Talk:List of cities with trolleybuses

there is a trolley bus in Latvian capital Riga

Is listing the Cambridge separate from the Boston system really needed? (Note, perhaps if none of the lines are the connected), Otherwise, the Dayton line actually runs through many other surrounded cities as well, but since they're all part of "Greater Dayton" we don't consider each city having its own Trolley Bus system. Peyna 01:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The trolleybuses operating out of Harvard Square in Cambridge comprise a system completely independent of the "Silver Line" trolleybuses running in Boston. For this reason, both of these cities represent a "core" city from which a trolleybus system may or may not run out into surrounding "suburbs" and should therefore both be listed. Indeed, until the "Silver Line" trolleybuses began service a few years ago, it would have been technically incorrect to name "Boston" as a trolleybus city, because none were operating there! Gellersen 05:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate Boston and Cambridge

There "might" be a need for a separate listing for Boston and Cambridge. Some people (including me) think that unconnected groups of lines "should" be listed separately (within reason). A book published years ago, "Trackless Trolleys of Boston," had maps that showed that Boston's trolleybus "system" had more than one unconnected "division." Perhaps these should be listed separately under the heading "Boston." Ldemery 19:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Boston and Cambridge deserve separate listings because they are two unconnected systems - but they are already listed separately, and have been for some time! Denvoran 20:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak v. Rydel - please cut the POV battles over city names and spellings

Switching back and forth between languages is vandalism - in particular, when this results in deletion of the Cyrillic-alphabet forms. The behavior of "Kuban kazak" is POV and is not acceptable.

Furthermore, I see that "Kuban kazak's" statements re. "correct names per article names" is untrue in three cases - Kharkiv, which he changed to "Kharkov," and Kryvyi Rih, which he changed to "Kryvy Rih", and Luhansk, which he changed to "Lugansk." The (English-language) "Wikipedia" article titles are in fact "Kharkiv," "Kryvyi Rih" and "Luhansk."

Even if the traditional English forms were used consistently, as on the Kiev page ("Kiev is the traditional English name for the city"), emphasizing traditional English forms over native-language forms is also POV, and should not be accepted.

Belarusian place names pose a problem, in part because of inconsistencies in "Wikipeida" articles: The "Babruysk" article uses this spelling as the title, but "Babrujsk" throughout the body of the article.

See also: "Mogilev" as the title, "Mogilev, or Mahiloŭ" as the first three words, then "Mogilev" and "Mahiloŭ" used interchangeably throughout the article.

Even more confused: "Homyel" as the title, "Gomel or Homel" as the first three words, then "Homiel" throughout the body of the article.

I see that the Minsk article states that "Мінск" is the official spelling in Belarus, but this information is not provided for other Belarusian cities. There "should" be a Wikipedia resource for this particular country for those of us who wish to avoid POV-type disputes over names.

By contrast to Belarus, the situation with regard to city names in Ukraine is unambiguous:

"Newly-independent Ukraine declared Ukrainian its official language after 1991, and introduced a national Latin-alphabet standard for geographic names in 1995, establishing the use of the spelling Kyiv in official documents since October 1995." Use of anything other than Kyiv, Kharkiv and so forth is therefore POV and is not acceptable - whether or not one agrees with the Ukrainian government. Ldemery 02:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Using the English-language forms is policy; see WP:UE, wherever that links today. However, this would only apply to Kharkov, which, like Kiev, is relatively well-known in English. The other two should (by the default clause when there is no English form, be in the local language; presumably Ukrainian. Septentrionalis 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but this policy applies to article titles, not entries in a list. I might be wrong about this, but a quick survey of lists suggests that most use "local" forms - perhaps because some traditional English forms (Basle for Basel, Leghorn for Livorno) have fallen out of use. There "should" be a policy on lists as well as article titles. Ldemery 01:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw this on RfC. Please let's just use whatever city name the article is currently at. A list of trolleybus systems is certainly not the place to dispute these names, which have to be established at the individual articles.--Pharos 03:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that English language articles should use the English word for everything (unless there isnt one). Is there an ISO standard for this type of thing? Garydh 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mytishchi

I've replaced the entry for Mytishchi, at the "bottom" of the Russia-Europe section, with annotations. It appears that the Trolleybus Magazine report of the line opening was incorrect - but I think this "annotation" should remain pending clarification.

There is no need in clarification. The report on Mytishchi was incorrect. There are only three towns near Moscow which have trolleybuses: Khimki, Vidnoe, Podolsk. Mytishchi does not have them.

There are some talks that the town of Korolyov could build a trolleybus line to connect to Moscow. Such a line, if built, would go along Yaroslavskoe chaussee, the Eastern border of Mytishchi. There is no other connection between Mytishchi and trolleybus.--Achp ru 16:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation and retitling of "List of cities with trolleybuses" and "List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses."

In response to the proposed deletion of the "List of cities that no longer have trolleybuses," I have begun consolidation of the two lists under the new title "List of trolleybus systems." Ldemery 04:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)