Talk:South Yorkshire Supertram

List of stops

Rather than listing the stops on the branches, would it be better to list the three routes (blue, yellow and purple)? And could we add the route map picture, or would that violate copyright? Marky1981 12:28, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've listed the stops by the routes now. Just copying the map from the Supertram website would be a copyright violation, but I'll have a look into the matter... :) - ulayiti (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I combined your lists into a single table. I hope that you think it looks OK. Otherwise just revert me. JeremyA (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I added technical data taken from various sites on Tinternet but without copying wording. Data on the network and fleet is publicly accessible and useable. also added pics the other day and a link to a Supertram Gallery. Captain_Scarlet (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2005 (BST)

rolling stock?

I am curious about the kind of rolling stock the system uses. -- Geo Swan 15:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I put up the fact that it's Duewag, but I'm pretty sure the subsequent edit labelling it as the Siemens-Duewag U2 is incorrect; the U2 is a high-floor vehicle used in Calgary, while Sheffield's are low-floor. Having the same manufacturer doesn't make it the same vehicle. David Arthur 13:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Images

Could anyone provide a good photo of the side of a Supertram? Most of the images are front-on images - two of which are almost identical and one could be removed? The only side-on image is obstructed by traffic lights and signposts, and the tram itself is covered in advertisements. Marky1981 13:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hiya I live near the supertram route and can supply a side on image no problem. Just bear with me as I am having slight computer problems which is making it difficult to manage my digital photos but should be able to do it within a couple of weeks. No adverts or signposts this time honest. Mick Knapton 11:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Same here, i have side photos of Supertram (City Hall is a good place for side shots) but couldn't be bothered to upload a the photo. The photo is this one and would obviously be modified and without copyright band: Supertram side photo

Enough photos?

I think that five photos of supertram is more than enough for this article. I suggest that any editors wanting to contribute more supertram photos consider adding them to the Sheffield gallery at the commons rather than to this article. JeremyA 23:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

A gallery can be created at Wikimedia Commons for the article to display these photos, its better to have more photos than a short of photos. :D Agreed, this article has more than enough photos. --Terence Ong 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

New Livery

The Supertram is currently being given a new colour scheme, I think it's mostly blue (instead of white) with some red and orange. Theres one or two running at present and the whole fleet is going to be done. There is also changes to the interior with improved wheelchair space and perch seating. I agree theres enough photos but do we need to get some with the new livery. Anybody any thoughts ? Mick Knapton 15:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be good if the photos on this page covered all of the standard liveries that have been used so far (3 I think?). However, I also continue to think that the photo to text ratio is pretty high, so my preference would be that any new photos replace existing photos—always a difficult thing to do without upsetting people. Of what we have now, Image:Supertram Castle Square.jpg and Image:Supertram Cathedral 02-07-04.JPG are my favourites, and I think that Image:Supertram Sheffield Station 05-07-04.JPG is useful because it is the only one that shows off-street running. In Image:Sheffield Supertram.jpg there is a lot of junk (lamp posts etc.) between the photographer and the tram, and Image:Supertramhalf.jpg doesn't show much that the other photos don't already illustrate—so it is my opinion that these two photos could be moved out of the article (maybe they could go in other articles) and replaced with photos showing the new (or older) livery. That's just my opinion though... feel free to disagree. JeremyA 05:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll try and get some photos with the new livery. Image:Sheffield Supertram.jpg is my own photo and it's already on Wikipedia Commons so there is no problem in replacing that one, I agree it's not the best although my grand-daughter has it stuck on her bedroom wall. If I replace Image:Supertramhalf.jpg I'll put that on Commons also. Regards Mick Knapton 20:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Refurbishment

"The new livery is similar to the Stagecoach Bus livery, but the doors are painted yellow so that it will fit in the Disablity Discrimination Act." Do Stagecoach busses also have colour contrasted doors? Have the cab controls of the Supertram ever been modified?Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)User talk:Myrtone (the strict Australian wikipedian)

I can’t speak for all variants of the Stagecoach livery, particularly new ones, but having contrasting doors is a railway thing, required by law; if a bus has them, it’s only for aesthetic reasons (which, given that the railway operators had to be forced to adopt them, seems unlikely). David Arthur 12:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

contact wire diameter dubious

The wire used is 107 mm diameter contact wire.

That's a mighty big wire. perhaps it should be 10.7mm?

Supertram Stops

OK guys, what is going on here? The table at the bottom of the page list all the tram stops, and I'd say we have several categories of links:

• Missing, where there is no link (eg Cricket Inn Road, Arbourthorne Road)
• Links to a page about the tram stop (eg Netherthorpe Road, Infirmary Road)
• Links to information about the area served, including;
  • Suburbs (eg Attercliffe)
  • Electoral Wards (eg Hillsborough)
  • Parks(!) (eg Hillsborough Park)
  • Facilities (eg Crystal Peaks, Meadowhall, Valley Centertainment)
  • Station (eg Meadowhall Interchange, Sheffield Station)
  • Places of Interest (eg City Hall, Cathedral
• Redirects (eg Carbrook)
• Mixed-systems, where each 'part' of the tram stop name links to any one of the above (eg Sheffield Station / Sheffield Hallam University, Meadowhall South / Tinsley)
• Misleading Information (eg Park Grange, Birley Lane]])

and finally:

• Utter Bullshit (eg West Street, Elm Tree)

Guys, we have to sort this out! So, if there are no objections in the next few days, I'm going to start creating a page for every tram stop using the title tramstopname_tramstop. This will have the Supertram template (below), and convention:

• Yellow: Start - Meadowhall -> end - Hillsborough
• Blue: Start - Halfway -> end - Malin Bridge
• Purple: Start Herdings Park -> end - Meadowhall

I realise this will look silly between city centre and Meadowhall, with Centertainment preceeding Arena/Don Valley on Yellow but following it on Blue, but I cannot think of any other way to do this. Here is the tram template table:

Any objections/comments/critisism/advice, please post! L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 01:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

edit: Additionally, I've started a template, based on what's in the main article. You can see it here L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 02:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The Sheffield Project had talked about the Sheffield Supertram articles and we had concluded that there was little interest in creating articles for tram stops as they are featureless platforms. To get rid of red links it would be far more advantageous to link stop places to places rather than tram stop article. what's a tram stop article to have? two platforms, shelter, a tram stops there every 10 minutes. The is little individualism to a tram stop that only a station can possess and relegates tram stops to a place in a table rather than an individual existence. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a stop could talk about frequecy of services, distance from main stops, distance from local landmarks and then link to other features of the area. eg Hillsborough. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, the template you've created is a duplicate and already exists for tram systems in general. It is rather useless as it only features the preceding stops and in the case of stations offers no overview of where the article lies. See my coments above, the question's already been asked. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The template is the one in existence - I was showing i as an example to illustrate my plan for the convention of following/preceeding stop. L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 11:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Captain Scarlet here. Most of the tram stops are little more than bus stops with a raised platform. Much of the information that could be put in articles on the stops could easily be included in an expanded table within the main supertram article. —JeremyA 14:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do honestly think it's worth doing, and I would be willing to do it! Nottingham_Express_Transit have a page for each stop, and they are literally just stubs, but I think I could expand ours to show what amenities are local to each stop (please see my example of the Hillsborough stub). This would create a great link between all the areas of the city, the Sheffield sub-pages, the districts of Sheffield template and woul improve user's navigation around the city's articles. Please see my initial post, and I'm sure you'll agree, we currently have a real bloody mess! L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 14:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What you wish to feature in these articles goes against Wikipédia conventions and rules. 1/ Wikipedia is not an indescriminate colection of information and 2/ Wikipedia is not a directory. What the Sheffield Project concluded in this matter was that creating such a vast collection of articles would be both pointless and contradict Wikipedia rules. An article should not be initiated if it is to remain a stub. Something worth writing about will be written about, what doesn't, such as a vast number of identical tram stops should be contained on Sheffield Supertram in the stops listing/network. Featuring local amenities would mean breaking the Wikipedia is not a tourist guide rule. I commend you keeness but it is not that that I refute. Including each and every tram stop article in each and every place article of Sheffield also contradicts rules and transforms this encyclopedia into a travel guide, if this is your field of interest, Wikitravel should be where your information should be included, not Wikipedia. I'm afraid if such information would be featured, it would have to be edited out as any other content that contradicts established rules. Lists are accepted, although frowned upon, directories are not. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - I take you point. Would it be reasonable though for every area with a nearby tram stop (eg Meadowhall, Hillsborough Park, Sheffield_Midland_station etc) to have the tram template at the bottom? As we currently have on Fitzalan Square? L.J.Skinner_{something to say?} 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No it would not, for the reasons stated above. If Supertram has an influence, a history influencing the place, then yes. Placing the next/previous stop template on area articles would be the same as doing it in individual tram stop articles: wikipedia is not a timetable. Creating a substanceless ressource of tram stops and interchanges goes againstthe rules stated above. What Wikipedia is about is what is mostlèy already present in the Sheffrield Supertram article; dates, fact, data, properties; wether a tram stops there or not is of travel guide relevance. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Signals - not Sheffield-specific

The special tram signals are the same signals as in use for every tram system across the UK; they have a section of their own in the highway code. We should probably split this information off into a separate article, if it is even needed at all. --VinceBowdren 16:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I was unsure as to wether the signalling was Supertram specific or not. I'm sure it'd find itself useful on the Tram article or a subsection/article on Tramway (+practice) in the UK. This signalling is not used on all tram systems, Blackpool, as far as my trip this Summer I can remember doesn't use it. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 17:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, Blackpool doesnt use it, as it is more of a 'preserved' tramway, but still run as a mainstream mode of transport, and as such, uses signals of the eariler tramways, not the modern ones. Also, the new WikiProject UK Trams is now up and running, and as thus the signalling shall feature in a new article, and this one will be recieving a cleanup! Thanks, Bluegoblin7 19:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been and travelled on the Blackpool tramway I cnq assure you it does use this signalling, at least partially. Maybe you'd consider moving Wikiproject:Bluegoblin7 to its own page? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Route Map

Is it worth creating a route map fromt the image templates, à la Midland Metro and template:Midland Main Line? Time consuming, yes, but prevent use of Supertram's copyrighted map. Just an idea, feel free to shoot me donw :) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The route map that we have was drawn buy a Wikipedia editor. There are no copyright problems that I can see. That said, the Midland Main Line template looks good, however it would seem to me to reignite the whole debate as to whether we should have articles on supertram stops, which as you know I am strongly against. —JeremyA (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The template concept is good, but not for Supertram. furthermore, a diagram is in many ways inferior to a map, a map is geographically accurate, a diagram isn't. All distinctive features are already referred to in the article body, the stops in the table and the route on the map. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool, just wondered if anyone though consistancy with Midland Metro was useful. Of cource, they only have one line, so it works better there. And of, consistancy can be good, but one can be consistantly bad ;)

—JeremyA, I know your feelings on stop articles, and I see your point and finally agree (I was once just an over-enthusiastic newbie!). I've already had all the individual Nottingham Express Transit articles deleted, and I'm now working on Midland Metro (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Paul's tram stop (3rd nomination)). L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It would indeed be hard to implement the diagram for a three branch star network such as the Supertram's, it'd have to be done in three lots, terrible result especially with infobox' habits of sticking to the right, preventing images to be aligned to the right, etc, terrible. David Arthur's map is good. Good luck on St Paul's, I know it can be deleted! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, a box for each line would look daft, as every station would be represented twice, (some four times!), it would take up loads of space and as you say, right-aligned images! NOOO!

By the way, kudos for your work on Midland Main Line template. I like the one in your sandbox - an amalgamation of that and the current one would look great! L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 15:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm hoping to make a clear break from the TOC and the line as it seems, some are a bit confused between the two. I'm finally on a break so have more time to work on it. Problem is that other contributors mistake the closed clear red lines with freight, so there somming else to look into, also since I made an export of the template, other changes have been made. If and when I put the proper course of the MML it'll have to be done carefully. That's enough off topicing for now heh. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree, the map on the article is great, I don't think adding/changing would be an improvement. Whilst recognising that there are advantages and disadvantages of both diagrams and maps, I think the current map provides readers with the routes presented very clearly. Adambro 20:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The map has one big advantage, in that it shows the colours of each line. However, it has a few problems. The text is a mess, in assorted sizes and angles. The south eastern section isn't at all geographically accurate, even though the map in general appears to be. And the nature of the map means that area names cannot be linked, and features other than stations (such as bridges, viaducts, etc) are not shown. I've drawn up Template:Sheffield Supertram which fairly neatly solves most of these problems. However, it cannot show the line colours, and it makes no attempt to be geographically accurate. Would this be a useful addition to the article? If it was included, it could at least replace the table listing the stops. Warofdreams talk 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

From Captain scarlet (talk · contribs): "The template concept is good, but not for Supertram. furthermore, a diagram is in many ways inferior to a map, a map is geographically accurate, a diagram isn't. All distinctive features are already referred to in the article body, the stops in the table and the route on the map.". That said, I like it :) L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 22:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's nice, but I stand by what I said before, both the plan and table are superior; a diagram will always be a diagram. I don't think having both the map and diagram would make anything clearer. Furthermore, the diagram table isn't a table, it's an infobox and suffers from the I want to stick to the right hand side of the page syndrome, which makes infoboxes hatefull in general. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 08:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the right place to say it but there is a spelling mistake on the map, Woodburn should be Woodbourn. I would edit it myself..if I only knew how. (Puresmart 10:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC))

You mean the map image? Probably be best to find out who made it and ask them to edit it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fortunately the person who made the map used svg so anyone can edit it. —Jeremy (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The map is indeed my creation, and not based on the operator’s official one. It is meant to be more or less geographically accurate, so if anyone can identify errors, I’d be glad to fix them — I’ve already uploaded a new version with some display fixes. David Arthur 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes and great mapping. A few more, Hollinsend is doule L and Gleadless Townend has a '/' between it.Puresmart 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Supertram stops (again)

Please make your thoughts on this subject known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the Sheffield College tram stop's shelter is 50cm further away from the platform edge than Cathedral's. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: the outcome of this discussion was that all articles on Sheffield Supertram stops were deleted. Editors thinking about creating articles on supertram stops should consult Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop first. —Jeremy (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the new WP:UK Trams, it is now said that stops should have articles, WHERE THERE IS SPECIFIC POINTS OF INTEREST TO WARRANT SUCH AN ARTICLE, and should not be used for every stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluegoblin7 (talk • contribs)

The linked page appears to be the work of a single editor. With regards to Sheffield Supertram stops I see no reason to overrule the consensus reached by multiple editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herdings Park supertram stop, however if an article on a Sheffield Supertram Stop was able to show that that individual stop has received significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:NOTABILITY then it might be a special case. —Jeremy (talk) 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Respecting or not thie decision of this WP, the result will remain the same where upon no article on Sheffield Supertram's stops is needed: no tram stop of the Supertram network is notable and there is an accord concerning views that no article is needed to explain the nature of a particular stop. This is especially true when you consider Sheffield Supertram#Tramstops which describes each and every tram stop of the network. The destinations are summarised here. Following JeremyA, the contributor to this page seems to have invented this WP and stores it within his own space, not so impratial as he's jutifying his comments with himself. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 22:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

While the project may, when you read it, have been part of my User Page, it is now part of the main Wikipedia, and as a result, I do belive that the points made above are valid. If someone disagrees with this, then please discuss on the project page, or join the project, and at least help with it! Remember, wikipedia is just an encyclopedia - not life! And, what if someone needs research on that famous location, but can't find houw to get there, becuase there is no info on the tram stop. the only ones that I can think of that would need to be kept are Piccadilly, and any relevant to old Trafford. And perhaps towards Altrincham on the old railway lines - quite a bit of info there. Bluegoblin7 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You hit the nail on the head—Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. How to get there information is not part of an encyclopedia, it is more normally found in travel guides, which is why we have Wikitravel. My interest here is in Sheffield, not trams in general, however I suggest that the UKTrams project might want to adopt a policy on tram stops that is more akin to Wikipedia's other notability policies; i.e. individual tram stops should only have articles if the individual tram stop is notable in its own right (I have given Wikipedia's definition of notability above). Just being close to something interesting does not make a tram stop notable—the fact that there is a tram stop nearby can easily be noted in the article on that interesting thing, making a separate article on the tram stop itself unnecessary. —Jeremy (talk) 11:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The project is still experiencing some teething problems and I must agree with you: Notable tram stops should be included, rather than the current policy; it will be changed in due course. If anyone does criticise the way we do things, please join the project, comment, and IT CAN BE CHANGED!!! Don't moan about something unless you are prepared to actually put it right, come up with a solution, or contribute in some other way. Thanks, Bluegoblin7 11:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments and Project Page: Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Trams

Problem is, many users want some kind of catalogue of every tram stop, some kind of tramspotter's paradise or unencyclopedic data. This is it, unencyclopedic; I've made te effort to type Sheffield Supertram#Tramstops preciesly to remove the need for an article dor each tram stop. There is no stop on the Supertram network that is any different than the definition and set of caracteristics. Not even Meadowhall Interchange's tram stop has features worthy of unicity, those are all on Sheffield Supertram#Tramstops and Meadowhall Interchange. It is because because we are maintaining it correctly that we make the effort to transmit conventions, rules, regulations & wotnot that we makde the effort to speak out now. The solution is already laid out to you. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 06:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point: I do not want EVERY tramstop catalogued, i only want those which are themselves notable and worthy of an article, and this will be IN ADDITION to a list of stops on the main page. A Captain Scarlet, why don't you join the project and do something about it? Other systems still have articles for each and every stop - so why don't we remove them too? Currently, we are being inconsistent. Bluegoblin7 07:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you wanted to catalogue each and every tram stop, I said many users do. As I've stated above no tram stop, at least on Sheffield Supertram's network, is notable, they're all with tactile slabs, built in yorkshire stone yellow/grey colour with a blue SYPTE bus shelter... I don't wish to join the UK Tram WP, I can collaborate just as well without being in it; I've created and amended enough tram network articles without WP backup. I can work in collaboration with others without joining, my talk page being a perfect idea exchanges as I've done with JeremyA for example. As it stands, the main collaborators to the Sheffield Supertram article have agreed not to create tram stop article due to their lack of notability and the tramsport chapter in the main article body. Other networks' collaborators have chosen to do otherwise. There is no inconsistency if things remain as is since it is how things are, it works well too; they have empty articles with service frequencies, we have a tramstop chapter with precise information such as platform width. If you have any ideas or thoughts on this article, use the article's talkpage as you've done here once. There is no necessary need to have a constant and arbitrary rule for all tram networks articles so long as Wikipedia Manual of Style is adhered to to uphold the consistent editing style in prose. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So, after all this discussion, we've finally agreed on something: only notable stops, and guess what - you said none of Supertram's stops are notable, which is fine! All you had to do though was put it on in the first place, rather than dragging it out through several posts. Bluegoblin7 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence but we kind of told you in the first instance. This whole conversation was about getting this point to you. I have I believe repeated myself a couple of times hence a feeling we weren't advancing maybe? Now you've confirmed you understand the idea we can go forward? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Stagecoach

The Stagecoach Group article states: "Stagecoach owns the Sheffield Supertram, and has done since it's launch in 1994". Surely this is incorrect—AFAIK, the network was built and initially operated by SYPTE, who then sold a franchise to operate the system to Stagecoach in 1997. Anyone have any good references on this? —Jeremy (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition thetrams.co.uk gives a history that is closer to my recollection: "Supertram was initially run by South Yorkshire Supertram Limited (SYSL), a company formed and owned by SYPTE. At the end of 1997 SYSL was sold to Stagecoach, a major bus and rail operator, for £1.15 million. With SYSL Stagecoach gained the concession to operate and maintain the tramway until 2024. SYPTE retains ownership of the track and infrastructure." —Jeremy (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope I didn't put this in. I thought Stagecoach had purchased Supertram for a symbolic pound around the year you quote. It seems you've done a very nice job at updating the information and adding references as a result of the finding the error. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stagecoachsupertramlogo.gif

Image:Stagecoachsupertramlogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 19:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added a rationale, but can someone with more experience please check it over and remove the disputed tag once it has been checked. Thanks. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 20:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sheffield Supertram vs Stagecoach Supertram

Not sure if I'm just being pedantic here, but shouldn't the article be called Stagecoach Supertram? That is it's official name after all. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 11:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think not. Per WP:COMMONNAME, Sheffield Supertram is better, else we'd have to change it everytime someone else was awarded the contract. We have the Manchester Metrolink and Midland Metro etc.

Indeed, by right, it probably ought to be the South Yorkshire Supertram, as it is opperated under franchise from the PTE. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 14:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The official name is Stagecoach Supertram as can be seen here on the PTE's own website and also on Stagecoach's website. The common name is Supertram rather than Sheffield Supertram although as with most other light rail systems people just call it the tram. Manchester Metrolink is still called Manchester Metrolink officially and not Stagecoach Metrolink and never has been. Midland Metro is still called Midland Metro and not National Express Midland Metro. Stagecoach have the concession for the Supertram until 2024 so it is not going to change names any time soon. I will move the page to the correct name and edit it accordingly soon so to give time for discussion, if any. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to boldly move this article to Supertram (Sheffield), seeing as the previous move seemed to have been done against consensus. The article actually describes two things that comprise the 'supertram' system, the track and infrastructure, built and owned by SYPTE, and the trams and marketing, which are owned, operated and maintained by Stagecoach under concession until 2024. Stagecoach Supertram is the name of the operating company and brand image, of the Sheffield Supertram system. While theoretically this name may not change until 2024, in reality, it could change at any time, if Stagecoach Group were sold or rebranded, or if the supertram concession was sold or rebranded (again). Supertram is the proper and stable name for the entity, from when it was first built and operated by the PTE, currently while being operated by Stagecoach, and in the future. In fact, considering it is a global group, to the outsider looking in, 'Stagecoach Supertram' is not superior to a name that locates the article to Sheffield. The branding/current operator name of Stagecoach Supertram should not have any bearing on what the the article is actualy called when there is a logical and recognised alternative, which I believe Supertram is. (It is referred to simply as Supertram by the PTE in this page [1], except annoyingly by the title on the page, but all other instances just refer to supertram) It is also surely referred to equally as Supertram as well as Stagecoach Supertram locally. Most incoming links, barring the stagecoach bus templates, are still coming from the previous name, Sheffield Supertram. But Supertram (Sheffield) is a preferable use of disambiguation than Sheffield Supertram, as it is not clear this has ever been a formal title, and a bracketed disambiguator is required against the Leeds abandoned system.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 13:39, 9 September 2008

I like your way of thinking and appreciate your boldness but while you've amended the name and changed the name of the article to something close to the original, why add the parenthesis and not just revert to the original name? Consensus was for the retention of the original name if anything, why add cumbersome brackets? Look what happens if we follow brand names instead of official names: TransPennine Express, how many name changes now? Captain Scarlet 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you arguing for here? He seems to explain why brackets are used in his last sentence. MickMacNee (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Who is arguying? I put forward that I found confusing and silly that we've moved the article so close to the original name that might as well use the original article's name. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This was a couple of months ago now (and a few hundred edits) so no clear recollection of it now but the reason was given above. Would add also that editors (Wikipedia as a whole) have a tendancy to treat any new company article as an advert and propose deletion, yet other articles are changed a the first opportunity to the latest corporate name, thus giving free advertising to them. Double standards ? This also hapens with take overs of companies in that the articles renamed and the corporate history cleansed for the latest brief version when the older history should be more important to WP readers tha the current stock price and latest scandal.

So my reason stands that basically its the original name and not the Corporate Identity name, that will change and if the Leeds Scheme or others get revived they will be also claiming the Supertram title. But feel free to debate it more. (I'll sign properly this time-oops) --BulldozerD11 (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I appreciate the article is once more devoid of branding and corporate identity (which relates to the corporate operations rather than the item in question). What I'm sorry to see is that the article is now clumsily incorporating bracket. If the article is Supertram (Sheffield) why not just revert to Sheffield Supertram. Article name (should be) it what (is). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the current article name is probably the best, per BulldozerD11's reasoning. I'm not sure if the system has ever been known as Sheffield Supertram, before Stagecoach it was always either Supertram or South Yorkshire Supertram. —Jeremy (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure ‘Sheffield Supertram’ is just one of those neologisms (like ‘Manchester Metrolink’ or ‘Vancouver SkyTrain’) that people create because so many systems (‘London Underground’, to start with) are named in that fashion. David Arthur (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

'Sheffield Supertram' is the non branded name of Sheffield Supertram. Ten years after privatisation, Sheffielders still use 'First Mainline' or even Mainline despite First branding everything up to the seat colours. Should we change article names according to branding? Do articles relate to corporate branding or to the mode of transport and limited company or entity that is operated by the corporation? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 19:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I notice this page has just been moved without notice from Supertram (Sheffield) to Stagecoach Sheffield Supertram which doesnt actually appear to exist as a name anywhere, all addresses, documentation and branding refer to it as simpy Stagecoach Supertram or Sheffield Supertram, never the long winded title now used. WatcherZero (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article title should not contain "Stagecoach" as this is not the common name, and is by it's nature transitory. We also don't include the name of the franchisee in any other UK transport system names. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The operator name is included in some titles, usually bus routes. For this article, Supertram (Sheffield) is a better name than Stagecoach Supertram as it's about the system and not the operator, as well as being the common name, but it could be moved to Supertram as it's the primary topic for that name - it's the only one that exists and the others are proposals that may never go ahead with those names, or at all. Peter E. James (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Supertram (Sheffield) is a far from perfect title but it's definitely better than Stagecoach Sheffield Supertram. In my opinion, the long-standing nature of this discussion indicates that the title is contentious and before any further move there should be an attempt to form a consensus: nobody should change the title again without proposing it here first. Exok (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would support a move to just Supertram; this article would appear to be the primary topic for that name.—Jeremy (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Article name should not contain Stagecoach, Local name is Supertram. Mick Knapton (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow-up

Comment. I'm pretty strongly of the opinion that this page should be moved back to Sheffield Supertram on WP:COMMONNAME grounds. For example, this 2014 reference from the Department for Transport which explicitly refers to this system as "Sheffield Supertram". FWIW. --IJBall (talk) 23:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Tram-Train Extentions

Would it be possible for anyone to wright about the forthcoming (All going well) Tram-Train extensions which will be going to Rotherham first then in the near future utilizing the Penistone line. I would but I'd end up making a mess. http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/UK39s-first-tramtrain-route-to.5650456.jp http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/New-tram-train-service.5646661.jp http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/Tramtrains-plan-backed.4187813.jp

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.214.208 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 September 2009 86.171.214.208 (UTC)

Can I please point something out? According to the Sheffield Star at the end of last month, it may NOT be Supertram who operate the tram train extention!!!!!!

Also, another thing - the tram-train was thought to be too economically unviable to operate the full length of the Penistone Line so would be officially terminating at Rotherham Parkgate? I was also under the impression that no-one knew who is building the new tram trains, but... Tpxpress (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Supertram (Sheffield). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927180608/http://www.southyorks.org.uk/pta/ltp/pdf/SY%20LTP%20Annual%20Report%20Map%20of%20Major%20Schemes.pdf to http://www.southyorks.org.uk/pta/ltp/pdf/SY%20LTP%20Annual%20Report%20Map%20of%20Major%20Schemes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2016

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 to Sheffield Supertram. There is a clear consensus that this subject is not the primary topic for "Supertram" and also that natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation in this case. Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

---

Supertram (Sheffield) → Supertram – Nobody would be talking about the Leeds Supertram, that's a thing of the past now. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Strong support per above. Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | 01:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Skeptical: Just minutes before this RM was submitted, the dab page at Supertram was blanked by Buttons0603. I reverted that, and the dab page has since been further expanded by an IP editor. It now includes six topics. At least of them, Siemens-Duewag Supertram, seems like as strong a contender for the topic name as this one. Taken together, there seems to be enough other topics that this one does not seem to be an obvious WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Supertram". —BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - you might want to rephrase that, it seems you misread the article histories. I actually performed my edit about 40 minutes before this request was submitted. The submitter of the request had edited the article in the past so I presume it was on their watch list, and they saw my edit having been reverted and put a request in themselves. Also in no way was it "blanked" by me - I turned it into a redirect; I don't feel comfortable having words with connotations of vandalism being bandied about like that (see WP:GF). Regards, Buttons0603 | talk to me | 17:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Isn't that the same as what I said? I said the dab page was blanked (i.e., converted from a dab page to a redirect, and thus no longer existing as a distinct page) by you just minutes (about 40 minutes, to be precise) before the RM was submitted (by Some Gadget Geek). I didn't say that anyone did something improper, and I don't think anyone did – I merely pointed out that the current state of what was found at the suggested destination name did not reflect a long-stable status and was obscuring the fact that other reasonable candidate topics exist that might justify disambiguation for the term "Supertram", which makes me skeptical of the desirability of the proposal. I think Sheffield Supertram would be OK (and it has always pointed to this article). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Can't really see any benefit to this, as the page Supertram lists several other topics such as Bristol Supertram and Leeds Supertram, which although now-cancelled, show that there is cause for disambiguation. G-13114 (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I thought it was called the "Sheffield Supertram", or at least that's what I've seen in magazines. I see the website just calls it "Supertram", but I think it's probably best to keep the disambiguation page as is. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comments. See the previous discussion about the name at § Sheffield Supertram vs Stagecoach Supertram above. Move history:
  • 19:08, 9 September 2003‎ Warofdreams created Sheffield Supertram
  • 22:46, 16 May 2008 Joshii moved page Sheffield Supertram to Stagecoach Supertram over redirect
  • 13:40, 9 September 2008 MickMacNee moved page Stagecoach Supertram to Supertram (Sheffield) (more appropriate name - see talk)
  • 15:00, 20 June 2011 Buttons0603 moved page Supertram (Sheffield) to Stagecoach Sheffield Supertram
  • 18:42, 20 June 2011 JeremyA moved page Stagecoach Sheffield Supertram to Supertram (Sheffield) over redirect (rv move; please discuss this first)

If the consensus is that this is the WP:primary topic for Supertram, then the existing Supertram should be moved to Supertram (disambiguation) to clear the way for the move, and we will need a hatnote from the primary topic to the disambiguation page.

If there is no primary topic, then I am sympathetic to the arguments of Lewisskinner, Captain scarlet and IJBall in the section above, and feel that this should be moved back to its original title Sheffield Supertram, as generally natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical, when possible, and this would keep the naming consistent with the other two proposed-but-rejected systems. I observe that the editor who boldly moved to the parenthetical, MickMacNee, has been banned from editing Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee.

I'm sympathetic to this proposal, as also suggested by JeremyA in the previous discussion, and leaning towards support.

The generic article on trams doesn't mention the term supertram, so it doesn't appear to be a term for a special class of trams. Rather, it seems to be a defacto brand name. If the Sheffield system is the only system in the world actually operating using this "brand name", that's a strong argument for making this the primary topic. The fact they are celebrating 21 years of service, and yet still no other system uses the name lends further support for the case for PT. If they are the only system in the world running the Siemens-Duewag Supertram rolling stock, that's an argument for making the rolling-stock article a subtopic of this article, not an argument for forcing a dab. Supertrain is about an American television series, not a redirect to train. This seems not as common a term as Metrolink or Tramway(s) (see Category:Tram transport in England for how common the latter term is) to say that there is clearly no primary topic. Rather, Supertram seems to be sufficiently unique, as Tramlink in London and CTrain & O-Train in Canada, to merit serious consideration for primary usage status. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with moving this back to the original title, Sheffield Supertram. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment – My preference, as stated up-page, is for Sheffield Supertram. But just "Supertram" would probably be preferable to the current name... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
  • OK, Move to Sheffield Supertram is where I'm coming down – there seems to be some late-breaking consensus for this result, and this is what I've been advocating all along. Once again, see: this 2014 reference from the Department for Transport which explicitly refers to this system as "Sheffield Supertram" as a reliable source in support of the move. Note also that some of the comments up-thread also seem in support of this result. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the subject article is not the dominant article, hence status quo is appropriate, but do agree with IJ Ball's suggestion of renaming Sheffield Supertram. Est8286 (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the article should be at "Sheffield Supertram", a title that is clear, unambiguous and does exactly what it says on the tin! Mjroots (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - this should be at Sheffield Supertram. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The tram runs at the bottom of our road, I'd like to see Sheffield in the name, so Sheffield Supertram. Mick Knapton (talk) 15:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Supertram is just fine pointing to the DAB. I also support a move to Sheffield Supertram. Just Chilling (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (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.

• Comment Thank you Wbm1058 for your kind words. I have missed this discussion but approve the result. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 18:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Image in "Overview" Section

Now that the tram-train services from Cathedral to Rotherham Parkgate have opened for operations, the image currently in the "Overview" section of this article needs to be updated to reflect this change. Could someone please let me know if this is possible (I know the similar one in the Manchester Metrolink article has been changed many times) or when it will be done, many thanks? Broman178 (talk) 09:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

DavidArthur - as you produced the original SVG file, any chance you could look at updating it please? O Still Small Voice of Clam (formerly Optimist on the run) 11:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Since DavidArthur hasn't been editing on Wikipedia since July 2018 and I don't know when or if he will be editing again, I might consider removing the image soon if there is no change to it from now because an old image with outdated information can mislead anybody no matter how good it looks and it could encourage a newer image (or updated version of this image if its possible) to be added there later. Broman178 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed that map now so either a new map or updated version of the map I removed (if an update is possible without its producer) will have to be added. Broman178 (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated map - I've just noticed that it's missing the stop at Hackenthorpe. Do we know if there's an alternative map which actually contains all 50 stops on it, or whether it's acceptable as it is currently? TC60054 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing history of Minitram

A portion of the existing route, the yellow section IIRC, was originally developed for the Minitram system. This isn't mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure where to insert it, likely a separate section. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Frequencies

Please could someone add the frequencies of each colour line? Crookesmoor (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

future developments

Hi,

There's some stuff in the future developments section that has already been build and is operational now. It would make sense to move this to "history" but I'm not sure the best way to go about that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.214.15.31 (talk) 12:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Uk tram icon.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Rename page to acknowledge coverage outside of Sheffield?

I've just reverted a good-faith WP:BOLD move to South Yorkshire Supertram per it's legal name, however virtually no-one calls Supertram 'South Yorkshire Supertram' so I believe WP:COMMONNAME still applies. See recent sources such as [2] and [3].

Understanding the reason for wanting the move (it no longer serves exclusively Sheffield), I wonder if Stagecoach Supertram could be a compromise as the official 'public-facing' name Stagecoach use, with both geographical terms redirecting there? Second choice for me personally would be keeping the title as-is. Mike1901 (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The best way to deal with this is va WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Having read your points I am inclined to agree that Stagecoach Supertram would be a better destination than South Yorkshire Supertram. At the time I was thinking how Stagecoach is only a brand name for the network and talk is that they may (or, of course, may not) lose the concession in 2024, but I suppose we cross that bridge when we come to it if it does happen rather than thinking ahead. Buttons0603 (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Add Hackenthorpe to the diagram, fix spelling error

Hackenthorpe is missing from the diagram. Could someone add it? Also, there is a spelling error ("Holinsend" instead of "Hollinsend"). by Mariobros12345 ^{(T • C)} 21:13, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The end of SYPTE

Hello - while SYPTE was the body at the time of Supertram's development, its functions transferred to South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA) on 1 April 2023. It would now be correct to say that the infrastructure, etc., are owned by SYMCA (formerly SYPTE), with references to activities before April 2023 remaining as SYPTE. Gary Taylor PR (talk) 10:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so you can add the information yourself if you wanted.
• You'll need to provide a source for this if possible.

Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents and history

The Accidents and incidents section is quite large and will only expand further. I was going to suggest limiting incidents included in this article to collisions, derailments and deaths, but that list would also be quite large and would also expand over the years. What do other users think about just listing derailments and tram-tram and tram-road vehicle collisions under the above section heading with a link to a separate article?

A more radical approach might be to create a Sheffield Supertram history page which could also incorporate information now in the the History section, the Proposed developments section, historic information about the tram-stop defunct ticket machines, service changes during the Coronavirus outbreak and a new sections about historic liveries,  ownership/control of the system, and (eventually) historic rolling stock? 2A00:23C2:8B08:E501:704E:BADD:45B:BCDF (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)