![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The system seems somewhat sensitive to weather. Soon after opening (on 18th September 2010) the system was partially closed due to electrical failure following heavy rain on the preceding day.
Passengers were disembarked at Vaulx-en-Velin and bussed from there to the city centre. The fare did not revert to the old pre-tram coach fare.
For a system specifically going to the airport the trams also have woefuelly little luggage space.
Disembarkation at the airport (even for a temporary system) is also poor requiring passengers to stand on an undersized and uncovered platform.-- Stephencdickson ( talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Red Slash: and @ John Snow II:, this is the forum to discuss the issue, and seek consensus. Bring it to the attention of the relevant WikiProject if you need to. Just stop with the edit warring. - Oosh ( talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If you asked people in France which one they feel a closer affinity to, yeah, they'll probably say British English. But changing the variety of English used based on that criterion is not our policy or practice at Wikipedia. We only change the long-standing English variety in case of strong national ties. I understand that you were just trying to tidy up and I do appreciate that. I really do. I wanted to let you know that changing the variety of English used in an article is not OK as far as tidying up goes. That's not a part of acceptable copy-editing. By the way, we don't practice consistency among varied articles in a particular field. Color is in U.S. English and most individual color articles are, as well-- red, green, white, brown, pink, purple... but look at blue and, more obviously, orange (colour). Many editors, like you, have noticed the inconsistency, and indeed, Talk:Orange (colour) is chock-full of move requests to make it American English, just like all the other color articles. But it's always been rejected because we don't change the English used in our articles except in cases with strong and national ties to a variety of natively spoken English. Again, WP:RETAIN is what we do. (Changing the variety used in Ohio airport articles to American English would be appropriate, as would changing the variety about Heathrow to British English.) Red Slash 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure what to say after reading that last comment. Red Slash 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks BarrelProof. These mostly sound sensible considerations to me. Just to answer your latter point, what's wrong with 'train station' is that there is nothing right about it, to cut right to the chase: it is logically nonsensical, stylistically inappropriate (certainly for formal text such as an encyclopedia), and completely unnecessary when the established term, railway station, is used everywhere - remarkably enough, even in the US, at least originally. John Snow II ( talk) 16:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The system seems somewhat sensitive to weather. Soon after opening (on 18th September 2010) the system was partially closed due to electrical failure following heavy rain on the preceding day.
Passengers were disembarked at Vaulx-en-Velin and bussed from there to the city centre. The fare did not revert to the old pre-tram coach fare.
For a system specifically going to the airport the trams also have woefuelly little luggage space.
Disembarkation at the airport (even for a temporary system) is also poor requiring passengers to stand on an undersized and uncovered platform.-- Stephencdickson ( talk) 15:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
@ Red Slash: and @ John Snow II:, this is the forum to discuss the issue, and seek consensus. Bring it to the attention of the relevant WikiProject if you need to. Just stop with the edit warring. - Oosh ( talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
If you asked people in France which one they feel a closer affinity to, yeah, they'll probably say British English. But changing the variety of English used based on that criterion is not our policy or practice at Wikipedia. We only change the long-standing English variety in case of strong national ties. I understand that you were just trying to tidy up and I do appreciate that. I really do. I wanted to let you know that changing the variety of English used in an article is not OK as far as tidying up goes. That's not a part of acceptable copy-editing. By the way, we don't practice consistency among varied articles in a particular field. Color is in U.S. English and most individual color articles are, as well-- red, green, white, brown, pink, purple... but look at blue and, more obviously, orange (colour). Many editors, like you, have noticed the inconsistency, and indeed, Talk:Orange (colour) is chock-full of move requests to make it American English, just like all the other color articles. But it's always been rejected because we don't change the English used in our articles except in cases with strong and national ties to a variety of natively spoken English. Again, WP:RETAIN is what we do. (Changing the variety used in Ohio airport articles to American English would be appropriate, as would changing the variety about Heathrow to British English.) Red Slash 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I am unsure what to say after reading that last comment. Red Slash 21:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks BarrelProof. These mostly sound sensible considerations to me. Just to answer your latter point, what's wrong with 'train station' is that there is nothing right about it, to cut right to the chase: it is logically nonsensical, stylistically inappropriate (certainly for formal text such as an encyclopedia), and completely unnecessary when the established term, railway station, is used everywhere - remarkably enough, even in the US, at least originally. John Snow II ( talk) 16:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)