Talk:Manchester Metrolink

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Manchester Metrolink has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 26, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

Next: History of Manchester Metrolink[edit]

If there are any editors willing to take the baton and spend some time bringing History of Manchester Metrolink up to standard, that would be great. I'm thinking we could copy the current main history over from this article to that, and then add more detail? I think it's a chance to use more images and go into the original proposals with more depth? --Jza84 |  Talk  15:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Could develop into a very interesting article. I remember adding some historical 1980s maps of the original plans a couple of years ago (illustrating the Glossop Line proposal), but unfortunately despite valid fair use rationales these were obliterated by deletionists and I sort of gave up after that. So if you want any images like this, someone needs to draw them from scratch. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
We now have SVG maps for the current network. I intend to work on creating a series of maps which show the timeline of the various lines opening. It would also be possible to create maps of the various proposals made in the 1980s too. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
That would be great. JPG, SVG whatever. The original proposals can be seen in this 1986(?) brochure - trams to Marple and Glossop! Two years later the plans were updated to include Salford Quays. (25 years later and the good folk of Didsbury are still waiting!) These maps are actual scans of genuine GMT publicity - I think these are very interesting for comparison, especially the way the designs deliberately emulate London Underground maps. Just a shame they are not allowed to be included on Wikipedia, not even for critical commentary (for some reason, this image is allowed but Metrolink isn't). Wikidwitch (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The existing history section on the main article is now quite long - I'd suggest a substantial reduction so that it summarises the key events, since all the detail is to be covered by the new history article. Seem OK? Wikidwitch (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just about to start a GA review, it was going to be tomorrow (see the section two below). If you can do it in a day or so (well less than on week max.), I'll wait; otherwise you'll need to persuade Jza84 to withdraw this GAN nomination and then resubmit it when its finished. I'm certainly not going to waste my time reviewing an article that is being proposed for a major rewrite/substantial reduction. Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to keep the history section here. Articles are meant to be stand alone pieces of work, and it would be a requirement of the WP:FA criteria too should we ever want to take it there. I'm actually coming round to the idea of changing the History of Manchester Metrolink into a timeline, like Timeline of the London Underground, which would be much easier to maintain, and able to integrate things like accidents with simplicity. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh OK, could work. I thought the aim was to reduce the main article by lifting the bulk of the history section into the history article (as with History of the London Underground)? I don't know what's best, I'll leave it to you.Wikidwitch (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes the main split that created the History page occured because it was good content but longer than the main article itself and was a jarring sidetrack to the reader when the focus of the article is the present, we agreed at the time to leave a paragraph summary and redirect to the history article for more detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WatcherZero (talkcontribs)
I've done a very quick mock-up of what it could look like at User:Jza84/Sandbox2 (again - sorry!). I believe it could be completed in its entirety within 24-48 hours with a little bit of teamwork. ;) --Jza84 |  Talk  18:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm only interested in Manchester Metrolink, sorry to put it that way, so if the changes only affect History of Manchester Metrolink then my comments above about time frame have no relevance. P.S. I'm happy to help on the latter, but I've almost no knowledge at all of its history. Pyrotec (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Droylsden updates[edit]

Hello all,

I've prepared a modified version of the article in readiness for the East Manchester line to Droylsden opening on Monday 11 Feb. It is located in my sandbox, and has all th e necessary updates and references to the new line and stops. It also has new maps courtesy of Nilfanion, which I think are great. I'm not likely to be around at midnight-ish on Sunday, so if someone would be kind enough to copy and paste it over nearer or at that time, then that would be great. When pasting just needs the categories restoring, and the Metrolink brand in the infobox making visible again, other than that it's all done in readiness. --Jza84 |  Talk  15:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite the Metrolink website and the MEN saying the line is opening on Monday, it is already in service - I travelled to Droylsden on it today (it's an extension of the Bury-Piccadilly service). This MEN article says Droylesden residents could start using it for free from yesterday (Friday, 8th), but they were certainly checking tickets on-board today It was very well loaded, too. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm tempted to update the article then in that case. I've googled it and the forums about Metrolink seem to confirm this. --Jza84 |  Talk  13:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the updated version of the line is great. Lots of work has gone into producing those maps. Look forward to seeing it once the full expansion has occurred. Delsion23 (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The maps are excellent work, well done. Wikidwitch (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester Metrolink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 13:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]

Sorry for the lack/absence of comments here. I've now read through the article once, quite rapidly, but I've not checked anything in the way of references, citations, copyright, etc, and on first impressions only I'd put the article somewhere between GA and FA, but I could be wrong.

I'm now going to work my way through the article, slowly, section by sections, starting at the History section and finishing with the WP:Lead. This will probably take the whole of the weekend, perhaps longer. Pyrotec (talk)

  • History -
    • Origins -
  • Quite a reasonably comprehensive and well referenced subsection. I have no great objections to what is stated here: Piccadilly and Victoria were built in the 1840 and where unconnected and located at opposing edges of its city centre (my paraphrasing) and that is true today (but their names changed over time, these are the modern ones), but there was Central in 1880 (gone as a station) and several schemes for linking-lines on viaducts, some of which were built. However, what is written is perhaps quite adequate and fit for purpose. Pyrotec (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013‎ (UTC)
    • Phase 1 -
  • I moved the link from T68 to T-68, since the former was clearly wrong.
  • Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
    • Phase 2 -
  • Perhaps a minor point, but I have no idea where Eastlands is (well its in Manchester I presume on fairly strong grounds). All the other name places I could find more information via wikilinks.
  • Otherwise, this subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
    • Phase 3 -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

This subsection appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Operator -

...stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This section appears to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • Infrastructure, Travelling & Patronage -
These three sections appear to be compliant with WP:WIAGA.
  • This is quite a long article and this lead at four-paragraphs in length makes a reasonable attempt to meet the requirements (of WP:Lead). There are one or two (perhaps four) small points that the lead does not cover, but it can't cover everything, so I'm going to mark this as "compliant". Pyrotec (talk) 15:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


FYI Eastlands is the general area around the former Bradford Colliery and the sporting complex based on the City of Manchester Stadium. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very for that information. In that case I've not been there. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Overall summary[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative and well-referenced article. I've certainly learnt much about the system as a result of this review.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm pleased to be able to award this article GA-status and I believe that it has the potential to progress through WP:FAC. Congratulations on a fine article. Pyrotec (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you sir! Much appreciated. Work continues to perfect the article using your feedback as a guide. Thanks again, --Jza84 |  Talk  12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

GA feedback[edit]

I know this article is going to GA at the moment and from my cursory flick through it stands a good chance. Two key points need to be addressed:

  • The History section with the origins, phases etc. is too long. One of the criteria of a Good Article is the Broad in its coverage which addresses the main aspects of the topic and does not go into unnecessary detail. The Manchester Metrolink page should just focus on providing a balanced overview of the system's history, stations, rolling stock, usage numbers, branding etc. A History of Manchester Metrolink page already exists and history section prose which is cut from could quite easily go into this page. It would be welcomed as the History page needs some attention too.
  • Metrolink are in the process of constructing a new Airport Line from St. Werburgh's Road which will be open by 2016. At no point in the article does it mention that the Airport Line is under construction and due for opening in 2016. Same with the Rochdale extension. The future expansion should be made more clear.

Aside from those key main points which need to be addressed - the service route map is fantastic, layout is fine and a thorough reference list. Stevo1000 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Stevo1000 - much appreciated. I'm confident too that this is or at least very nearly a Good Article.
You're right about the Airport Line - I'll try and box that off this weekend if nobody else does. I also think the contribution from the Man City squad for the EML is also worth a mention in the Branding and Public relations section.
With regards to the History section, it's roughly the same size as the one at London Underground, and is actually aimed at the WP:FA criteria, which requires articles to be comprehensive, omitting no major facts or details by being well-researched and thorough. I'd be comfortable and happy to lend support to shifting information to the History of Manchester Metrolink, but on two counts - 1) it that is completely rewritten, and goes beyond a cut-and-paste of material here (i.e. genuinuely discusses more detail), and 2) We also create a Timeline of Manchester Metrolink. For me that preserves the information for editors and provides the best all-round coverage and options for readers. That's not my 1st preference, but I'm trying to be collaborative and consensual. Thoughts? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
It's a very good article. I applaud your efforts. It's a very interesting read. Regarding the history section - it's up to you really. If your pushing for the Metrolink to be a featured article then it's probably worth keeping the detailed history prose. My thinking was that it's a bit heavy on the history for a GA and that some of the text could be better used in the History of Metrolink article.
Sadly I don't get as much time as I wish I could on Wikipedia these days so I'd be lying if I said I could collaborate with you on the improvement of Metrolink pages. I just visited the Metrolink page a few weeks ago and noticed it had changed considerably so I thought I would give some feedback. Also might be worth mentioning in the Ticketing section that passengers who travel from Greater Manchester on the train can use the Metrolink for free around the City Zone. I believe it is called the Freedom of the City scheme by TfGM [1]. Regards. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Rochdale updates[edit]

In light of the news that Metrolink will open up to Rochdale on 28 Feb, I have repeated the same trick done earlier in the month and prepared a ready-made updated version of the article at User:Jza84/Sandbox3. It has all the necessary updates throughout the article, including maps, services and (finally) a reference with an accurate network length. If I don't manage it on the evening of the new service, any editor is welcome to copy and paste it over for a seemless transition. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

missing word?[edit]

A small point, but is there a year missing in the phrase, "this pattern was modified in to a twelve-minute service"? Thanks for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It should probably be "this pattern was modified to a twelve-minute service". Ta! --Jza84 |  Talk  19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

New map[edit]

If anyone is willing and able to resolve the request at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop#Metrolink this week, I'd be very grateful. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Phase three[edit]

Will someone put in a intro para explaining what the hell phase three is. It immediately goes into waffle. I was no better after reading some of it to what the extension is.

Well, I didn't know what phase 3 was but the second sentence of the section tells me "...Greater Manchester's top transport priority was set as a third phase of Metrolink expansion, endorsing lines in key transport corridors running east to East Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne, south to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport, and northeast to Oldham and Rochdale." I read that as meaning that phase 3 consists of lines running east to East Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne, south to Wythenshawe and Manchester Airport, and northeast to Oldham and Rochdale. Am I missing something? Richerman (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It starts like this ...."With Metrolink as a whole exceeding patronage targets and reducing traffic congestion on routes running parallel to its lines,[56] the system was considered a "phenomenal success" by officials and transport planners in Greater Manchester". It does not tell me up front what phase 3 is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
It explains that Metrolink was considered a success by transport planners because it was reaching/exceeding targets for passenger numbers and traffic congestion. The next sentence explains that the same planners wanted more of this by expanding the network. The sentence(s) after that explain those expansion plans to the reader. For me that's pretty crystal. What would you suggest? - if it's not right, then please help us --Jza84 |  Talk  16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Having slept on this a couple of nights and re-read that section today, I've rewritten it. Hopefully this change addressed any confusion/concerns. --Jza84 |  Talk  18:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

East Didsbury updates[edit]

Hi all, the South Manchester Line is opening between St Werburgh's Road and East Didsbury on 23 May 2013. As such I'm in the process of updating the maps, and have (as per the last few extensions to the network) prepared an updated version of this article here ready to paste over next week. This newer version will have all the updates needed for the whole article to make sense and add up, and also includes the necessary modifications needed in light of the closure of Mosley Street Metrolink station on 17 May 2013. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Colour map - update[edit]

Hi all,

Would anybody be willing and able to update File:Metrolink route map w colour.svg with the new section of line to East Didsbury? File:Metrolink route map 23 May 2013.svg could be used to copy, paste and re-colour the new line in. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Transit type[edit]

Just a note that I've done a revert in accordance with WP:BRD here. The element about it being notable for picking up on-street running since Blackpool is POV, and probably better explained in the main prose. That said, the lead mentions that the system has both segregated and on-street running. The element about the transit type being tram does not tally with the source material out there. Page 30 of Holt's 1992 book Manchester Metrolink does not say this is a tram system, it says that somebody coined tram as a nickname (!) - the book is very, very clear that, despite popular references to trams, Metrolink is a light rail system. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Tram" and "Light rail" are not mutually excusive concepts. One may be regarded as a subset of the other: Tram systems are a form of light rail system. I recall that when the Manchester system was introduced there was a nervousness on the part of officialdom about referring to trams because it was thought the word had an old-fashioned image. None the less, the vehicles used in Manchester are undoubtedly trams, whatever Holt's book may say. It is absurd to suggest that this is just a "nickname". The people in Manchester call them trams because they obviously are trams. -- Alarics (talk) 06:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Indeed so Alarics. It may also be added that the phased removal of block signalling, and its replacement by line-of-sight throughout the system, amounts to the extending of 'tram' functionality (as it is now understood) across the whole of the current Metrolink. In 1992, the only other light rail systems in the UK then were the wholly grade-seprated (and block-signalled throughout) Tyne & Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway. The only functioning 'tram' system was Blackpool. Now, there is a substantial body of UK light rail systems where there is at least some on-street running, and much of the segregated track is at grade. Indeed Blackpool has now been remade to conform to this emerging standard. So it makes sense to distinguish 'light-rail' in the UK into two classes; 'light-metro' systems (block-signalled, grade separeated); and 'tram' systems (line-of-sight signalling, not grade-separated). Both Metrolink and Blackpool now sit clearly in the latter category. The 1992 reference is no longer relavant to this issue and should be removed. TomHennell (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
What Alarics and TomHennell have said are both true. Jza84 you really need to take to account that a tram is any rail vehicle which is designed to travel across streets, whether it be complete street running or a combination of both street track or reserved railway, it is still a tram system. If the Metrolink system is completely grade seperated from road traffic but without being built to rapid transit specifications like the Tyne and Wear Metro and Docklands Light Railway, then only it would count as a complete light rail system as you're trying to state. Also, if the system is only referred as light rail in this wikipedia page, it can become quite confusing for some people who know the system more as trams than light rail as I have stated in your talk page so it makes sense to call it both tram and Light rail. Its a bit unfair if edits with true information are constantly being undone just because you may have a different opinion on the system, if there are no references for the information then it can be added and only untrue information can be removed or undone. I have now changed the transit type to Tram/Light rail with a proper reference saying that Metrolink is both Tram and Light rail and not that 1992 book reference.Broman178 (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The final edit is acceptable - it cites its sources. But sirs, this is pretty exasperating and I can just about crack out an apology for this rant... but for goodness sake, "any material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add or delete content solely because they believe it is true." This is a very important principle of Wikipedia!!! You can spend all day defining the world away and disregarding source material, but that's for a website other than Wikipedia. Therefore, rather than mocking reputable published views and sources as "absurd" and obsolete, why not give credit to someone spending a lot of time and effort in improving this article by working within the guidelines, and and the end of the day just cite your sources please! --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Point taken, Jz; you are quite correct to insist on the Wikipedia principle that all material added should have been published in a reliable source. But you should note that the obverse does not hold true; not all material published in a reliable source merits inclusion in a relevant Wikipedia article. That particularly applies to statements in an info box or lead para; where what should be stated is the predominant categorisation of transit type in published authoritative sources. Minority views, however reliable their source, may (but need not) be discussed within the body of the article. In this case, the predominance of current authoritative sources is not in dispute. Metrolink is a light rail system whose vehicles are trams So the categorisation of Tram/Light rail is confirmed as the correct one. Moreover you may note, this is also the categorisation given in Wikipedia for Croydon Tramlink - and since in all relevant respects the two systems are clearly closely comparable - that makes sense. TomHennell (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Stops or Stations[edit]

This may well have been fully debated before, and I'm happy to go along with the consensus; but it does seem odd that the article consistently refers to the tramstops and 'stations'and never as 'stops'; whereas TfGM and all the official reference works go the other way round. Is there a general Wikipedia policy here that tramstops on light rail systems should always be designated stations? TomHennell (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

The articles on the individual stations/stops pre-date my contributions. For me personally I'd go with "stops" as it's what TfGM go with. However, the articles are set up as "stations". Books seem to use the terms interchangably, and there's debates on Metrolink forums about which term is appropriate or correct. I've tried to get a compromise in this article mentioning both terms, and word individual station articles to say "X station is a stop on Y line" (for example, see Milnrow Metrolink station). --Jza84 |  Talk  21:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know for certain, but I suspect it arose from the fact that of the lines opened under Phase 1, a vast majority of the new Metrolink stops had previously been railway stations. Agreed it is very odd that Metrolink is the only tram system in Britain where we do this. The only light rail systems where 'station' seems appropriate to me are those with no street-running sections (Tyne & Wear, Docklands), and it is very strange that we are using a term here that neither the owner, operator nor passengers apparently would...--Peeky44 What's on your mind? 08:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that if a tram halts at an actual railway station such as Victoria or Piccadilly, it should be called a station. Looking to naming conventions for London, where a railway station/tram/tube station are the same premises, the article title just refers to the whole thing as a "station" (e.e. Wimbledon station). It would be odd to refer to "Piccadilly tram stop". Then we have the former BR stations such as Timperley Metrolink station which are now tram-only - it would seem odd not to continue refer to these as stations, as they are station structures with buildings and platforms. But where there is an newer on-street construction consisting of a couple of platforms, like for example Droylsden Metrolink station, it's hard to see this as a station, and I'd personally be happy for these to be called "stops". It's an awkward distinction I know, and some more thought would have to go into it. Personally, I don't even know why there are individual articles about some of these minor tram stops - there's practically nothing distinctive anyone can write about something like Queens Road Metrolink station, but we still have a whole article about it! Cnbrb (talk) 09:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
I confess don't see that at all Cnbrb. A tube station is still a 'station' not a 'stop' whether it interchanges with heavy rail or not. A bus stop is a bus stop even when it is located at a train station. By your logic, we ought to be referring to the 'Euston Bus Station'. So far as I coceive it personally, 'Piccadilly Station' refers to the building - and 'the Piccadilly tram stop' is what you find in the undercroft of the station; alongside 'the Piccadilly taxi rank'. Trams and buses have stops, trains and metros have stations.
Where there may be confusion is in a future with heavy rail converted to tram-train operation. If trams and trains are pulling up at adjoining (or even the same) platforms, then we may have to see haw they become disignated in popular discourse and official nomenclature. But - for Metrolink - that is all hypothetical and a fair way into the future. For the moment, it would seem that Wikipedia is out of line with both popular usage and official terminology on this. TomHennell (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Well I'm just throwing in an idea. London Tramlink stops are all "stops". But if I go to one of the ex-BR Metrolink stations, it still feels more like a station than a stop, even if the parcels office and ladies' waiting room has long since vanished. :-) I think the conversion of old BR stations and the Metrolink name have both resulted in Metrolink being considered as a metro rather than a tram, if on a psychological rather than technical level. I don't know - there's a lot of ambiguity surrounding these terms, as discussed in the Light rail article. In many cities the distinction between U-Bahn and tram is so blurred you don't know what to call it (Frankfurt, San Fransisco). But yes, I agree re consistency and you could be right.Cnbrb (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi all,

There's an interview with Peter Cushing with the MEN here. It's quite in depth, but I'm not sure if there's anything in there that would be of value to pillage for the article. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is he going to apologise for the destruction of Alderaan? I think we should be told. 13:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Trafford Park Line[edit]

Following the decisions of the Combined Authority on 25th October - specfically to buy now the 10 extra M5000 LRVs required for the scheme ; should the Trafford Park line not now be moved out from section 3.5, to form a new section 1.6? TomHennell (talk) 12:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we should hang back just a little longer. I suspect that 2CC and Trafford (Park) routes will be combined as a single expansion phase (4), using a single contract or contractor, meaning we can structure our article around how it pans out. Thoughts?
I noticed the change from "Trafford Line" to "Trafford Park Line". Is this now what they are going to call it? (I personally preferred the "North Trafford Line", but oh well!).
Incidentally, has anyone thought about watching and/or updating the Timeline of Manchester Metrolink too? There's been loads going on in the last month or so, including night testing in the town centres, and sign offs for the new projects, but we've not kept it bang up to date :S.--Jza84 |  Talk  13:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think 2CC and the Trafford Park Line can readily be put out to tender as a single contract, as the funding mechanisms are so different. Effectively, 2CC is now under way - the decision on the phasing was the key issue - and will form a part of Phase 3b. The Trafford Park Line cannot go ahead until the Earnback finance is confirmed as being accessible; which will take some time to do.
Which would be a good argument for holding back; but against it, the ten M5000s are being purchased next year. This is clearly an exercise in financial leveredging; nobody expects that these ten trams will eventually transfer back to the Trafford Park Line on its opening. TfGM are clearly hoping that, once in service, the ten trams will demonstrate sufficient extra business to pay their own way (not difficult, if each tram unit earns upwards of £750,000 year on average, and the purchase price is £3m). This is a device to keep the M5000 production line open another year, when another rationale will be found for another 10 tram order. Nevertheless, this will mean a spend of around £32m in advance payments against the Trafford Park Line, whichmakes it much more than just a current proposal. TomHennell (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
more on the timetabling of the project here; . This report suggests that there will be a public consultation in spring 2014; I would suggest that, by that stage, the line would need to appear in section 1. TomHennell (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
You beat me to it with the article! Yes, it looks like the line is subject to the usual public inquiry and TWA. But assuming that goes through successfully next year, then I agree it should be at that point that we move it inot section 1, presumably in its own Phase 4 subsection. --Jza84 |  Talk  11:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

New Islington[edit]

New Islington Metrolink station has now been re-classed as in the City Zone according to the BBC.[2] Could the appropriate alterations to the article be made? Patyo1994 (talk) 00:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


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)


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),[1] but have become widely known as trams.[2]

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.[3] 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).[4][5][6] The nominal capacity of each T-68 was 201 passengers, of whom 86 are seated; the maximum crush load capacity is 270 passengers.[7] Each unit was given a number from 1001 through to 1026;[8][6] 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.[8] 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,[9] 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).[10]

In 1999, Metrolink's passenger fleet was bolstered by six new vehicles to run on the Eccles Line.[11] 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.[11] Three of the earlier T-68 fleet were similarly equipped,[11] and were known as T-68Ms.[12] 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.[12] Initially only these vehicles were permitted to operate the Eccles line but the entire fleet was modified between 2008 and 2012 for universal running,[11] under a program known as the T-68X Universal Running programme.[13] The T-68As were retired on 30 April 2014.[14]

  1. ^ Holt 1992, p. 30.
  2. ^ Coward & Henderson 2014, p. 184.
  3. ^ Ogden & Senior 1991, p. 40.
  4. ^ Ogden & Senior 1991, p. 45.
  5. ^ a b Ogden & Senior 1992, pp. 114–115.
  6. ^ Ogden & Senior 1991, p. 41.
  7. ^ a b Holt 1992, p. 42.
  8. ^ Holt 1992, pp. 26–27.
  9. ^ Holt 1992, p. 48.
  10. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference metuk was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ a b Coward & Henderson 2014, p. 29.
  12. ^ Coward & Henderson 2014, pp. 31-32, 59.
  13. ^ Cite error: The named reference end was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
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.[edit]

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)

Let's be careful[edit]

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. Delsion23 (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Just seen the edit you've made. I agree with it and support it. Delsion23 (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Airport Line[edit]

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.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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 - ЗAНИAWikipedia 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 - ЗAНИAWikipedia 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 - ЗAНИAWikipedia 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 - ЗAНИAWikipedia 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 - ЗAНИAWikipedia talk | Wikibooks talk 21:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Line articles[edit]

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).

Delsion23 (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. Delsion23 (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? Delsion23 (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. Delsion23 (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. Delsion23 (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Template deletion proposal[edit]

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[edit]

Metrolink route map w colour.svg

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. Delsion23 (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 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 (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Tram stop naming conventions[edit]

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[edit]

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.[edit]

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:

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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? Delsion23 (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[edit]

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:

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

Thanks very much for your work on this G-13114, much appreciated. Delsion23 (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on history section.[edit]

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.[edit]

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[edit]

  • 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[edit]

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. Delsion23 (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! Delsion23 (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Service patterns[edit]

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. [3] Zackhally (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge & shorten History section[edit]

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. Delsion23 (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[edit]

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. Delsion23 (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, Delsion23 (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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)