Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Adelaide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Riverside Precinct Adelaide Meetup
Next: T.B.D.
Last: 9 June 2017
This box: view  talk  edit

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Adelaide articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Adelaide articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

There hasn't been much activity here (ok, so there hasn't been any activity, but I like to be positive), but I figured this would be a good place to start. I'm thinking it is time for a meetup - January 15 is the 10th Birthday of Wikipedia, and there is loot available for events, thus it makes sense to hold one. :) I can organise the Writer's Centre in the city if we want it there, or we could go for another venue, and there may be some funding floating around that will cover drinks and/or birthday cake. Anyway, if anyone still has this watchlisted, toss in your thoughts. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan, Bilby. I'm not really putting forward any specific ideas at this point, just seconding your motion. By the way, I didn't realise Wikimedia funding would go towards meetups, not that I mind either way. Donama (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
There was a bit of discussion, but generally the thought was that rather than run Wikipedia birthday events, the Chapter might be able to provide support. The nature of which has net to be determined. :) Generally I'd like to see the Chapter support meetups and similar, as that fits with their purpose of helping encourage the development of free content. The Foundation is also supporting events for the 15th - I think they may be free t-shirts on offer. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Count me in, fellas.Bahudhara (talk) 02:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Cool. I'll contact the Foundation about the shirts. :) Any preference on venue? I can ask the Writer's Centre in Rundle Street, as I've used that before, but they don't supply food so we'll need our own pizza, party pies and fair bread. (Ok, I may skip the last two). Otherwise we could try and find a coffee shop or something which will feed us. Or a pub, which has advantages of its own. - Bilby (talk) 03:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not central, but how about Sarah's Sisters restaurant on Semaphore Road? It's vegetarian, but they do great food and they are licensed. They are open during the day and on Friday nights - I'm not sure about Saturday nights during summer (15 January 2011 is a Saturday) - but I know the owner (Stuart Gifford) and I'm sure that we can come to a special arrangement if necessary. He would be very interested in having us there. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Is that the same one that was off Hindley Street for a bit? I went there once, and the food was great. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I've only known Stuart personally since earlier this year, but I've known of him by reputation for nearly 20 years. His first restaurant (that I know of), also called Sarah's (or Sarah's Kitchen??), was for many years in Hutt St in the SE corner of the city; more recently he had one in Port Adelaide (in anticipation of the boom that was supposed to happen due to the redevelopment ... ) before moving to Semaphore Road. He's into environmental sustainability and very community-minded; and I've actually been talking quite a lot to him recently about Wikipedia. Bahudhara (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I've talked with Stuart at Sarah's, and he is quite agreeable to having us there. He is open on Saturday evenings - it's quieter in the evening than during the day. He is also willing to put on his Friday evening menu for us. (He has been encouraging locals to come on Friday evenings to meet and talk about environmental sustainability, etc., with a "green burger" for $15, pale ales for $5 and in effect operate as a wine-bar.) It's a good atmosphere, quite pleasant with a garden out back, and can easily accommodate 30 or so people. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
if it is still possible that souds good to me. I can think of at least 3 or 4 people straight off that would like to go. Should we go with that? And when would he need numbers? - Bilby (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
When I last spoke to Stuart 10 days ago, he was quite happy to have us and he said that he would pencil us in for that date (15th Jan). I can keep him updated re numbers as we get closer to the date. This talk page has 67 watchers and it has already been accessed 74 times this month, so potentially there may be quite a bit of interest in the event even though it hasn't been reflected in this discussion so far. I suspect that many people may not yet be focused that far ahead, and that once the New Year has passed we will get more of a response. And do you have any ideas about the format? I have a data projector and can borrow a screen, if necessary, if anyone wants to give a presentation, etc. - I have set this up previously at Sarah's, so that's no problem. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 01:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As we are now getting closer to the 15th, we need to make some decisions, now rather than later. Although only three people have contributed to this discussion so far, looking at the page view count there does appear to be at least some latent interest out there. Maybe if the meetup sidebox on this page was updated with the proposed date of 15 January, rather than being left as 'TBA', it could elicit more of a response.

Looking at the reports of past meetups, I discovered that there are several past attendees who are still currently active - it would be good to get some feedback from them, as to how useful they found those meetups to be.

Although until now I haven't done much editing of Adelaide-related articles (as a relative newcomer, I've been concentrating on learning the ropes through more general editing) I do have quite an interest in local environmental issues (which overlaps onto environmental history, heritage, geography, etc.) and I'd like to help improve the coverage of these topics in WikiProject Adelaide. Perhaps if other project members list their particular interests, we can develop an agenda for discussion of these topics.

Recently through my involvement with another community event I printed off some T-shirt transfers, and found that it was a relatively painless process. Is this something that we could consider? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

@Bilby, I've amended the sidebox above to confirm the date at least, and updated the ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide page with a link back to this page. After checking the ten.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page, it seems that we have missed the deadline (1 January) for ordering the freebies from the Wikipedia Foundation, unless you have already arranged something. We can still do our own T-shirts if we want.
I've also looked at the pages for the other events around Australia and NZ, and they all seem to show a similar lack of response (so it's not just us). It may be that this just isn't a good time of year to be organising an event. On the other hand I have previously organised a number of community events involving catering where, despite pleas for RSVPs so that we could accurately estimate the numbers, regularly only about half of those who actually turned up had let us know beforehand that they were coming.
Are you happy with Sarah's Sisters as the venue? If so, I can send out a general notice, per the list in the sidebox above (which comes up if you edit it). Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Sarah's Sister is a bit out of the way in Semaphore even though I quite like the place when I don't feel like eating meat. Personally I'd be happy with that but perhaps we could consider a more central/casual option. (I don't think Sarah's Sister could accommodate a large influx without a booking that was accurate). Donama (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd second that. Semaphore is too remote. Stick to the CBD to minimise distance and maximise attendance. Alex Sims (talk)
If Sarah's Sisters is out (which I had considered as an evening venue anyway, perhaps more suitable for a more leisurely extended discussion), then we had better come up with another venue pretty quickly. Any suggestions? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
I generally like the idea of a nice leisurely meal. :) But if food isn't the first priority, or if we can live with pizza, I can organise the Writers Center in Rundle Street or space at UniSA City West with no notice. - Bilby (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Pizza means someone has to take responsibility, which is not looking likely at this point. Can I suggest a largish central cafe, Scoozi, 272 Rundle Street? Donama (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm all for pizza, or an internet cafe or something in the CBD. I wouldn't have turned up at Semaphore, but if it's in the CBD I may have a chance to appear. About a 10% chance, but I'm going to try. SellyminimeTalk 10:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Meetup page[edit]

Created Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/WP10 Adelaide in the hope of getting more discussion. Imagine many people are still on comms-free holidays at the moment, but for those who aren't, let's get a move on with this. Donama (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@Donama, 22 hits on the the page you created yesterday (although I'm the only one who registered), and 29 hits on this page compared with 10 over the previous 4 days. It seems that there is interest out there, though possibly some of it could be coming from event organisers interstate checking out what's happening here (just as I checked up on them yesterday). Maybe the ethos of responding to RSVPs has become uncool in these days of flash mobs assembling in response to Twitter tweets. Do we need to be prepared to order more pizzas and cake at short notice? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
22 hits seems piddly. I'm suspecting no one else is reading this. I really think there should be 3 or 4 confirmed yes RSVPs to go ahead with the event. I don't know how to quickly send out spam to locals. I wonder if someone can figure that out? Donama (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got two definite, including me. And I think I can get some more. - Bilby (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Despite 184 views of this page since the New Year (including 85 hits over the past three days), only four people have so far registered on Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/WP10 Adelaide as will / probably will be attending the event, with another couple of apologies and a 'maybe'. These high recent hit numbers are probably due to the reappearance of the banner advertising the anniversary and much of this traffic may just be curiosity-driven. The Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/WP10 Adelaide page, which can be reached by clicking through from the banner and event main page, has had 175 hits this month, including 96 in the past three days.
However some of this interest may well result in additional attendees, and I note that the Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/WP10 Adelaide page contains the item: Note: Pizza and drinks to be provided. @Bilby, have we made arrangements for this? Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
There's at least one more person going, and I've emailed some editors from Adelaide to let them know, so perhaps that will help. I think we may also be mentioned in The Age tomorrow, along with the other events. And yes - Wikimedia Australia has agreed to support the WP10 events with funding. I need to confirm the exact amount, but it should be a couple of hundred, so enough to cover all of us. - Bilby (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Meetup 12 June 2011[edit]

As Wittylama is stopping by, on relatively short notice, we thought it would be nice to have an informal gathering. Bruneli's seems nice, as they have decent cakes, and the Belgian Beer Cafe is just up the road for those thus inclined. So 6:00pm, Sunday 12 June 2011. Details at Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 5. Bilby (talk) 07:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm. I hope the title is a typo. SellymeTalk 08:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed it was. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

At the last meetup there was a general wish to do it again, so I've started a discussion thing at Wikipedia:Meetup/Adelaide/Meetup 6. This time we have well over a month to plan, so all should be much better. :) - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Adelaide to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Adelaide CBD Streets[edit]

Comments would be greatly appreciated on several options for Template:Adelaide CBD Streets; please weigh in on the talk page. YBG (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games[edit]

If there are any sport fans lurking around, Wikimedians to the Games is a collaboration drive to improve Australian Paralympic articles, with the most active contributors having an opportunity to go attend the Paralympic Games and to cover the Games behind the scenes with a press pass. The top two contributors will get their airfare and accommodation paid for. :) The drive official starts on 10 January 2012. --LauraHale (talk) 10:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Photo request[edit]

This is a call out to Adelaide Wikipedians. I have just created the article for your recently opened South Australia Aquatic and Leisure Centre. I have done a quick search and there doesn't seem to be a freely available image of the centre. If someone who lives near Oaklands Park could pop down and take photo of the centre (something like this image would be great), upload it to Commons and add it to the article that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is only a few minutes down the road - I won't be able to get down there until later in the week, but I'll be able to have a go at it then. We're probably limited to external shots at the moment, if that's ok. - Bilby (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Bilby, thanks for your quick reply. A good external shot would be great, like the example I gave. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:Adelaide landmarks[edit]

Just a note to say that I have just created Template:Adelaide landmarks. (See Category:Australian landmark navigational boxes to see the navboxes for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.) Could an Adelaide Wikipedian please run their eye over it to see whether anything needs to be added or removed before this get rolled out. The other navboxes also have sections on transportation and parks. However, there are two really good navboxes namely Template:AdelaideParklands and Template:Adelaide CBD Streets which already cover these areas but only in the City of Adelaide LGA. So currently, the major roads and parks outside of the city are not currently included. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 07:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your good work. I'm not sure what the scope of this template is meant to be -- the CBD, the metro area, or SA. KI, for example, is nowhere near Adelaide. The MEL template is clearly only for the CBD, but SYD seems a bit more extensive. As far as transportation goes, the Adelaide CBD Streets template only covers streets, hardly a complete treatment of transportation. I wouldn't be opposed to merging this template with the parks and streets ones, but others may have very different ideas. YBG (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Accessing eResources info session[edit]

For those who may be interested, the Sate Library of SA is offering an information session on accessing eResources from home, on Wednesday 7 August. It's free, but booking is essential - here's the registration page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

City of Adelaide[edit]

Members of this Project may be interested in a proposal to improve the article on the clipper ship City of Adelaide in time for the ship's planned arrival in Australia in February. See Talk:City of Adelaide (1864). Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Update of list of participants[edit]

I've just updated the list of WikiProject Adelaide participants. classing all those who have made at least one edit in 2013 as "active". Of the 32 users on this list, about half have made less than around 25 edits this year. The remainder can be considered highly active, but some have not contributed much in the past few months. A cursory glimpse of the editing history of these most active participants seems to show that they edit widely, with a relatively small proportion of edits to articles relevant to Adelaide or South Australia. However, I do know that there are other editors making quite significant contributions to Project articles, who have never added their names to this list. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've just gone through the list of active participants again, keeping only those who have made at least 1 edit in 2014, or later - and moved about half-a-dozen to the inactive list. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Updated list again, just one editor moved to "inactive" list, as his last edit was in Nay 2014. Bahudhara (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:49, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2014[edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride 2014, a campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia and its sister projects. The campaign will take place throughout the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. Meetups are being held in some cities, or you can participate remotely. All constructive edits are welcome in order to contribute to Wikipedia's mission of providing quality, accurate information. Articles within Category:LGBT in Oceania may be of particular interest. You can also upload LGBT-related images by participating in Wikimedia Commons' LGBT-related photo challenge. You are encouraged to share the results of your work here. Happy editing! --Another Believer (Talk) 20:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

location maps[edit]

Do we have anyone here skilled in cartography? Plotting suburbs of Adelaide (or in fact most SA towns!) on a location map of the whole state of South Australia is of limited information value. Adelaide and SA maps equivalent to some I've found for interstate would be nice. Examples include:

I'm not sure I like the colours, but maps of the Adelaide metro area, south eastern SA, and maybe even each district council could help to make the locator maps more useful. Has anyone already started on this, or should I be spending the Christmas holidays learning the intricacies of QGIS and Wiki map layout? Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 04:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea. I'm not sure why you'd need to know about the intricacies of QGIS, unless you are really insistent on changing the colour schemes. All you really need is an uploadable map image and latitude and longitude of its borders. The source of File:Australia Victoria complete Melbourne metropolitan area location map.svg is listed as 'Own work + VicMap Lite' by Cassowary and File:Location map Australia Sydney.png as 'OpenStreetMap' by Dr. Blofeld. Offhand, it seems like it would be easier to follow the Sydney example, but you could contact either of those users to see if they might be of some assistance. But then I've probably babbled on about stuff you probably already figured out. YBG (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for some more leads. I hadn't noticed the OSM connection. I'd noticed that the original uploader of the Victorian maps had retired from Wikipedia, had seen mention of QGIS in Wikiproject Roads for building highway maps, and had found quite a bit of CC-BY data available from DPTI. That was enough to prompt the enquiry and discussion about what maps might be most use (on the assumption there would be quite a bit of work making each one, which might not have been a valid assumption). --Scott Davis Talk 13:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Australia Greater Adelaide location map.svg
OK. I've had a go using OSM data. The colours in the Sydney map are OSM defaults. I found a tool called Maperitive that is supposed to do SVG from OSM data better than OSM itself. The default colours and rendering rules tend to emphasise the conservation parks and the not-quite-as main roads (e.g. Salisbury Highway pink stood out much more than Main North Road green). I think a lot more cartography is required to make a map that looks good on Wikipedia. The attempt shown here uses the Maperitive "Google Maps" rules. It is currently in use in my sandbox as an alternative to the Hillbank, South Australia article. Adelaide is really not a good shape to use a locator map oriented with North up. --Scott Davis Talk 01:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the location map would be better with no suburb names on it -- then the place being located would stand out. As it is, I can hardly tell where Hillbank is on the map on your sandbox. As far as vertical alignment goes, I agree -- it does seem to take up a lot of room in the infobox. Maybe you could have three location maps
  1. One at this same scale from the CBD thru the northern suburbs, but with the northernmost part cut off (e.g., Elizabeth & Gawler)
  2. One at this same scale from the CBD thru the southern suburbs, but with the southernmost part cut off.
  3. One at a different scale that included the parts cut off from the N and S and going out further east, maybe to Murray Bridge.
Just some thoughts for you to consider. YBG (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Version 1 was generated only using Maperitive. Version 2 has been edited with Inkscape to remove the Maperitive branding, town and suburb names, and route shields. It leaves a cleaner looking map. I don't know if it's helpful to people not familiar with Adelaide. One of the features of Maperitive compared to other tools is that it made a large number of separate layers which make it easier to edit with Inkscape, except that I'm not an expert user, and my computer struggled to run Firefox and Inkscape at the same time :-( If I was more competent, and had more time to concentrate on it, I'd try to make the main roads stand out more (maybe even back to the default OSM colours, but emphasise the green instead of pink).
A question I haven't answered for myself yet is what scale and features are helpful to someone not familiar with Adelaide? I would be concerned that only showing part of the metro area tends to give a distorted perspective on the city, but maybe that's OK for the purpose? My chosen extents went just past the urban railway system at Gawler and Seaford. Maybe a square map going Grand Junction Road to Cross Road works for the inner suburbs? Are LGA maps useful in SA? I don't know if they have recognisable shapes or meaningful information. That is what Victoria seems to have available, with an inset to show where they are (which would take quite some extra work I expect, and might be easier with Qgis and DPTI data instead of starting from OSM). --Scott Davis Talk 13:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Much better! And thanks for the comment about smaller maps giving a distorted view. Maybe including locator maps of the locator maps would help -- e.g., for north suburbs, map #1 from above would be accompanied by perhaps your map with a box showing the limits of the main guide map -- and maybe even another map of SA (or AU?) showing the limits of the Adelaide metro map. But maybe I'm over-thinking this. YBG (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I have added it or replaced the SA map to a few articles this morning, mostly with links from the edit summary back to this discussion. I'd still like to find a way of making the really-main roads stand out more from the slightly-main roads to assist viewer orientation, but I haven't reached sufficient familiarity with the tools yet to achieve it, so hoping to find that Version 2 is good enough for now. --Scott Davis Talk 04:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

LGA maps[edit]

Australia South Australia City of Playford location map.svg

I've now also practiced with QGIS and made one LGA map. It's the council I live in, so I recognise the shape, but is it useful to people who read Wikipedia from further away? You can see it in use at Smithfield, South Australia. It has a nicer aspect ratio than the Greater Adelaide map. The lines on it are FREE, HWY, ART and SUBA roads, plus railways.--Scott Davis Talk 04:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Scott, you recently added the Greater Adelaide map to the infobox of National Railway Museum, Port Adelaide, which I had previously edited. The aspect ratio issue you have mentioned means that the insertion of that map causes the infobox of that article to be rather distorted, and I suspect it does something similar to most of the infoboxes into which it has been placed. Can I suggest a solution to the aspect ratio problem for many of the articles about Adelaide area subjects, namely a map of the Adelaide CBD and a map of Port Adelaide? What I have in mind is something equivalent to, eg, {{Location map United Kingdom London Westminster}} (which may in fact be an LGA map), or {{Location map Scotland Edinburgh Central}} (which looks like it isn't an LGA map). Bahnfrend (talk) 09:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing and commenting. I'm happy to look into some other styles and scales of map when I have time. The extents of the Greater Adelaide map are roughly the ends of the urban railway system, and I tried it on examples of a few different types of infobox. A problem with putting Adelaide city centre and Port Adelaide on one smaller map is how to objectively choose the boundaries. For example what makes Port Adelaide worthy of including with the CBD, but not Glenelg or the eastern extent of City of Port Adelaide Enfield?
I haven't worked out how to do the wider inset like the first example you suggested yet. Getting the line weighting right based on the available data has been a challenge too; some of them put the second-tier roads standing out as more prominent than the main ones, which tended to make the maps quite difficult to understand. --Scott Davis Talk 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, my earlier post may have been confusing; I was suggesting two separate maps, one of the Adelaide CBD and the other of Port Adelaide. You could also create a separate, third, one for Glenelg. Incidentally, as a West Aussie, I'm also interested to know whether you'd be willing to create a Perth CBD, a Fremantle and a Perth metro area map, respectively (ie three maps). In the case of those maps, the local government boundaries would be suitable borders for the first two, and the third could be a map of the Perth Metropolitan Region. (As I'm not very familiar with Adelaide, I'm not sure whether similar comments could be made about that city.) Bahnfrend (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
If I get the time and am able to sort out the settings to generate better maps from OSM data (the source of the Greater Adelaide map), then I'd be happy to generate them for anywhere that didn't need the settings tweaking further. I don't like the colours I have used at the moment (which is derived from the "like Google Maps" settings), but the "like OSM defaults" settings wasn't sufficiently "like" it to give sensible emphasis to the right levels of roads, especially at thumbnail scale. I don't know if that's a general issue, or if the roads are tagged inconsistently in the OSM data of the Adelaide area. QGIS maps would be less likely to get done by me outside of SA, especially as I don't know where to find the right data. --Scott Davis Talk 00:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

propose merge from Adelaide–Crafers Highway to South Eastern Freeway[edit]

Please visit Talk:South Eastern Freeway#2015 Merge proposal for a new proposal to merge these two articles as it appears the government now considers it to be all one road. As there will be quite a bit of work, I decided to consult before being bold. --Scott Davis Talk 22:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

WikiConfererence Australia 2015 - Save the date 3-5 October 2015[edit]

Our first Australian conference for Wikipedians/Wikimedians will be held 3-5 October 2015. Organised by Wikimedia Australia, there will be a 2-day conference (Saturday 3 October and Sunday 4 October) with an optional 3rd day (Monday 5 October) for specialist topics (unconference discussions, training sessions, etc). The venue is the State Library of Queensland in Brisbane. So put those dates in your diary! Note: Monday is a public holiday is some states but not others. Read about it here: WikiConference Australia 2015

As part of that page, there are now sections for you to:

  • indicate your interest in possibly attending the conference (this is not a binding commitment, of course)
  • add suggestions for topics to include in the conference: what you would like to hear/discuss (again, there is no commit to you presenting/organising that topic, although it’s great if you are willing to do so), or indicate your enthusiasm for any existing topic on the list by adding a note of support underneath it

It would really help our planning if you could let us know about possible attendance and the kind of topics that would make you want to come. If you don’t want to express your views on-wiki, please email me at kerry.raymond@wikimedia.org.au or committee@wikimedia.org.au

We are hoping to have travel subsidies available to assist active Australasian Wikipedians to attend the conference, although we are not currently in a position to provide details, but be assured we are doing everything we can to make it possible for active Australian Wikipedians to come to the conference. Kerry (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Folks, just letting you know we will not be proceeding with Wikiconference Australia 2015 originally proposed for 3-5 October 2015. Thanks to those of you who expressed your support. You are free to watch the football finals instead :-) Kerry (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride![edit]

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!

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

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

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


Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

party column in lists of current councillors[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks the party column looks odd in the tables of councillors of south Australian LGA articles? I don't recall any party platform advertising material or funding to any campaigns, so I feel it presents undue weight to tag some councillors as belonging to parties now, but not reporting the trade unions or professional bodies they might have declared at the same time. In SA, even party staff stand as ""independents" for local government. --Scott Davis Talk 04:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely worthy of discussion. I don't really have an opinion, but I'd like to see others. Donama (talk) 05:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I have to say that I did a double-take when I first saw these edits, as (unlike, e.g., NSW) traditionally party politics haven't generally played an overt role in local government elections in SA, so it did seem somewhat out-of-place, and close to OR. Having said that, there are numerous examples of elected council members or candidates moving on to stand for Parliament at state or federal level, or indeed, moving the other way. Then I did a random search of some LGA articles for other states. Listing the party affiliations of councillors seems to have been around for a number of years for articles on NSW councils, and just Brisbane City Council, but not other councils in Queensland; and the same editor has been adding similar affiliations for council members in Victoria, just a few days ago.
This could be a sign of the times, as there has been an on-going debate in the press during the past couple of years over greater transparency, as up to now candidates for local government elections have not had to declare their party affiliations until after they were elected. Below are some links to newspaper articles on this debate. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 08:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
This article from NSW may also be relevant:
I am in two minds about it: on one hand, I do find it useful and notable information and I do think there is a compelling public interest case for adding it (for much the same reasons illustrated above); but on the other, in less partisan states and councils, I worry about minor BLP issues. This actually mentally played out as "I am going to follow all of these edits and I think I like them but I won't add more because I'm not that sure". I think it's good we're having the discussion anyway. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's an article that shows that as Councillors, they do not do party politics. http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/playford-councillor-in-hot-water-over-wearing-liberal-party-tshirt-to-central-district-football-match/story-fnii5yv4-1226748908658 These are the two City of Playford councillors listed with party affiliations (both Liberal). One of the "independents" was a PUP candidate in 2013, and another used to work in an ALP office I think. It feels quite odd to display the Playford Council as liberal-leaning. This was what first got my attention, and Gawler leaning the other way is nearly as odd. --Scott Davis Talk 15:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I did a double take too when I saw the first one (Prospect). It's interesting but I'm not sure its encyclopaedic as it's seems to be all garnered by original research on lists of pecuniary interests. It's never been, at least in my experience much of an issue when electing councillors. Alex Sims (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Looked a bit more and I want to wave the flag of WP:OR in the case of South Australia. The sources are all from each councils websites, i.e. primary sources and this is a red flag to me. In others states its there are newspapers, i.e. secondary sources, but in SA its not. I'd move strongly to delete the material unless someone can come up with some sources apart from the council's pecuniary interests register. Why are we listing political parties? Why not some of things, like sources of income? If a media outlet steps forward and issues tables for every councillor in every council then fine, but until then no.Alex Sims (talk) 12:41, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not necessarily disagreeing about their removal, but I do disagree about the suggestion of what would be a better source. Media coverage is awful for this kind of thing because it's never overarching, and piecemeal coverage dates like hell if people join or leave parties (and people have already picked up in this discussion cases where that would leave us to have information that would be wrong in 2016) or documenting that they are, in fact, of whatever party. The only realistic alternative to removing this to remove it from every state that party affiliation isn't on the ballot for, because they're the only two ways of getting definitive party details for councillors that isn't a raging BLP mess waiting to happen. I am not necessarily saying this would be a bad thing (I am on the fence, leading to agreein with you and Scott), but this is a case where newspaper sources (unless some newspaper is being more diligent than they ever are in reality, or some rare one-off case where a local journalist does their homework) have more issues, not less. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The newspapers might not be a more accurate source, but they are secondary sources. At the moment almost all of the values in the added column are from primary sources, making the whole thing a concern along WP:PRIMARY lines. There may be, other concerns along WP:BLPPRIMARY lines which might come into play. Whilst it is possible for Newspapers (secondary sources) to add a column like we have, they haven't and I think this is a clue as to how we should act.
Just discussed this with a non-editor, and this is another argument that the political leaning of a council as a whole affects their scope of services and level of rates (left more services, higher rates, right converse), but then again the political leaning of a council always follows the leaning of the council area so tracking the councillors is not useful unless the you have a situation where the political views of the councillors don't match their council area, which I believe doesn't occur in SA Alex Sims (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
We use primary sources all the time when they are official sources that are more accurate than the non-official source that may have stuffed something up in translation, which is the case here. Still not saying we should, just that making an argument that we should use sources far more likely to be less accurate and less reliable over official sources on BLP issues is an extremely bad idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
The Council lists are primary sources of what the individual councillor declared they are members of. It is neither a source of what funding and support they receive, nor of what their political leanings actually are. This is my problem. My local example is City of Playford which has two people who have declared membership of the Liberal party. When mayor Glenn Docherty stood as the Liberal candidate for Newland in 2014, my personal feeling of betrayal was that he stood for Newland not Napier, not that he stood for Liberal, and I don't think I was alone in that. Other councillors with no political declarations include Musolino who was a PUP candidate in 2013 (I guess we still don't know what he stands for from that), and Marilyn Baker who used to work in Martyn Evans' office, even while she was mayor![1] The register of declarations does not tell the whole story accurately. --Scott Davis Talk 12:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Jubilee 150 Walkway, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Posted the discussion here, since there are more editors here than on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Australia page. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Good Article Reassessment of Adelaide Rams[edit]

Adelaide Rams, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

New 5000 Challenge for Australia[edit]

Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge and the wider Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge for the UK which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. If you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Australia and Oceania like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1600 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for Australia but fuelled by a contest if desirable to really get articles on every state/territory and subject mass improved. After every 100 articles done for Australia this would feed into the main Oceania one. I will start a smaller challenge for your area if there is the support. I would like some support from wikipedians here to get the Challenge off to a start anyway with some articles to make doing a Destubathon for Australia and Oceania worthwhile! Cheers.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Adelaide Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Adelaide.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Adelaide, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Trams[edit]

Glenelg tram
Entertainment Centre
River Torrens
Bonython Park
Thebarton
Adelaide city centre
Port Road crossing
West Terrace
City West
Morphett Street
Adelaide railway station
Festival Plaza
Museum
University
East End
Rundle Mall
Pirie Street
Victoria Square/
Tarndanyangga
City South
South Terrace
South Parklands turnback
Adelaide city centre
Greenhill Road
Wayville
Goodwood Road
Goodwood railway station
Belair and Seaford lines
Forestville
Black Forest
South Road
Glandore
Beckman Street
South Plympton
Marion Road
Plympton Park
Morphettville Racecourse
Race days only
Morphett Road
Glengowrie depot
Sturt River
Glengowrie
Glenelg East
Glenelg
Brighton Road
Jetty Road
Moseley Square

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

I agree that changes and clarifications will need to be made. I see the modern network and the historical network as two distinct things, despite the shared heritage of the Glenelg line. I think we should keep the Glenelg line article, create a new article about the modern network and keep Trams in Adelaide as the article for the historical network. This is similar to the approach in Sydney, where Trams in Sydney deals with the former network and Light rail in Sydney covers the current network. Newcastle does the same thing - Trams in Newcastle, New South Wales for the former network and Newcastle Light Rail for the forthcoming network. I would split Adelaide's articles at 2005 - this was when the dilapidated Glenelg line was extensively upgraded and before the new trams were introduced and the extensions built.
Here in NSW, our transport authority refuses to use the word 'tram' and brands the current network as 'light rail', so the tram/light rail split is quite natural. I notice Adelaide Metro does use 'tram', so perhaps Trams in Adelaide should be repurposed as the article of the current network and the current article at that title moved to Trams in Adelaide (historical) or similar.
Regarding timing, I think we should wait until more information becomes available on the network's operation and branding once the extensions open before making significant changes to the current article structure. Gareth (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that "Trams in Adelaide" should be the overview/summary article, with subordinate articles as required. We still use the word "tram" to refer to them, rather than "light rail". It seems that most of the current and future expansions will be on-road, so the Glenelg route will become more "different" as being predominantly on its own right-of-way (I'm not sure how reserving part of the road median is counted). Things I noticed to be missing at the moment included (and perhaps this list belongs in a separate section of talk:Trams in Adelaide eventually):
  • Detail of the Port Adelaide network (closed 1935)
  • Any mention at all of the Gawler tram (were there any other isolated lines not mentioned?)
  • A clear delineation of where the "Glenelg tram" ends (at the city/entertainment centre/Ayers House/Elder park end).
  • An explanation of why it was important that Port Adelaide to Albert Park needed to accommodate steam engines
  • Was the rest of the Port Adelaide network also built to broad gauge, was Albert Park eventually converted to standard gauge, or did it always need separate rolling stock?
I accept that starting to make large changes would break the GA assessment. Other than that risk, I don't see an issue with making the structural changes "now" so that updates as (and if) the network expands, there is somewhere sensible to document it. We know that it will go to Ayers House/Old RAH and it already goes to the Entertainment centre. There is a plan, but no present funding commitment for a few more extensions, and a hand-wavy idea for a few more. --Scott Davis Talk 10:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
It looks like a couple more articles to consider are Municipal Tramways Trust and Trolleybuses in Adelaide. The MTT article contains a list of tram types as well. The Trolleybus article says they supplanted some of the tram routes. I have added the current extension to the Glenelg tram route map, but that can't go on if there are too many longer new routes. --Scott Davis Talk 23:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I support the idea of giving the Adelaide tram articles a refresh. I have a few points:
  1. the "Trams in Adelaide" article is becoming (or currently is) "uncomfortably long" (Wikipedia:Article size). We could consider splitting this into multiple articles that describes the: (1) network, possibly history and current network; and (2) the trams themselves. I can visiualise the "Trams in Adelaide" article becoming a summary/overview. In addition, I believe the "Electric tram types" section in "Trams in Adelaide" could be in a separate article because of its length and detail.
  2. I oppose having tram types in a plurality of articles. I believe it becomes difficult to maintain as compared to having all the tram types in one article (I'm referring to the section in Municipal Tramways Trust).
  3. I believe the GA assessment should be the last priority and should not restrict our editing. The tram network is changing and so should the article. And if I recall one of Wikipedia's policies, articles are never finished...they will continue to be improved.
  4. It may be a good idea to create a template (to place at the bottom of every Adelaide tram article) for everything related to the Adelaide trams. It could show readers which tram types or routes are in service, discontinued or in planning.
 Honette 03:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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


In regards to reformatting the Trams in Adelaide article, I have a proposal based on the current structure of similar articles for Sydney.

  1. Trams in Adelaide is maintained in its current form to cover the historic tram network and former rolling stock, similar to Trams in Sydney.
  2. Glenelg tram article is maintained in its current form to cover the light rail line in its present form (Glenelg—Ent Ctr; Festival Plaza, East End).
  3. A new article, named Light rail in Adelaide to be created as an outline of current operations, and detailing the "AdeLINK" network proposal, in line with Light rail in Sydney. Any future light rail developments not directly concerning the Glenelg line can be listed here.

Nick Mitchell 98 talk 05:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Mitchell 98 (talkcontribs)

My point at 2) is that once EastLINK and/or CityLINK are built, it won't be the "Glenelg Tram" to the East End stop (in front of Ayers House/OldRAH) then EastLINK beyond, it will stop being Glenelg Tram somewhere short of that point, so we should not keep incrementally adding to that article, we should keep Glenelg tram about that route and start a CityLINK or AdeLINK article or keep the extra bits in Trams in Adelaide until there's enough to write about one of the other routes. In fact, there is a diagram somewhere from DPTI that shows the track layout on North Terrace without a right turn track from King William Street to North Terrace (East), so that might never be "Glenelg Tram". What I don't know yet is where "Glenelg tram" ends and the rest of the network starts. --Scott Davis Talk 14:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
The "Glenelg tram", currently and in future government AdeLINK plans,[2] is defined only as Glenelg to Entertainment Ctr. My suggestion was to keep this article as it currently stands (including Festival Plaza and East End, for now).
CityLINK will form an independent loop within the city, incorporating the East End extension. CityLINK will share part of the Glenelg line on North Terrace, but only between King William St and West Tce; it is still a separate route.[3] Once CityLINK and the other routes begin construction, they can get their own articles.
We can keep a general overview in Trams in Adelaide (in line with Trams in Melbourne article). – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 09:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Article split proposal[edit]

I have put {{split}} tags on the top of both Municipal Tramways Trust and Trams in Adelaide pointing to this discussion. I propose to cut out the long lists of tram types from both articles, and combine them in Tram types in Adelaide. --Scott Davis Talk 23:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Support: This would certainly free up space on existing articles and collate related information into one article. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 03:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Having them in one place will make maintenance easier and reduces data fragmentation. I believe the tram types section is long enough to have its own article. This course of action will reduce the size of those two articles and make it more comfortable to read as per WP:SIZE  Honette 02:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It has been over a week. I am about to implement this. --Scott Davis Talk 08:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Update - I have finished for tonight. If someone else wants to tidy up further, you are welcome. My followup thoughts are:
  1. Did we make the Tram types in Adelaide article big enough it should be split per (major) class, like Melbourne tram vehicles?
  2. Is the correct style "X type tram" or "type X tram"?
  3. Have I completely destroyed Trams in Adelaide such that we should pre-emptively remove the "Good article" status, and consider what needs to be done to get it back?
Thanks for help and comments so far. --Scott Davis Talk 10:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)