Talk:Trams in Rouen

Translated

I've translated this pretty much in its entirety from the French, and so am marking the version here on the talk page. No doubt, it still requires a lot of cleanup (typos, rephrasing and so on) but I think reasonable to mark it thus at this point. Si Trew (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The first sections of the article continue to be very badly translated French (perhaps a machine translation??). If I have the time I'll try and rewrite them Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Chains

In the conversions of route distances from metric, I decided to use chains for the Imperial/US customary measure. This may seem like a wantonly obscure conversion, but at least in the UK chains are almost always used on older railway lines; I've used feet, miles etc for measures other than track miles. However, I do realise it may seem somewhat obscure, so perhaps it would be better to put them in yards or miles (depending on the magnitude)? Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Its obscure but wp has an article on chains as a measurement and is fine with me and finding out about obscure info is what encyclopedias are about to a large degree. Linking to it at the first mention should suffice to direct readers to the clarify info - I don't think you need to link every mention of chain. Such links to other articles are encouraged by wp. I assume the info in Chain (length) is correct, I'm not sure why you called it a wrong link on my talk?Tttom1 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't, I called it that in the edit summary, as I put the wrong link in the first place. {{convert}} will automatically link things if lnk=outn is specified, so I think I will change it again to use that: {{convert|20|km|chain|abbr=on|lk=out}} gives 20 km (990 chains), and we can dispense with the hardcoded conversion. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that sentence which shows all 3 equivalent measures comparatively with a link to Chains article is fine, maybe remove parenthesis for feet. It gives the reader the gist of why you're mentioning chains relevant to tramway. Anything else is up to you to refine as you see fitting for clarity.Tttom1 (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: Fixed one dab. [1]

Linkrot: No dead links found. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   He met numerous difficulties to which the CTR was no stranger, but on 17 July 1899, a new company to be called Traction Électrique E. Cauderay (a sister company of the better-known Companie Générale de Traction — CGT —) was decreed the concession over five routes: "...was decreed the concession..." is not good English, suggest something like "was granted the concession".

   In 1908 the CGT divested the second network to the Compagnie centrale de chemins de fer et de tramways because of administrative problems, a serious accident at Monumental on 6 November 1908[22] and a considerable deficit. Surely "divested itself of"?

   It also grew the network with later-running services, suggest developed, rather than grew.

   the CTR dutifully maintained normal service dutifully suggests a point of view.

   Denied maintenance until after World War I, ways and means were in a piteous state, while expenses escalated dramatically. Sugest simply "the lines" were ina bad state.

   A tough competitor had also arrived: the bus. POV

   Still, the CTR had record passenger numbers in 1928, with over 30 million journeys. Still? POV

   The tramways continued with no intent to surrender, and started large programmes of renovation and modernisation in the dozen or so years before World War II. "no intent to surrender" POV

   The fast-moving Rouen workshops "fast moving" POV

   the war had condemned the first mode of mass transport in Normandy. Condemned to what?

   ''the clientele of the funicular sunk inexorably inexorably seems to be POV

   If this latter was accepted without resistance by the departmental authorities, the service reduction was allowed with much red tape, surely would be rather than was?

   Who did the translation of oulier's report? Should the translation be credited?

   The decision to close the small line fell like an axe on 1 November 1908.[51] Thus ended the short history of the Trianon tramway, a victim of economics but above all two serious strategic errors:[50] wanting a service independent of the CTR's network, and putting its terminus out of town. POV statements

   'Epilogue': would Legacy be better. This whole section has a lot of POV statements.

   I suggest a thorough copy-edit by an univoled editor with special attention to POV statements and improving grammar and flow.

   I made a few copy edits to remedy obvious mistakes.[2]

   I feel that an infobox at top left would be useful to present a summary of the line, perhaps using Template:Infobox rail (NB: not a Ga requirement, but would improve the layout)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I assume Good Faith for all off line sources. References appear reliable. Sources should be listed in author alphabetical order.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   As noted above there are a number of POV statements

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Correctly tagged, licensed and captioned.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for above concerns to be addressed. The copy-edit is most important. This may take time, so I won't fail as long as progress is being made. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   Please note: "under weigh" is NOT correct, I am aware of the usage of this for shipping, but this is an historic use, not common nowadays, see [3], [4], [5] –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

   I think my points have been sufficiently addressed to justify good artcile status. Congratulations and thanks for your hard work. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you for your help and time reviewing it. Si Trew (talk) 22:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made copy edits and tried to remove the creeping POV statements (these were translated as literally as possible from the French, but I accept they are not to English WP standards). I have asked User:Mjroots to review for copy edit since I think he is the most knowledgeable and impartial person to do this, he also is the one who suggested I take it to GAN. I hope this is not considered WP:CANVASS, I am new to this but he would seem the best to give an impartial copy edit if he is willing. Si Trew (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I have watchlisted this, will take another look in a week or so. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll give the article a copyedit in the next few days. Mjroots (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is still too French

Looking back on this article after some time away, and being on an extended Wikibreak, I see this is still too French in the way the sentence run i.e. backwards. It is not a question of translation but or accuracy but of distance. Everything there is OK for facts but it doesn't flow properly in English. One can't sometimes see that until one steps aside for a while because one is in the intimacy of wikilinks and {{convert}} amd sp fprtj, I would not say it is a bad translation I did, and is accurate, but, but not good enough with the way of phrasing.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. Unopposed for over two weeks. Jenks24 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Old Rouen tramway → Trams in Rouen – Current name of article is highly non-standard which makes it very hard to find when searching for it. Better name for the current article would be Trams in Rouen, which has evolved to the standard naming scheme used for articles on historical or long-standing city tram systems (e.g. Trams in Athens, Trams in Istanbul). (Please see the 'Discussion' section as to why Trams in Rouen is the preferred destination for this move of this article over Rouen tramway.) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC) IJBall (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Comment: The uncontroversial technical request for this move was declined on the grounds of:

I'm not at all clear why the Old Rouen article should go here, and not the new one, which would seem more sensible to me. The Istanbul article you linked to covers both old and new as far as I can see.

My response is that, in fact, the focus of the Trams in Istanbul article is the original, first-generation tram system – the details on the modern Istanbul tram system is covered at a different article, Istanbul modern tramways. A similar arrangement exists with Trams in Athens (the historical system) and Athens Tram (the modern tram system operating since 2004). Similar arrangements can also be seen with articles on American streetcar systems, e.g. Streetcars in Cincinnati (first-generation streetcar system) vs. Cincinnati Streetcar (an under-construction modern streetcar system).

Thus, a similar arrangement would be created with the requested move of the Old Rouen tramway article, leading to a Trams in Rouen article (on the historical tram system) and Rouen tramway (on the modern tram system). One further point – all of the modern French tramway system articles have the naming scheme of "[City] tramway" so moving the Old Rouen tramway article to Rouen tramway over Trams in Rouen (or moving the current Rouen tramway article to Trams in Rouen) would upset the current French tram article naming convention. Please feel free to let me know if any of this is unclear, and I will attempt to clarify further. Thank you! --IJBall (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.