Colours

Some of the table headers for individual ruts are unreadable, with blue and black text on dark blue backgrounds. See MOS:COLOUR for why this is a problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is to merge The Hague Semi-metro into Trams in The Hague, based on these key points, and building upon KatVanHuis's contributions:
  • Wikipedia:Semi-duplicate: As KatVanHuis highlighted the wealth of historical sources, this merge highlights how the details of the tramlines play into the overall network. By bringing the pages together it is clear they fit the definition of the semi-duplicate. Notability is not in question: The Lehner Plan / 'semi-metro' project's notability is not disputed. However per the guidance, notable topics that overlap significantly with another subject should be merged when they are not distinct enough.
  • Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons for merging, Context: By merging we make sure readers get the full context of the Hague tram system. Combining information makes it easier to see why certain infrastructure was built and how this has affected the area as a whole, helping the user more easily see how historical elements play into the function and design of the modern day tramlines.

By merging The Hague Semi-metro into Trams in The Hague, a more useful information source will be insured. This does not affect pages in other language Wikipedias. Akpqegoj (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging The Hague Semi-metro into Trams in The Hague. Maintaining a separate article creates unnecessary content duplication and exhibits WP:OVERLAP, given that the page describes infrastructure and operations fundamentally part of the city's tram network. The separate article implies a distinction that seems misleading. Akpqegoj (talk) 08:23, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Akpqegoj for expanding this article, it really is appreciated. However, about your proposal:
Oppose: one reason is, that it's common to have a separate article for high investment infrastructure of a tram network. Below are some of the examples:
Moreover, until two days ago the only overlap was the "Rolling stock/Fleet"-section in both articles. Overlap can be edited out, which is my proposal. KatVanHuis (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – This "semi-metro" term here is debatable, and in any case it is not a separate system to trams in The Hague, consisting of infrastructure improvements rather than a distinct transit mode or network. The edit history shows that one user has contributed the vast majority of its content, with little input from others. It is the same story for the Semi-metro page too. This suggests that the prominence of "semi-metro" in general on English Wikipedia is largely due to individual effort rather than widespread recognition. See why this can be a problem at WP:UNDUE and WP:Ownership#Single-editor ownership. Merge. ~~~~ Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "semi-metro" term refers to a topic that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Indeed the local semi-metro system is not separate from trams in The Hague, but neither are any of the given 9 examples above. These examples are tram systems with a portion of high investment infrastructure, which (when notable) requires its own article.
  • WP:UNDUE mentions viewpoints: this apply mostly to topics like politics, religion, living persons, etc. Here, were are simply talking about transit, and I can only find one viewpoint, which is: The Hague has a semi-metro system.
  • I'm not claiming ownership but I have the right to join discussions about articles that I have interest in. And even if you think that I claim ownership, WP:OWN states: "Even though editors can never "own" an article, it is important to respect the work and ideas of your fellow contributors. Therefore, be cautious when removing or rewriting large amounts of content, particularly if this content was written by one editor; it is more effective to try to work with the editor than against them—even if you think they are acting as if they "own" the article."
KatVanHuis (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether a high-investment in tram infrastructure can have a separate article, but whether it should in this particular case.
The sources do not commonly use "semi-metro" as a meaningful, distinct category for The Hague’s transit system. Your claim that "The Hague has a semi-metro system" is itself the contested viewpoint, not an undisputed fact. The narrow subset of historical sources does not establish sufficient notability for the standalone article.
This aligns with WP:UNDUE—overemphasizing a niche term from limited sources creates an artificial distinction that misrepresents the subject. The information would be better integrated into Trams in The Hague without potentially misleading implications about it being a separate system.
I agree with WP:OWN that it's important to respect the work of fellow contributors, which is why there has been no suggestion of removing or rewriting large amounts of content. This is a merge proposal: the goal is to work with the existing information and integrate it into a more appropriate context.
Given this, a merge remains the most appropriate course of action. ~~~~ Qpwoeizmxnr (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Qpwoeizmxnr, I will address your points:
  • WP:NTEMP stresses that historical sources suffice: Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.
  • The distinction is clear; "Trams in The Hague" covers a broader subject, The Hague Semi-metro narrows it down in time and scope. The article will not be misleading when text is added to explain the exact relation of the two articles.
  • Merging two articles will simply require a lot of rewriting.
KatVanHuis (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trams_in_The_Hague
No tags for this post.