some minor amendments to reduce duplication. On closer examination, however, I found a lot of the content need improving. In part this was a natural consequence of the passage of time, and "small nibbles" editing that can introduce inconsistencies. It also had different levels of treatment, and outdated reference to events/time.

A year later and with the amazing help of several transport historian friends, I've put the draft here for your comment.

The article now contains information about all of Adelaide's tram types, from horse trams to the Citadis. Each tram type is described on two levels:


 * an "At a Glance" level for the casual-and-quick reader


 * a more detailed level – immediately after the "At a Glance" level – for readers who want more information about any particular tram type.

GETTING AROUND A CONVOLUTED SUBJECT

Earlier Talk Page comments suggested that text about tram types in the other Adelaide tram articles should be more towards high-level summaries. I have transferred some of the more detailed text from those other articles (not all of which are in the Mainspace or Draftspace yet) into the "Tram types in Adelaide" article.

An expandable panel at the start of the article provides links to all the articles about Adelaide trams.

LEVEL OF DETAIL

The question of "how far should I drill down?" faced me, as it does (or should) every Wikipedia writer. I have put in a lot of effort to observe Wikipedia's guidance urging writers to stay at summary level and to put detailed content, if pertinent, in footnotes. This has resulted in both some detail being removed and some going into new footnotes. Since some previous writers may not like this, I should explain. I've deleted text such as:"Vehicle 102 has also had traditional leather hand holds installed instead of rubber hand holds which are fitted to the rest of the fleet."

This detail about one tram is clearly incompatible with Wikipedia's policies since it's appropriate only to an enthusiast audience. (And even then ....)

ORDER OF LISTING

I believe the present listing of tram types in date order:


 * A, B, E, D, A1, A2, C, F, F1, G, H, E1, H1.

makes life very difficult for the general reader. So I have listed them:
 * in alphabetical order of main type
 * with conversions subordinate to the "parent" type
 * with a link in each "At a glance" panel to the type that was acquired next.

The resulting order is:


 * A, B, Type B conversions to A1, Type B conversions to A2, C, D, E, Type E conversions to Type E1, F and its variant F1, G, H, H1.

LENGTH OF THE ARTICLE

The draft article comprises about 2,000 words in the "At a glance" panels that appear at the beginning of each type section and a further 7,000-odd in the remaining body text.

Bahnfrend and Scott Davis recommended earlier that the article be shortened by transferring a substantial amount of its content to the individual articles about the trams. Bahnfrend observed that at the moment, the individual articles are less detailed than the general article, which is the opposite of the usual arrangement. He referred to WP:AS, and especially the WP:SPINOUT section of that page (and also WP:SS) and observed that a general article on any particular topic is usually less detailed than the individual spinout articles. (That doesn't apply right now, of course: the lengths of the individual articles from Type A to Type G (rounded ±5) are in deep "stub territory": Type A, 300; B, 150; C, 160; E, 160; F, 130; G, 200. H has 480; H1, Flexity and Citadis have no Adelaide article.)

I've kept those comments in mind throughout and in fact roughly mocked up some alternative presentations. However, I couldn't satisfactorily iterate in separate articles the ongoing aspects that spanned several tram types – such as reasons for changes in design or the economic/fiscal factors that so often militated against timely and appropriate investment by the MTT. I tried writing an article containing more or less the contents of the "At a glance" panels and that wasn't a good result either.

I asked myself how many readers would look at 16 separate articles to gain a broad understanding of the subject – versus reading either the "At a glance" panels on their own, or the panels plus selected text underneath that interested them. I don't think there would be many prepared to read 16 separate articles, even if they were more substantial than at present.

What would make the individual articles more substantial is new reference material that provides more detail. That's actually in prospect: I'm aware of a very large, very comprehensive, electronic book on Adelaide's transport systems, to be published soon, that will provide enough to satisfy the most ardent detail hound. :-)

My suggestion, therefore, is that the new "Tram types in Adelaide" article be given time to settle down, and when the new book is published someone write substantial new material to take the individual articles well be beyond the stub stage.

TYPE A OR A TYPE?

You'll notice I've used the wording "Type A" etc., rather than "A type". I'm well aware that "A type" is so commonly used among followers of Australian tramways that it's almost standard now – it accords with "W2 class" etc in all other states. However, in the absence of any evidence of the MTT using other than the "Type A" form in its documents and drawings, I believe it's important to use that term. I know some will disagree with this approach because "everybody says it that way". I suggest a direct comparison with another context, aviation. In relation to the RAAF's transport aircraft, the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, "everybody" associated with them uses the term "Herc" in normal parlance – without exaggerating I'd say almost never the official term. Yet the institutional term is invariably "C-130 Hercules" or just "Hercules". And that's how the aircraft is invariably referred to in Wikipedia – because of the practice of the institutional "owner". So I believe it's obligatory that the MTT's "Type ..." is used in an encyclopaedia article and everyday usage is, in that context, immaterial. That also goes for the "Type 100 / Type I" nomenclature in the present article, which has no reliable provenance at all.

Ferocious arguments welcome! :-)

PLEASE COMMENT

At least initially – while it's in the Draftspace – I'd very much appreciate constructive discussion rather than wholesale editing – especially if I have failed to transfer text from existing articles that you consider important. I'm very happy to explain my rationales if they aren't evident.

Please state below, on this page, whether you support or do not support the draft article being moved to the Mainspace.

I recommend you leave any comments or queries about the content of the "Tram types in Adelaide" article on its Talk page.

Enjoy!

SCHolar44 (talk) at 13:37, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the article to the mainspace. There is some discussion on Talk:Tram types in Adelaide that may be of interest.

The "Trams in Adelaide" upgrade will very soon be in the draftspce; I'll notify further.SCHolar44 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Popular pages
Greetings, On Adelaide "Project page" I added a section for "Popular pages", a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal
We are apparently supposed to care about Portal:South Australia. I've never really worked out what the intended purpose of a portal is, nor its intended audience. They seem to have been "a good idea at the time" and many of them are disappearing through WP:Miscellany for deletion, as Portal:Adelaide did earlier this year (see Miscellany for deletion/Abandoned micro-portals for Australian state capitals). Looking at Portal:South Australia now, I see a nice twelve-year-old photo of the view of the Festival Plaza - it has a sculpture instead of a hole, and missing several newer buildings. If we care, we should maintain it better. If we don't, we could help to clean up by redirecting to Portal:Australia (assuming it's any better). --Scott Davis Talk 11:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have a current photo (of "something South Australian") for the top of the page?
 * I'm fixing the worst errors in the Did you know... box, but someone else might have some new stuff to add? Or more fixes?

Wiki Loves Pride!
 You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa (timestamp may not be accurate) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Believer (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Meetup 22
Meetup 22 has been hastily arrange, spread the word! Alex Sims (talk) 10:11, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Most-viewed stub article within this Wikiproject

 * Quentin Kenihan	Total 5,456	Daily 181	Stub --Coin945 (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this WikiProject still active?
Hello! Is this WikiProject still active? I was thinking of slapping a big Template:WikiProject_status inactive tag due to a lack of discussion on the talk page or changes on the project page, but it's possible you guys might just be hanging out in WikiProject Australia or in WikiProject South Australia. So, any thoughts about tagging this WikiProject as "semi-active" or "inactive"? Pilaz (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just checked the editors listed as "active", and they are all still active, though some are more so than others. (I generally move them to the "inactive" list if they haven't made an edit in the preceding 12 months.) Another use for this project page is that it enables us to organise Meetups, such as when we have Wikimedia Australia members visiting from interstate, although there haven't been any since the start of the COVID pandemic. (In case you're not aware, Australia has had some of the most stringent preventative measures in the world, including interstate border closures and lockdowns.) Once things settle down a bit more, IMHO it would be good to have a meetup sometime in the near future. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes a ton of sense. Best wishes for your upcoming meetings! Pilaz (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)