Talk:Trams in Helsinki

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split[edit]

Since nothing has happened with the split I originally proposed almost two years ago, I've taken it upon myself to design alternative versions of this article. They are available at User:JIP/Helsinki tram and User:JIP/History of the Helsinki tram. For now, I just copied the entire Bibliography section from the main article to the history article. I'll have to remove any sources from the Bibliography section in the history article that aren't referred to in the text. JIP | Talk 18:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. The history section should definitely be split into its own page. Also, I think that the "future extensions" section is too long. Contributors inevitably end up describing the various stages of planning and decision-making, but retaining all that detail on the page just makes it difficult to read. If some plan or decision is superseded, it should be possible to cut it from the page. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have split off the planned extension section to User:JIP/Planned extension of the Helsinki tram. I've also fixed the missing references in User:JIP/Helsinki tram. Now all that is really needed is pruning of the Bibliography section (it's the same in all three articles), removing sources that aren't referred to in the text. JIP | Talk 18:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work JIP. Consider using the shortened footnote template when fixing the references / notes / bibliography. The template was not available when I split the references section into references and bibliography in 2008. The template makes managing the references a bit easier since it automatically populates the {{reflist}} tag by creating a short author-date citation from the bibliography, thus eliminating the usage of the cite tag in the bibliography section. You can check article Munkkivuori for an example on how to use the Sfn template. Also, looking at the current content of the Bibliography section, it might be better to title it Notes. --Siipikarja ♫ 10:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to take this on and do the split. I guess JIP's split pages are now somewhat out of date as there have been more edits to the original since 2012, so I would start again from this original page. Is that okay? Poikkeusreitti (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I created separate pages User:Poikkeusreitti/Helsinki tram, User:Poikkeusreitti/History of the Helsinki tram system and User:Poikkeusreitti/Planned extension of the Helsinki tram network by splitting the text of the original. I pruned the bibliography for each from a copy of the full original bibliography section. Otherwise there are only minimal changes, and that's deliberate so that updates to the content are not mixed in with this reorganization of the pages. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How would the split be done in practice? I'm not very experienced with Wikipedia. I guess the editing history of the new pages (History and Planned extensions) would be blank, which seems wrong towards the contributors. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 21:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I split History and Planned extension to separate articles. The bibliographies should be now pruned accordingly. I've deleted my user subpages that I linked above. Poikkeusreitti (talk) 11:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move article to "Trams in Helsinki"?[edit]

The title of this article is rather "non-standard" for English-language Wikipedia. Articles on metropolitan tram systems tend to have a "Trams in [city]" title - for example: Trams in Vienna, Trams in Prague, Trams in Moscow, Trams in Berlin, Trams in Brussels, etc.

If there are no objections lodged here, I'd like to "move" this article to "Trams in Helsinki" in the near future. If anyone has issues with this, or other comments, please post them here. Thanks! --IJBall (talk) 20:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe It's only rather "non-standard" as a result of the progressive renaming of the rest. It is less convenient from the point-of-view of writing about the Helsinki Tramway, boarding a Helsinki tram, or viewing the museum containing Helsinki trams without needing an pipe. I'm tolerant to the renaming, but would respectfully recommend that the description of "non-standard" seems to be inappropriate given the circumstances. —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede that it's an "evolving standard", certainly (which seemed to evolve away from the current standard around 2010, before evolving back towards it more recently...). The main advantage of the move is that it makes searching for systems easier if they're all named "Trams in [city]". However, I'd also concede that a move is unnecessary, if it can be shown that "Helsinki tram" is the most common way to describe the system in English, under WP:COMMONNAME – and, honestly, I think the name of this page is OK (at least it's not one of the "[city] Tramway" named articles, which seem to violate Wikipedia naming conventions!). But, if "Helsinki tram" isn't the "common" English name, then a move to "Trams in Helsinki" would seem to be preferable... On my end, I'm not in any hurry on this, and will definitely wait a while to give more time for comments. Thanks for taking the time to respond! --IJBall (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After some thought, I am now thinking that it is better to leave this page at "Helsinki tram". There is at least one other article with this naming format (e.g. Athens tram). I'll note that, as a long-standing historical system, it would probably be better that this article be moved to "Trams in Helsinki" for the reasons outlined above (mostly for consistency's sake). But, right now, I doubt there's consensus for such a move, so let's just leave this article where it is for the time being. --IJBall (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

System length and number of stops[edit]

Before someone finds and uses this link [1], at present saying the network has 289 stops (of which "284 used by tram lines", whatever that means the five other stops are for), please think a bit. This page on the same site [2] tells us there are 38 km. of double track, which (with the lower number of stops) would yield an average stop spacing of less than 140 metres. That would be a uniquely dense spacing. Even assuming each stop is counted twice – once per direction – the spacing would be very dense indeed. Something seems to be wrong in the source. 151.177.62.155 (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It makes sense that each stop is counted separately per direction since with very few exceptions, they are physically distinct locations. I wonder if the stops are being counted separately per line, so Hakaniemi gets counted five times, etc. But that would be weird. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of stops not used in regular service would be Kangasalantie × 2; the loop at Vallilan Varikko; the stops along the Koskela depot line: Koskelan Halli, Sumatrantie × 2, Kumpulan Kampus; the diversionary platforms at Sörnäinen × 2; those on the Kallio loop: Kuntatalo, Castreninkatu × 2, Kallion Virastotalo, the charter stop on Mikonkatu; the spare platform at Kauppatori; the ones along the Töölö depot tracks at Töölön kisahalli and Ruusulankatu; and depending on how up to-date I am with the latest routeings: Luonnontieteellinen museo × 2, Länsilinkki × 2, Kolmikulma and/or Salmisaari. Maybe also Brahenkatu and Roineentie. And duplicates: second platforms at Pohjolanauko and Korppaanmäki, there might also be a third "stop" at Kuusitie too.
What do other people get? —Sladen (talk) 20:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite normal that stops are more or less displaced between directions. That's usually no reason to count them twice. Especially if the same site inconsistently gives the system length as double track, not single. But of course, we aren't always consistent. However, around 280 m. would still be a very close average spacing, If the stop number divided by 2 is correct. I'm not sure the system length should not be, say, 48 km rather than 38.
Sladen: even divided by 2 that makes more than five. Puzzling. 151.177.62.155 (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick pull of railway=tram data for Helsinki from OpenStreetMap, which produces ~100 kilometres of single-line trackage. 38 kilometres of double track might be about right (plus loops, single track, depots, left-over bits of track). I might do some further analysis later, or if other people want to, I used http://overpass-turbo.eu/ to run the query, and chucked it in JOSM (which can't handle it all at once, so it required approximate manual chunking). —Sladen (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good work – more effort than I can put into this.
But another rough piece of math without map, à propos Orange Suede Sofa's "weird" (I agree) idea about the stops being counted per line: 284 stops divided by 13 routes would make slightly less than 22 stops per route, times say 350 m. between stops would make an average route length of 7.7 km. No impossible figures. 151.177.62.155 (talk)
Oh, and 7.7 km. * 13 routes = 100.1 km. 151.177.62.155 (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A large percentage of the 100 kilometres of track is related to the depots; ~8.5 kilometres for Koskela depot and access trackages; 3.5 kilometres for the depot, museum and access tracks around Töölö, and ~2 kilometres for those around Vallila depot. —Sladen (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 October 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, broad agreement without objections (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


– There is a new line 15, which is mostly described as a light rail line instead of a tram line, however the two terms seem to be both used by reliable sources with 'light rail' being a subtype of 'tram' (see for example [3]). The new line is also fully separate from the current network, but they're fully compatible and there are plans to mix the two styles (city center tram and light rail) together within the next decade. So with the limited RS coverage currently out there, I think we should write about both the city center network and other tram/light rail lines being built around the Helsinki region in this article, but drop the 'network' term since we're no longer talking about the single network. Taavi (talk!) 18:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taavi Sounds good to me! The main tram page should definitely be changed because it doesn't fit with the standard naming convention. CarrotPieFI (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query: I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's transportation coverage, but a brief search shows that the existent titles appear to be a mixture of "Tramways in X" (e.g. Tramways in Exeter), "Trams in X" (e.g. Trams in Ljubljana) and "X tram network" (e.g. Gothenburg tram network). I don't really see any of these as inherently better than the others. Are there previous discussions on which (if any) of these is preferred over the others? W/r/t whether line 15 constitutes a detached part of the main network or a network of its own, characterizing it as it's own network feels slightly off as a local, but then again that's just me personally. Ljleppan (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think line 15 constitutes its own article. Similar arrangements in other cities have their own articles. Furthermore, line 15 is significantly different from the rest of the network. However, perhaps it could be changed into page covering all Helsinki area light rail (eg Kruunusillat) when the time comes? CarrotPieFI (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Line 15 / Jokeri light rail has been covered by various sources by itself so it's notable and should have it's own article. Same thing applies to Crown Bridges, and other major projects in the area.
And for this article, yeah, I don't like the inconsistency that other cities have either. I haven't seen any WP:RS refer to Helsinki trams as "tramways". The "network" part is a bit technical, yes, but I do believe not having the word "network" in the article name would be more accurate. Taavi (talk!) 20:05, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies, CarrotPieFI and Taavi. I guess I find myself wanting to !vote "WP:¯\_(ツ)_/¯" with a side of "well, the proposed titles are shorter". So weak support I suppose. Ljleppan (talk) 06:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Usual construction for tram articles on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trams_in_Helsinki&oldid=1182535095"