This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Boston may be able to help! |
This article should have maps showing historical and current extents of the system. Magic ♪piano 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Your renaming from Boston-area_trackless_trolleys to Trolleybuses of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority left re-directs, that expose the old name, e.g. in uses of {{ Main}} and {{ See also}}. Can you work through [1] and fix them? Thanx — Lentower ( talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have renamed the article to Trolleybuses in Greater Boston, something I had been planning to do for a long time, because (except for the "Greater" part) that is the standard title format for all articles in this subject area, already in use (for years) for the articles on all seven other existing North American trolleybus systems, plus some closed North American systems (such as Edmonton and Atlanta), and for articles on well over 100 current and former trolleybus systems outside North America. To see for yourself, take a look at this page (or go to Special:PrefixIndex and input search terms for yourself). No other title format is even close to being standard. This one is almost universal for this subject area on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe the article should be located at "Trolleybuses in Boston" (not Greater), because Cambridge is part of the metropolitan area commonly known simply as Boston, all served by MBTA, and 99% of Wikipedia readers would understand that "Boston" in that title is short for "the Boston area" – and the text of the article can make it clear that the article is not limited to the city of Boston proper. Also, this article is not just about the current system and the current operator (MBTA), but about the entire history of this system back to 1936. One reason I hadn't gotten around to moving the article previously is that I wanted to do it when I had time to add some history to this article, which is very short on history. Compare to Trolleybuses in Dayton and Trolleybuses in Philadelphia. I'll try to add some history now. The old title (used until just 2 days ago), Boston-area trackless trolleys, at least included a [correct] geographic reference, but its format was still very different from the standard title for articles in this subject area, so a renaming to the "Trolleybuses in [city]" format was long overdue. SJ Morg ( talk) 08:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I went through [2] and updated both the visible and invisible uses of this article's last name in the article namespace. — Lentower ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@ SJ Morg: Can you move/rename commons:Category:Trolleybuses of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority? (If not, perhaps @ Pi.1415926535: or someone else would.) It's visible at
— Lentower ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? The things aren't called that there, and aren't actually called that anywhere else, either, except in railfan nostalgia. Which English speaking places using these things now call them by your preferred name, and which -if any- used the term when operating them? Anmccaff ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
What "mass renaming?"I am referring to Cambridge, and, I suppose, Philadelphia, here. Pittsburgh, I suppose Well, if you add "trolley coach, it's looking a bit like North America, isn't it? Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-hyphenated "trolleybus" derivatives are in modern times universally used across languages (note the Japanese "Tororiibasu"Wiki has a very nice long list of gairaigo and wasei-eigo; almost all of them -all but 5 or so- are written and said an a single word. I'd bet half started out as two or more. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
and the French "trolleybus")I believe, although am not sure, that that is partly an outgrowth of GE's "Trollibus." Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
and those operators (which make up the vast majority of operators, past and present) tend to use "trolleybus" not "trolley bus". So you're just wasting everyone's time; go produce actual content instead"Those operators? Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As a side note: "trackless trolley" (the local term, but uncommon outside of Boston and Philly) is a term used only in American systems; its invention was very likely a euphemism to disguise trolley lines downgraded into trackless lines."Utter nonsense. See, for only one readily accessible example, Electric Railway Journal vol 59 (1922)'s index. That's a decade or so before all-four was a gleam in BMT's eye. (BMT preferred "trolley coach, IMS.)" Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
(Note that designed all four systems tended to use "trolleybus" and its variations instead.)e.g.? I'm not sure there ever were any designed all-four systems in the West, although some evolved that way. One good example is SF, where the "trackless trolley" was still a term used into at least the late sixties. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the remark linked to a few paragraphs above.
I like to hear what other editors have to contribute on this Talk page.
@ Anmccaff and Pi.1415926535:
— Lentower ( talk) 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@anmccaff: Encyclopedias are written in present-day English, not some earlier version from 60 or 70 years ago. Common terminology in use during the heydey of the trolleybus (1940s-1950s) definitely should be prominently mentioned in articles about surviving systems, as I and others wrote above, but the titles and the text should use present-day terminology. I've been interested in trolleybuses for 40 years, and I have never heard anyone claim that "trackless" was part of the common term for this mode in "almost every" system, as you do above. I have only heard of this being common in the northeastern U.S. and Milwaukee, and probably a handful of other places. From what I've seen and read, "trolley coach" was by far the most common term used in the U.S. from the 1920s through the 1970s, but is rarely used now. I have several books, magazines and newspaper articles supporting these statements. On what are you basing your claims?
You use phrasing that implies you were around during the time when many cities were using trolleybuses, and yet your statements suggest otherwise. Most of the info. from that era is not online, but anyone can go to the website Trolleybuses.net and look up the section on "Miscellaneous Odds and Ends and Ads", or the individual city sub-pages, and you can find several ads and articles actually published in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, almost all of which use either "trolley coach" (by far the most common term) or "trolley bus", for example this one (referencing the ATA, now APTA), or this (Chicago, 1945), or this (Kansas City 1955) or this ad from Pullman-Standard (which built all of its trolley coaches in Massachusetts, a place where the mode was referred to as the trackless trolley, and yet still used only the term trolley coach in all of its advertising, because that was the common term nationally). But you don't have to take my word; peruse the site for yourself. (I am not promoting this site, but just mentioning it as one of the few websites where one can find multiple examples of literature actually published during the period when trolleybuses were in more widespread use, most of which is not online.) I have never heard of a "Trackless Trolley [magazine]". Maybe you are thinking of Trolley Coach News (1960s to 1986), which was published by the North American Trackless Trolley Association; in that magazine, the term "trackless trolley" rarely appeared, because very few systems were using it.
I have also never heard anyone claim, as you do, that this mode used to be called a "trolley bus" (two words) in London. I have books that include photos and literature from the early decades of the trolleybus in London, and every bit of evidence suggests it was written as one word from the very start. Some very early (1910s) British systems were referred to as "trackless tram" systems, but my British friends say that's a very antiquated term nowadays (to speakers of British English), which no one would use in modern writing (except in reference to the old term, used only for the pre-1920 systems), and as far as I've seen, "trolleybus" (one word) is the universal term used throughout Britain for the past several decades.
Nowadays, the single-word spelling (trolleybus) is even preferred by the U.S. Transportation Research Board (see the Glossary section of this publication, for example) and APTA (see the Glossary in the 2014 APTA Fact Book – and look at the 2009 edition to see that this was already the case several years ago). And, as I said at the beginning, encyclopedias are written in present-day English. It's appropriate to make reference to old terminology in articles on historical subjects, but it's not appropriate to use old terminology throughout such articles. SJ Morg ( talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in Boston may be able to help! |
This article should have maps showing historical and current extents of the system. Magic ♪piano 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
@ Pi.1415926535: Your renaming from Boston-area_trackless_trolleys to Trolleybuses of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority left re-directs, that expose the old name, e.g. in uses of {{ Main}} and {{ See also}}. Can you work through [1] and fix them? Thanx — Lentower ( talk) 22:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I have renamed the article to Trolleybuses in Greater Boston, something I had been planning to do for a long time, because (except for the "Greater" part) that is the standard title format for all articles in this subject area, already in use (for years) for the articles on all seven other existing North American trolleybus systems, plus some closed North American systems (such as Edmonton and Atlanta), and for articles on well over 100 current and former trolleybus systems outside North America. To see for yourself, take a look at this page (or go to Special:PrefixIndex and input search terms for yourself). No other title format is even close to being standard. This one is almost universal for this subject area on Wikipedia. Personally, I believe the article should be located at "Trolleybuses in Boston" (not Greater), because Cambridge is part of the metropolitan area commonly known simply as Boston, all served by MBTA, and 99% of Wikipedia readers would understand that "Boston" in that title is short for "the Boston area" – and the text of the article can make it clear that the article is not limited to the city of Boston proper. Also, this article is not just about the current system and the current operator (MBTA), but about the entire history of this system back to 1936. One reason I hadn't gotten around to moving the article previously is that I wanted to do it when I had time to add some history to this article, which is very short on history. Compare to Trolleybuses in Dayton and Trolleybuses in Philadelphia. I'll try to add some history now. The old title (used until just 2 days ago), Boston-area trackless trolleys, at least included a [correct] geographic reference, but its format was still very different from the standard title for articles in this subject area, so a renaming to the "Trolleybuses in [city]" format was long overdue. SJ Morg ( talk) 08:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I went through [2] and updated both the visible and invisible uses of this article's last name in the article namespace. — Lentower ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@ SJ Morg: Can you move/rename commons:Category:Trolleybuses of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority? (If not, perhaps @ Pi.1415926535: or someone else would.) It's visible at
— Lentower ( talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Why? The things aren't called that there, and aren't actually called that anywhere else, either, except in railfan nostalgia. Which English speaking places using these things now call them by your preferred name, and which -if any- used the term when operating them? Anmccaff ( talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
What "mass renaming?"I am referring to Cambridge, and, I suppose, Philadelphia, here. Pittsburgh, I suppose Well, if you add "trolley coach, it's looking a bit like North America, isn't it? Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-hyphenated "trolleybus" derivatives are in modern times universally used across languages (note the Japanese "Tororiibasu"Wiki has a very nice long list of gairaigo and wasei-eigo; almost all of them -all but 5 or so- are written and said an a single word. I'd bet half started out as two or more. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
and the French "trolleybus")I believe, although am not sure, that that is partly an outgrowth of GE's "Trollibus." Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
and those operators (which make up the vast majority of operators, past and present) tend to use "trolleybus" not "trolley bus". So you're just wasting everyone's time; go produce actual content instead"Those operators? Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
As a side note: "trackless trolley" (the local term, but uncommon outside of Boston and Philly) is a term used only in American systems; its invention was very likely a euphemism to disguise trolley lines downgraded into trackless lines."Utter nonsense. See, for only one readily accessible example, Electric Railway Journal vol 59 (1922)'s index. That's a decade or so before all-four was a gleam in BMT's eye. (BMT preferred "trolley coach, IMS.)" Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
(Note that designed all four systems tended to use "trolleybus" and its variations instead.)e.g.? I'm not sure there ever were any designed all-four systems in the West, although some evolved that way. One good example is SF, where the "trackless trolley" was still a term used into at least the late sixties. Anmccaff ( talk) 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the remark linked to a few paragraphs above.
I like to hear what other editors have to contribute on this Talk page.
@ Anmccaff and Pi.1415926535:
— Lentower ( talk) 18:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
@anmccaff: Encyclopedias are written in present-day English, not some earlier version from 60 or 70 years ago. Common terminology in use during the heydey of the trolleybus (1940s-1950s) definitely should be prominently mentioned in articles about surviving systems, as I and others wrote above, but the titles and the text should use present-day terminology. I've been interested in trolleybuses for 40 years, and I have never heard anyone claim that "trackless" was part of the common term for this mode in "almost every" system, as you do above. I have only heard of this being common in the northeastern U.S. and Milwaukee, and probably a handful of other places. From what I've seen and read, "trolley coach" was by far the most common term used in the U.S. from the 1920s through the 1970s, but is rarely used now. I have several books, magazines and newspaper articles supporting these statements. On what are you basing your claims?
You use phrasing that implies you were around during the time when many cities were using trolleybuses, and yet your statements suggest otherwise. Most of the info. from that era is not online, but anyone can go to the website Trolleybuses.net and look up the section on "Miscellaneous Odds and Ends and Ads", or the individual city sub-pages, and you can find several ads and articles actually published in the 1930s, '40s and '50s, almost all of which use either "trolley coach" (by far the most common term) or "trolley bus", for example this one (referencing the ATA, now APTA), or this (Chicago, 1945), or this (Kansas City 1955) or this ad from Pullman-Standard (which built all of its trolley coaches in Massachusetts, a place where the mode was referred to as the trackless trolley, and yet still used only the term trolley coach in all of its advertising, because that was the common term nationally). But you don't have to take my word; peruse the site for yourself. (I am not promoting this site, but just mentioning it as one of the few websites where one can find multiple examples of literature actually published during the period when trolleybuses were in more widespread use, most of which is not online.) I have never heard of a "Trackless Trolley [magazine]". Maybe you are thinking of Trolley Coach News (1960s to 1986), which was published by the North American Trackless Trolley Association; in that magazine, the term "trackless trolley" rarely appeared, because very few systems were using it.
I have also never heard anyone claim, as you do, that this mode used to be called a "trolley bus" (two words) in London. I have books that include photos and literature from the early decades of the trolleybus in London, and every bit of evidence suggests it was written as one word from the very start. Some very early (1910s) British systems were referred to as "trackless tram" systems, but my British friends say that's a very antiquated term nowadays (to speakers of British English), which no one would use in modern writing (except in reference to the old term, used only for the pre-1920 systems), and as far as I've seen, "trolleybus" (one word) is the universal term used throughout Britain for the past several decades.
Nowadays, the single-word spelling (trolleybus) is even preferred by the U.S. Transportation Research Board (see the Glossary section of this publication, for example) and APTA (see the Glossary in the 2014 APTA Fact Book – and look at the 2009 edition to see that this was already the case several years ago). And, as I said at the beginning, encyclopedias are written in present-day English. It's appropriate to make reference to old terminology in articles on historical subjects, but it's not appropriate to use old terminology throughout such articles. SJ Morg ( talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)