Talk:Z-class Melbourne tram

Proposed reorganisation of specification data

The infobox is this article is very long, and somewhat overloaded with information, as it deals with all three subclasses. This poses two problems in my eyes, it is causing a stacking issue for the images, and makes image placement more difficult while also limiting the amount of images that can accompany text, while also providing an almost information overload of minutia detail, rather than an overview.

To solve this I propose stripping all specification and sub-class specific information out of the infobox, leaving only general info, and creating a new 'Specification' section with table, this lists all the information in - what I consider to be - an easier to understand and less convoluted manner. It would also offer the opportunity to alter teh headings easier, for example, construction dates are not really relevant for the C, C2, or D class trams, introduction to service dates are far more meaningful.

I have carried out the changes on a version in my sandbox. I would appreciate feedback on if this should be carried out, or the infobox and article left as is. I would also like to do the same thing for other classes of Melbourne trams, so have posted on their talk pages to help enlarge the discussion. Liamdavies (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've talkpaged a couple of editors that are frequent/common in this article sphere for their opinion. Unless I hear objections I will probably go ahead with my proposed changes over the weekend. Liamdavies (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I like the new specifications table. It shows everything that is important about it. The only bad bit is that the references are very noticeable in the new format. But other than that it would be a good change. Grfr12345 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I agree the references are little overwhelming, but everything in wikipedia should be verifiable, and we do that by supporting facts with citations. Do you have an alternative suggestion? Liamdavies (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• • • Looks fine. I think both navboxes should be in the same format, either collapsed or expanded, so one doesn't dominate the other. Should also be in alphabetical order. Collapsed is the best option IMO. Mo7838 (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• I completely disagree, they should be listed in order of significance/relevance to the article, being tram articles about classes of vehicle, it makes sense to have easily accessible links down the bottom in an open way; same goes for the route articles. Navboxes are like a catch all see also section that should elaborate on the topic, the Melbourne PT is primarily related to operators, that's a broader level than just trams, the tram navbox on the other hand is much more specific to the topic, and aids in understanding the broad topic and all articles associated with Melbourne's trams. I fail to see how anyone could think the information in the PT navbox to be more relevant to an article about Melbourne's tram routes or tram classes than the tram navbox which lists both; same goes to collapsing it. Having said that, I have no opposition to expanding the Melbourne PT navbox, I just oppose collapsing the tram navbox and think it should be first. I don't see why you think they should be collapsed, and go around collapsing them, it just hides information. What is your reasoning for hiding information about the topic?

• Both should receive equal billing, if one is expanded and another collapsed then the former dominates and the latter becomes diminished. Collapsing is a personal choice, no hard and fast rule. Have seen articles with 4 or more categories and if expanded can take up more page space than the article itself. Mo7838 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Fair enough, I agree that it looks a little silly having more navbox than article, but I'm not sure that it would be the case here. I still think the tram navbox is more important in this context, whereas the PT navbox would have equal value in the main article, and probably the route articles. Would you be happy to have both expanded but the tram navbox on top? Liamdavies (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Agree Mo7838 (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Actioned, but I think your fears are now true. This will serve for the interim, but a better solution will be required in the future. Liamdavies (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

My main question here is regarding where the specifications should live, I'm not seeing in real opposition to that change, so will probably do it sooner than the weekend.

Also, regarding the caption changes, I'm in two minds, the PTV livery is the new livery slowly being applied to the tram fleet, but there is no deadline and trams are still being placed into the Yarra Trams Mk4 livery, which is 'the current Yarra Trams livery', it's a little confusing so omitting the word current is probably best, but both are correct (especially for classes that don't have any trams in PTV livery). Liamdavies (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair play, I assumed PTV livery was being rolled out over the entire fleet. Mo7838 (talk) 09:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• Well it will, but class by class, so for the moment the Z3s (and apparently D2s, but don't know if it's just the one) are being done, but at the same time Bs are being modified without new liveries being applied (this article explains it a little). So although all will be in PTV livery, there is still a current YT livery as well (yes, it can get a little odd down here). But as I said, removing current is probably best as it removes confusion - for the time being. On a similar note, I've put a SmartBus liveried bus back in the Transdev Melbourne article, as both will be used, SmartBus routes will continue to use the current livery while the National and Bus Link buses will be placed into PTV livery. Move them around if you like though, I just think one of each should be used, and I'm glad you found them so quickly, I ran out of time after uploading them the other night. Liamdavies (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like it. It seems most of the article has been chopped out and wastes space where content should be. I prefer one infobox.Fremantle99 (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is actually more specification information than there was, and this way of showing it allows it to be attributed to a model and cited easier, it also avoids WP:STACKING which means we can include more images. What parts of the article have been chopped out? Liamdavies (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Fremantle99, IMO the separate infoboxes may be valid for this article because of the sub-classes, but for the other tram articles where there are no sub-classes, adds no benefit having the infobox split in 2. That plus excessive infobox wikilinking (15 in E-class Melbourne tram for example all pointing to the one cite) make the article untidy. Mo7838 (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing hyphen from article name

I am proposing to remove the hyphen from the title of this tram article, as the official nomenclature from the Department of Transport and Planning is not to have hyphens in tram class names. Examples include on their official website [1], the Melbourne Tram Plan [2] and the PTV website [3]. Other common unofficial sources like Vicsig also do not have a hyphen. I'm also proposing to change all the other Melbourne tram class article names in a similar manner, any feedback welcome! Takerlamar (talk) 00:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-class Melbourne tram which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:G-class Melbourne tram which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)