Talk:Firema T-68

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK / Streetcars Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	September 11, 2010

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Streetcars.

TfGM fast tracking withdrawal

See http://www.tfgm.com/tfgm_news.cfm?news_id=9007865?submenuheader=3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.29.41 (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The refurbishment program has not been cancelled, its been partially superceded by the order of 12 more M5000's and the potential order of upto 20 more but there isnt a suggestion of replacing the T68a and not all T68 would be withdrawn, just those in the worst condition. WatcherZero (talk) 11:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure how many trams won't be refurbished as a result of the fast tracked withdrawals. I was aware that not all T68s are being withdrawn yet as not enough M5000s have been/are being ordered to replace all of them. However, the article refers to all trams due to receive a refurbishment program which is surly out-of-date. Not having enough reliable facts I didn't want to update the article. 89.248.29.41 (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safety equipment

I would interested to know what sort of deadman equipment is used on Metrolink, I hope vigilance control will be included on future additions to the fleet? 144.139.85.171 February 2006

The main power handle has to be turned by 90° and held there while the tram is moving, The signaling system will also apply the brakes if a signal is passed at danger Dasy2k1 (talk) 12:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Date format in the references section

Are some of these written in YYYY-DD-MM? It's currently 2012-04-29 00:37 GMT and yet references 5 and 6 say:

"Retrieved 2012-08-03."

It's not August yet, it's only the end of April, so as it stands the statement is false (although I believe an honest mistake, there seems to be no reason to lie about it). I can only assume, as words that it means the 8th of March, but I've never seen that format before. I've left it as is, but is that the sort of thing that should be updated for consistency? Presumably to the YYYY-MM-DD format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.137.171.79 (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in refs which are formatted YYYY-DD-MM are not in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation style; they also fail MOS:DATE whether in the references section or elsewhere. As you noticed, if the day of the month is 12 or earlier, it is ambiguous and could be taken as YYYY-MM-DD format. This is actually quite likely, since YYYY-MM-DD is in accordance with ISO 8601 whereas YYYY-DD-MM is not. Dates in refs are also covered by MOS:DATEUNIFY, which states that they should be consistent with each other; also that access dates should either be consistent with publication dates, or be YYYY-MM-DD.

The dates in question were added with these edits, so it seems that the editor who did this hadn't noticed the clock tick past midnight. I've altered them to 9 March 2012, which is both more likely and unambiguous. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Witthdrawal table

The withdrawal information has been copy pasted from http://www.britishtramsonline.co.uk/manchester.html and being in breach of copypaste policy, has been deleted. Mantrans7 (talk) 12:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents

Series of non-notable incidents deleted, of little encyclopedic value. Mantrans7 (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Wouldn't it be better to move this back to T-68 (which is where it used to be for years until 2018) so we can avoid all the complications of manufacturer mergers etc? G-13114 (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change from Breda to Firema

Currently in the process of editing the changes from Breda to Firema, working through various books to provide accurate references. Please hold off reverting until complete. 92.26.185.140 (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicle Names

Necessary? We went through this around a year a go, accurate sources show 90 something individual names carried over the fleets lifespan. Listing more than a couple of examples provides no value to the article, causes clutter and is rather specific information that can be easily obtained by the few who want to find it. As for 1023s name, i am aware it carried a name, after it was withdrawn from service but so far have not found a reliable source to include on this article. Can we agree a plethora of random, incomplete names arent required here? LRV1007 (talk) 03:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]