Talk:Tyne and Wear Metrocar

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyne and Wear Metrocar article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

North East England Start‑class

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Rapid transit / in UK Start‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

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

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

Livery - fleet list excessive

I don't think the detailed list of which units carry which livery is really encyclopaedic information for a general purpose encyclopaedia like Wikipedia, particularly as it is not referenced. I'm tempted to just get rid of it, but if consensus disagrees with me about its merits it should be reformatted, probably into a table. Thryduulf (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Undiscussed move

I'm not sure I agree with the recent page move from 'Tyne and Wear rolling stock'. Firstly this covers more than just the Metrocars, e.g. the maintenance vehicles. Secondly, it also covers the soon to be new fleet, which may or may not be called 'Metrocars'. Thirdly the use of '&' instead of 'and' is not in line with the main article. It would be good to discuss a move like this. G-13114 (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a pointless move to me. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article is specifically about only one class though. Maintenance vehicles are covered at Tyne and Wear Metro#Ancillary vehicles. The new fleet information is adequately covered at Tyne and Wear Metro#Replacement fleet although there is perhaps scope for a separate article on the Stadler stock once more details emerge, whatever they end up being called they won't be Metrocars. By way of comparison, in a similar light rail environment in the UK, Manchester Metrolink doesn't have a 'Manchester Metrolink rolling stock' article, but separate articles for AnsaldoBreda T-68 and Bombardier M5000. Seastidee (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you've decided unilaterally to change the scope of the article without any discussion, and move things to the parent article without discussion. There is a London Underground rolling stock article and a West Midlands Metro rolling stock article, so this was consistent with those. Having the ancillary vehicles here was far more sensible than cluttering up the main article. G-13114 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again I have to say I am in agreement with G-13114 on this. I propose that the two articles are reverted to their former selves and a proper discussion is held about any proposed move. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with G-13114 and Murgatroyd49. Restore articles to their previous state and file a WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 08:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would have to be done by an admin. G-13114 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@G-13114:All I have effectively done is structured it in the same way as the Manchester article, i.e. a high level section in the operator article and detailed articles for the individual tram types. As the most frequent editor of all three (Metrolink, AnsaldoBreda T-68 and Bombardier M5000), you presumably have no problem with the format?

Only because you've decided unilaterally to change the scope of the article without any discussion, and move things to the parent article without discussion. Per WP:BRD there is not a requirement to discuss changes before they are made, only to so if somebody has a problem with it as we are now. Before my first edit, 80% of the article was about the Metro-Cammell built stock, so thought is made more sense to use it as the basis of the article.

There is a London Underground rolling stock article and a West Midlands Metro rolling stock article True, but the London Underground article, it is an overview article for a couple of dozen classes that by and large have individual articles.

Having the ancillary vehicles here was far more sensible than cluttering up the main article. It added one sentence of 600 bytes to a 67,000 byte article, less than 1%. Not without precedent, again this is how it is dealt with at Manchester Metrolink. Presumably you didn't have a problem with it 'cluttering up' that article when you introduced the Ancillary sub-heading to that article?

Evidently there is some inconsistency in UK light articles, some only having the xx rolling stock articles covering all rolling stock such as West Midlands, while others have individual articles for each type of rolling stock, e.g. Manchester Metrolink, Sheffield Supertram and Tramlink. Perhaps worthy of a discussion at WP:WikiProject UK Railways to try and get a consistent format. Seastidee (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you seem to be a minority in that view. If you go changing a long established format it's generally best to discuss it first. In any event if you insist on it, I'm pretty sure the correct place for this article would be British Rail Class 994, to be consistent with British Rail Class 399. G-13114 (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious cites

Couple of forum and social cites that are not WP:RS. Anybody have any published works to help comply? Seastidee (talk) 06:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 April 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Preserve Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock. No consensus to move away from long-standing title. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyne & Wear Metrocars → Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock – Per the long term stable name of this page, which was moved without any discussion on the 1 February and has been disputed by editors. Failing that this should be moved to British Rail Class 994, to be consistent with British Rail Class 399. Either way the current title is wrong with its ampersand, and should be moved somewhere away from its current title. G-13114 (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. b uidhe 20:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. G-13114 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock would be appropriate where there were multiple types are covered, e.g. West Midlands Metro rolling stock, however as the article is solely about one type of rolling stock, don't see a need. Don't agree with renaming British Rail Class 994 either, as they primarily operate on the Tyne and Wear network with only 20% being on shared Network Rail infrastructure. Some are also classified as Class 599s.[1] Worth noting similar examples, e.g. the London Underground S7 and S8 Stock is classified on TOPS as the British Rail Class 499 for the same reason, yet the London Underground name prevails. Ayewintip (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to clarify, seeing the article was unhelpfully renamed mid-discussion, my preference is Tyne & Wear Metrocars Ayewintip (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having a generically-titled article when there's effectively only one class to write about seems counter-productive. Once there's a second class of vehicles, then a "rolling stock" article (including maintenance-of-way), and individual articles about the classes, would seem to make sense. That said, the ampersand needs to go. Mackensen (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support - Information about the specific class of unit should be kept at Tyne & Wear Metrocars, if this is indeed the correct title (seems a bit generic to me - isn't there some sort of Tyne & Wear Metro Type 95A or something?). Information about the history of the T&WM fleet - all classes - should be at Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Page moved while under discussion at 13:32, 20 April 2020‎ C2A moved page Tyne & Wear Metrocars to Tyne and Wear Metro rolling stock over redirect: Page was moved by User:Seastidee on 1 February 2020 without any discussion nor edit summary, and several editors are wanting the article to be moved back to its previous name. See #Undiscussed move. — wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Had a look at some of the trade magazines from the late 70s / early 80s, they are interchangeably referred to as Metrocars, Supertrams and trains, but no specific mention of a class designation which would be the preferred name, much like we the M5000s in Manchester. @Mattbuck: No mention of Tyne & Wear Metro Type 95As, only that it was originally planned to order 95. Metrocars does appear the most commonly used term by Nexus and industry publications (although often they are referred to as just 'cars' or 'trains') so while Metrocars is a bit clunky, in the absence of a verifiable class number probably the most appropriate. Ayewintip (talk) 05:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.