Talk:Edinburgh Trams

"About 8.1 miles"

I appreciate your help in getting this article up to GA status. However, in this case, it should be left as I've put it. It is "about 8.1 miles" because the system was lain out in metric (13 km). The conversion isn't exact, hence "about". Yet, in the UK, distances are usually measured in miles, and Edinburgh Trams was one of the first UK tram systems lain out in metric. That's why it is as it is, not to mention that it reads better to the ear. RGloucester — 📬 18:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

"The first phase of project consists of a sixteen-station link between York Place in the city centre and Edinburgh Airport, or about 8.1 miles (13 kilometres) of track."

The or is incorrect, indicates choice. It is not a sixteen-station link or about 8.1 miles of track...., shoud read:

...is a sixteen station, 8.1 mile line....or

...is an 8.1 mile line with sixteen stations....Mo7838 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done[1] (hopefully with correct formatting and grammar!). —Sladen (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

RGloucester (talk · contribs), FWIW, to the best of my knowledge all modern UK tram (and rail) systems have been drawn up exclusively in metric. —Sladen (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, modern ones, but not the originals, for obvious reasons. I mis-wrote above. I am switching it to display imperial first, as that seems more appropriate considering the way distances are normally expressed. Also, in common parlance, "or" can be used as conjunction. As in sixteen stops or 8.1 miles, depending on how you measure distance (you could use "stops"). RGloucester — 📬 21:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a modern system. In a modern system, everything is in metric: including chainage and speed limits, so I'm unclear why it makes (any) sense to use imperial. —Sladen (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Because, in common use, and to the common user, one expresses distances and speeds in imperial? The Metrolink article does the same.

However, if I may ask for some assistance with something else. Does anyone know a good place to find a proper route description, like, for example, where the trams start to go on-street? I've had to create a new route section for the GA-review, which I think is good…except what it really needs, and what this article lacks, is a good, detailed description including bridges and such, of the route. It used to be on the old Trams website, but that was taken down… RGloucester — 📬 22:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Try relation 2632877 on OpenStreetMap. —Sladen (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Imperial or Metric?

Pros for Using Imperial measurements:

• it is about a United Kingdom piece of intrastructure
• Other tram articles on trams use imperial, eg Manchester Metrolink, San Francisco cable car system as their primary unit of measure

Pros for Using Metric measurements:

• Like other UK tram networks, all distances, speeds etc will be quoted in metric when it goes live, perhaps this is a European Union directive being a new network with no existing interfaces?

Verdict:

• If it's primary audience was tram enthusiasts, I would go for metric, but as this will be ordinary UK citizens with little or no knowledge of the inner workings of tram networks, I am think imperial should be used.

The exact length does appear unclear per its either 14km = 8.7mi or 8.5mi = 13.7km, perhaps we should just run with the former for now, I am sure it will be able to be acurately calculated by tram odometer when the system opens.Mo7838 (talk) 17:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Whatever you use, it should be properly referenced. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your insightfulness.Mo7838 (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done kudos SladenMo7838 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• The reference says "14K (8.5 mi). But a better rounding is 8.7, which is why it is different. RGloucester — 📬 22:36, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am assuming the reference doesn't say that the tramway has a temperature of 14 kelvins. If you're so keen on being old-school, this distance would more traditionally be expressed as something like 8 23⁄32 (depending on how much precision you want), because the traditional subdivisions of the mile are based on dyadic fractions (or units derived therefrom, such as furlongs), not decimal fractions (1⁄32 = 55 yards or 165 ft, as opposed to the not-very-meaningful 1⁄10 = 176 yards or 528 ft). In any event, British engineering and construction have been well-nigh 100% metric for decades (basically the USA is the only country in the world that still engineers in Ye Olde Englyshe units), so I don't see the need to give precedence to these archaic, confusing and irrational units in a context where they're not actually used in the real world. As a general point of metrological good practice, a rounded conversion should never be given precedence over the initial or nominal value, and all the primary sources that I have seen give the length as 14 km, typically without a (superfluous) Imperial conversion. A choice of units should not be made on the basis that they "sound" more authentically British; this is to value pretentiousness over practicality (I'm reminded of Americans who insist on giving engine displacements in cu. in., even tho their auto industry, like everywhere else on earth, has measured it in cm³ or L for decades). I am sure the Britishness of our engineers is not called into question by their desire to use a more rational system of measures, and I dispute that there's anyone alive in 21^st-century Britain who doesn't know what a metre is, but I don't think most people under the age of 40 (I'm being generous) really understand Imperial or know how to use it correctly. If, for historical reasons (such as a discussion of pre-1960s British tramways) there are legitimate reasons to prefer Imperial units, this should be reflected consistently throughout the article, e.g. by giving vehicle dimensions and masses firstly in ft/in and long tons/cwt respectively, followed by a metric conversion. The article, as it stands, correctly prefers the metricated value of 1435 mm for the gauge, because this aligns with the existing metrological practice in contemporary Britain; giving 4' 8+1⁄2" as the primary value would be anachronistic. Mixing and matching Imperial and metric is bad practice: it helps nobody in particular, and it makes the article stylistically clumsy. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember saying anything about "Britishness". I said, quite simply, that in common use distances and speeds are quoted in miles and miles per hour, just as road signs are given in that manner. I also said that articles like Manchester Metrolink or Sheffield Supertram also use Imperial. It is quite clear that you do not have a neutral point of view on this matter, considering your derision for what you call "Ye Olde Englyshe units", and considering you tendency to edit articles on metrification. There is no reason for such nonsense. I can understand a metre as good as the next person, but I'm certain Imperial should take priority for distances and speeds, just as the government has decreed that roads signs are done in that manner. RGloucester — 📬 13:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Let me also quote the manual of style at WP:UNIT:

In non-science UK-related articles: the main quantity is generally expressed in metric units (44 kilograms (97 lb)), but imperial units are still used as the main units in some contexts, including:

• miles, miles per hour, and fuel consumption in miles per imperial gallon;
• feet/inches and stones/pounds for personal height and weight;
• imperial pints for draught beer/cider and bottled milk.
• hands for horses and most other equines
  — WP:UNIT , in x, x, Manual of Style

RGloucester — 📬 13:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I never pretended to be "neutral", but I am unconvinced that there is such a thing as perfect neutrality in this case; in my experience the people with the most dogmatically inflexible opinions are those who are convinced they don't have an opinion and are merely being impartial. It has been the policy of our successive governments since 1965 to migrate our country to the metric system, and the fact that they have done this so slowly and inefficiently that, well into the 21^st Century, the DfT has still not brought our road signage into the 20^th Century, is quite irrelevant. In my experience British people do not slavishly convert the lengths of, for example, 10 km races into "6.21 miles", because this adds nothing of interest, and they are no less capable of understanding what the metric unit means than are people from the rest of the world.

I edit articles because I know a lot about metrology, and I believe it is appropriate for Wikipedia articles express measurements more consistently. There exists an international standard which every person in the world with a basic education should be able to understand (i.e. the SI and associated units), so it generally makes sense to prioritise this. I don't like privileging units that most people whose cultural origins lie outside the Anglophone world (many of whom do speak English and some of whom do read the English Wikipedia) do not generally understand, and many people of younger generations within the Anglophone world do not understand, especially since the overwhelming majority of people can understand the metric equivalent perfectly well, much as they might like to pose at being old-fashioned by speaking in Imperial units (like I say, even something as fundamental as the connection between yards and miles is probably a mystery to 95% of them). Some editors (I won't say "Americans" but that is what I suspect) have an obnoxious habit of not only providing no metric equivalents for the US Customary units that nobody else in the world uses, but even inserting feet and suchlike into contexts where they are patently absurd and do not belong, with no effort to translate them into standard international measurements (e.g. in articles about France) - is this in line with your idea of "neutrality", or is it OK for me to change this sort of inconsiderate nonsense, in your opinion? I don't find it unreasonable for a reference work that is the product of international collaboration to prefer international measurements.

The manual of style and the other articles you cite are also not god-given; they are products of people who have, dare I say it, opinions. I'd also put it to you that the person who wrote that part of the style manual has a dubious understanding of metrology; "miles per gallon" is a measurement of fuel economy and is formally considered a supplementary unit; in the UK, fuel consumption is (by legal mandate) measured in the standard international unit of L/100 km. These are reciprocal quantities, and confusing them is pretty serious incompetence. I dispute that "main units" means "use these units slavishly, regardless of the primary sources or any other considerations" -- to emphasise, my main dispute here is not with imperial/metric per se, so much as that an approximate conversion has been given priority over the value expressed in the primary source; this is exceptionally bad practice. If I were important enough to merit a Wikipedia page of my own, and gave my height and weight as 186 cm, 75 kg, because I've always measured/weighed myself in cm and kg, and they're the units that are most meaningful to me and about 95% of planet earth, would you insist that, because I am British, this is unacceptable, and some meaningless value in medieval units is to be preferred, in mindless adherence to the style guide? There is a need to show some level of discretion, rather than following rules to the point of absurdity; presenting a primary value as if it were a conversion is disingenuous, which is simply not acceptable in any work of reference. My point is that, if, in point of fact, we have mixed measurement traditions (which we do), the primary value is always to be preferred, in its given units. If I were to cite an OS map, would you say that, even tho they are 100% metric and have been since the 1970s, I should censor this fact by replacing all references to km with mi, and m with yds? Implicit in any style guide is the cardinal rule: "break any of these rules before you write something absurd". If you disagree with my central contention that the primary source determines the primary unit, please explain your reasoning to me, and leave out your "certainty" that miles and mph invariably have priority (this makes it sound like the Imperial system is some sort of divine revelation). You could also go to the source of the offending metric units and try to persuade Edinburgh council or the British engineering and construction communities that they've been horribly misguided for these past 40 or so years, and the Imperial system is actually the key to their future. I'd be most interested to hear how far you got.

As for "derision", if you ever try to deal with the extreme and pointless silliness of Imperial engineering units (BTUs, therms, poundals, slugs, lbm vs. lbf, "mils" vs. fractional inches, two different kinds of gallon which don't relate in a natural way to cubic feet, not to speak of the horrible conversion factors like ft/s to mph or hp to BTU/h) I can guarantee you that you'll join me in deriding Imperial and sending it to the history books where, for the present generation of British engineers and scientists (of which I am one), it already belongs. Archon 2488 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

That is marvelous, and I appreciate your opinion on the matter. But the talk page for this article is not a forum for discussion of systems of units. If you would like to propose a change to the manual of style, head over to the village pump and make a proposal. Otherwise, please don't disrupt this article's talk page with stuff that has nothing to do with it. RGloucester — 📬 16:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be patronising or dismissive. I didn't mean to start a more general discussion about units and I apologise if I rambled in trying to make my point; I was specifically calling into question your interpretation of the style guide, as it stands, on one particular point, relating to very specific content of the article. I'll request a clarification of that section of the style guide on this matter, and I ask that you abide by it - I don't think it's controversial to require editors to respect the content of primary sources, rather than trying to "correct" primary sources because they disagree with the choice of units, which is misleading to readers and thus bad practice. It should be made clear what is the source value and what is the approximate conversion. I would also draw your attention to the following quote from the style guide, directly below the passage you quoted: "Nominal and defined quantities should be given in the original units first" -- this seems unambiguously to preclude putting a converted value before the nominal reference/design value of 14 km, i.e. the official figure from Edinburgh council. At the head of the page is "Use common sense in applying it [the style guide]; it will have occasional exceptions." Couldn't have made my point better myself. Archon 2488 (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I was being neither patronizing nor dismissive. Merely establishing that meaningful work is being done on this article, and that this is not the place for the discussion you've started. One of the sources, that is, the Edinburgh Council website gives "14km (8.5 miles)". Other sources, like the Scotsman newspaper and the Edinburgh Evening News, give 8.7 miles and 8.5 miles variously as the primary number, while still listing 14km as the alternate. I understand that there are exceptions to the style guide. This is not one of them.

Your justification for changing the units is coloured by your opposition to any use of Imperial units, which you've made visibly clear. I don't necessarily disagree with you on that point personally, but I do know that in common use, Imperial units are used in the UK these types of distances and speeds. I know that the style guide also agrees with that notion, and that other similar articles adhere to it. To deviate from the paradigm in this article alone, without changing the others, would be incorrect. If you are proposing that change them all, fine (Manchester Metrolink was also lain in metric, but an approximate conversion is still given as primary). But you must do this at the village pump, and not here, where it doesn't belong, and where it is disruptive. RGloucester — 📬 18:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• For that sake of letting bygones be bygones and so on, I'm willing to agree to metric units in the article, if other editors have no objections. This is not a battle I want to fight, and it is interfering with work that has otherwise very much improved the article. What say you and all? RGloucester — 📬 18:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  It's a UK article, hence British English has been used. Yes the construction (and I believe the tram) industry speak in metric and have done so for many decades, but UK citizen 'Joe Public' who is going to be the primary reader, speaks in imperial so the status quo should remain.Mo7838 (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  Your assumptions about what units British people will use are not relevant. As a country we have two systems of measurement existing in parallel, one modern and one largely obsolete. The only objective way of deciding which one to prefer in a given context is to follow the primary source, which any credible work of reference is ethically bound to do in any regard (where dual units are given by Edinburgh council, the preference is for the round metric values, with - very approximate - Imperial equivalents, so this simply reinforces my point). Please note that this argument is not dependent on my personal preference for metric (I don't dispute that would be bad practice on my part). Archon 2488 (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  Distances and speeds in the UK are in imperial, hence the article needs to reflect. Cars are sold with speedometers and odometers in imperial, a new motorway will have speed signs erected in imperial..hardly 'obsolete'. Yes the contract to build the motorway will probably be in metric, but a a motorway extension of 10 km will be announced as a 6.1 mile extension because that is the unit of measure the UK public relates to.Mo7838 (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  Giving an imperial conversion is fine, and I never said otherwise, but you must always bear in mind that a measurement, a nominal value and a conversion are all different things, and it must be made unambiguously clear in any objective work of reference, which one of these three things a given number is; the entirety of my dispute with the article is that it fails to do this and thus is misleading. This is simply good practice, and the essential point here has not been called into dispute. You have not given a compelling argument for altering information from a primary source, which is at best very questionable, and not at all conducive to writing an objective source of information. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:02, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a type of argument that is pointless to fight over, just like battles over WP:ENGVAR. It harms the encyclopedia, and it is pedantic. To be honest, it doesn't matter if one measures in feet, furlongs or myriametres. As long as one has a conversion at hand, it doesn't make tuppence coloured worth of difference. Can we make compromise for the sake of sanity? RGloucester — 📬 22:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

So what is your proposed compromise? The difference is that 14 km and 8.7 miles (or is it 8.5? whats' a mere 352 yards between friends?) are not the same thing, and any engineer with such a casual attitude to unit conversion would soon be out of a job. "Color" and "colour" are the same thing, and I have never tried to "correct" American spellings (which are often more logical than British spellings, in any case). Archon 2488 (talk) 23:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost, I am not an engineer, nor do I ever desire to be one. To certain scholars of the English language, for example, Henry Watson Fowler, "color" and "colour" are not the same thing (he advocated "color"). Just as to you, these approximate measurements are not "the same thing". But, to Joe Bloggs, they are about as close as one needs to get. This article is for Joe Bloggs.

That is besides the point, however. My compromise, as I said above, was to allow metric to be primary for this article, to spare the world this nonsense about arguing of petty units rather than actually creating or adding a new information to the article and mucking up the talk page, which has already been done. Fourteen kilometres (8.7 miles). That's that.

After we've finished here, presuming other editors see the light and stop fighting with you over this, perhaps you could take my suggestion and head over to the village pump and make a proposal that metric always be primary. Then, we wouldn't have to waste time here any longer. With sincerity, RGloucester — 📬 00:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree it's become a bit boring, time to move on.Mo7838 (talk) 05:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

And just for the record, if you search for petrol and "miles per litre" you get about 1.4 million hits, a similar search but for petrol and "miles per gallon" gives less than half that. Which isn't surprising as petrol pumps only show litres. Dougweller (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Electric trams don't use petrol? I was just quoting what the style guide said were exceptions to the rule. I wasn't using that phrase. RGloucester — 📬 13:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Currently, this page uses Template:Infobox rail line. We could use Template:Infobox tram network, or the one used by Manchester Metrolink, which is Template:Infobox public transit. Should we bother changing it, or does it not really matter? RGloucester — 📬 18:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done I finally got around to replacing the old rail line infobox with the public transit one. RGloucester — ☎ 15:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Stations

As all of the stations are likely to be very similar, would it better to include in the main Edinburgh Trams article as done in Inner West Light Rail, rather than have an article for each station none of which really pass WP:GNG? Mo7838 (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is a good idea to include them in the main article more than they are now in the route table, however I don't think the independent articles should necessarily exist either. All that people really need to know is that they exist, and where. Other than that, there is nothing notable about them. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Prose quality

This needs some major work if this article was ever to improve. It needs to do so as the system will be coming on line soon and this article will see more traffic. At the moment it is an embarrassment. Any takers? —John (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but this article passed a good article review. Me, and a few other editors heavily worked on the prose at that point. Maintaing the article has been a priority of mine, as well as others, as the line comes into service. It was for that very reason that I sent it in for a good article review back in September. RGloucester — ☎ 16:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

John, would you be able to highlight which sentences (and in which paragraphs) need addressing, these can than be focused on. —Sladen (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if one can specify what needs to be done, it can be examined. I'd be happy to help with any phrases that appear off. I'd prefer, however, if one refrained from such detestable phrases as "embarrassment". RGloucester — ☎ 17:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I implore you, stop at once. While many of your changes are justified, some are not, and should have been discussed before having been implemented. RGloucester — ☎ 19:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • It's a wiki. Anyone can edit. Wait until I have finished and raise your concerns one by one here. That this article passed GA is somewhat surprising. —John (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit, no doubt. However, I have no interest in reverting all one's changes at once without discussing them. Hence, I am being polite in requesting that one halt all changes, and stop with one's disparaging remarks towards this article, which are inappropriate. It is not beneficial to tread all over the work of others, as some kind of "god of Grammar", who apparently has preferences that haven't been agreed by consensus. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks then for your politeness. I have been contributing to the article since 2008 and am now the fourth most prolific contributor to it. I apologise for my initial tone but I do not withdraw my criticisms. The Daily Record is not a reliable source. WP:PROSELINE is a remaining fault. I stand by all my copyedits. Please don't try to own this article; it doesn't need it. Instead, it needs a further thorough copyedit. We don't need an obsessive account of every date on which every adjustment to the timeline was made, or every time an Evening News article criticised it. Let's try to maker it better instead of arguing. Can I use that Grammar God thing on my user page? Please? —John (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Do what you like. However! One shall be subject to the tempestuous virtues of consensus. I am not concerned about the excision of the Daily Record. RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously this has been a very complex project with many twists and turns, justifying a detailed article. Editors work in bringing to this stage is appreciated. Nonetheless some of the information added as the article has evolved, may in the fullness of time not be required. Always a bit hard to see when one has been involved in its evolution, so a fresh pair of eyes can sometimes help put things in perspective. Mo7838 (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I spent a great deal of time removing such fluff at the time of the GA review. I'm not opposed to such changes, however, I would prefer that we remain civil and discuss them before wholesale removals. It might also be worthwhile to consider restructuring such problem-ridden areas, if they exist, rather than demolishing them. RGloucester — ☎ 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with John's comments about the GA review, and I'd never have listed it in its present state. Eric Corbett 23:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  I'm glad you agree, but clearly there are some who do not, otherwise it would not've been listed. RGloucester — ☎ 23:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

  It can easily be delisted, and will be unless it's sufficiently improved. Eric Corbett 23:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Do what you will, tempestuous one. It seems the gods of Grammar have descended upon our flock, and hence have cast us into the dark pit of delisting. I shall sit in the darkness and wail, for I'm sure some kind soul will aid me in due course. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Gogar tram depot in 2012, displaying trams painted in an older livery, never used in service.

The picture caption should be a clue; pictures like this should never be used. I pass this location every week; I'll take a picture with a more relevant livery. Meantime, the picture isn't adding anything. --John (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and non-sentence picture captions shouldn't use a full stop. —John (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

It is illustrative to be able to see the tram depot, is it not? It is. Removing it only harms the reader. RGloucester — ☎ 19:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Trams in/on streets

It is correct to write "trams in So and So Street", but incorrect to write "on Such and Such Street" in usage. I do not know why this is being changed, but I can only think that it might be an ENGVAR issue. RGloucester — ☎ 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

If you were asked where your car was parked, you would answer 'on the street', not 'in the street'. Mo7838 (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would answer: "I parked my car in George Street". Similarly, I'd say "The are trams running in Princes Street". RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mo7838. What do other UK tram articles use? —John (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would accept "at" as a compromise, which is what is used at the Manchester Metrolink article. However, I'm fairly certain that "in" is the standard. RGloucester — ☎ 20:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't think in this instance it is a case of reaching a compromise, it's about getting it right. "At" would be even further away from correct in the current context. "At" would be appropriate if at a station or other landmark, but not so if just on a street. Mo7838 (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

How can a tram be 'on a street'? I've never heard of such a thing. Cars drive in streets, lorries drive in streets, people walk in streets, people live in streets. I've never heard "on a street", except in an American context, which doesn't apply here. RGloucester — ☎ 20:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I hear and use 'in' and 'on' interchangeably. Either is clear enough to me. If I was pedantic I'd say 'on the road' or 'in the street', road being a surface and street being a thoroughfare.[2]--Flexdream (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't find anything concrete to verify either of our theories. I wold have thought that "in" implies being surrounded by, while "on" implies sitting on top of.

My understanding is that anything inside the fence line is "in" the street, eg people live in streets, and that anything beyond is "on" the street, eg cars park on the street. We may need to seek external opinion. Mo7838 (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who lives on a street must indeed have fallen on hard times, else they'd live in a house on that street. Similar with trams, on is clearly correct. Eric Corbett 22:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not correct. In British usage, we say that someone "lives in Shandwick Place", or whatever. We do not say that they live "on Shandwick Place". I do not know where you get that idea. I know that Americans use "on", however, the British do not. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Trams don't live anywhere, that was just an analogy, but they certainly don't run in the street, as that would imply some degree of embedding within the fabric of the street. Saying that you live in Shandwick Place is a commonplace shorthand for saying that you live in a house on Shandwick Place. Eric Corbett 23:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

They do run in the middle of the street. Have you never heard of rails, dear fellow? Why can cars drive in streets, yet trams cannot, despite the fact that their rails are more permanent? Living "in" a street is standard usage, and if it was once shorthand, it has ceased to be so after centuries of usage. RGloucester — ☎ 23:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You're really wasting your time in trying to patronise me, particularly when you're wrong, so I'd advise you not to bother. The rails may or may not be embedded in the street, but the trams most certainly are not. Eric Corbett 23:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what one means by "patronisation". I am merely pointing out the rationale behind what I am saying. I do not appreciate the harshness that one's tone clearly embodies. I do not see why it is necessary. I suggest that we consult external texts. However, in looking for such texts, I have found difficulty. RGloucester — ☎ 23:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

then let me give you a clue. I am not your "dear fellow". That you find difficulty in understanding what you're being told is no concern of mine. Eric Corbett 23:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)