Talk:List of trolleybus systems

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Systems Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the field of Systems. Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Transport This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This consolidation is now complete. Ldemery 05:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sjakkale that this is a useful and encyclopaedic article, but it could do with some work. I also think the title is not quite perfect. The most useful information in the page is probably the dates when the trolleybus systems were introduced and the dates when they were removed. David | Talk 09:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am kind of lost as to why this topic is neccessary? This seems like a perfect example where a Catagory of Cities with TrolleyBus or Cities previously using Trolleybus would list the cities and then could have links to the associated Transit agencies that provided the service. In other words, it looks here like someone is doing a whole lot of work for not much reward or content that meets Wikipedia guidelines. Gohiking 16:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I will reorganize the Germany section, deleting the sequence numbers and simplifying references to cities no longer within Germany. Ldemery 01:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you´ve made a very good job of the list.. but.. there always is a but... did you leave out Königsberg for any particular reason?? IsarSteve 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Königsberg does not belong on this list because it has an operating trolleybus system. Ldemery 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What voltages do/did trolley bus systems use?

The most common voltage was 600V dc, but there were others, including 1,000V dc and (I believe) 1,200V dc.Ldemery 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on DAY MONTH 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Deletion of material for the sake of "consistency with the rest of the article, eliminating information that should be in other articles" - without bothering to move this information to such "other articles" - is vandalism.

I have replaced the deleted material, and shall request intervention of an editor if the vandalism is repeated.

With reference to your quest for "consistency:" I note that there is such a thing as an "annotated" or "footnoted" table. For the purpose of this list, which is arranged geographically, annotations (or "footnotes") are obviously appropriate in cases of:

1.) Trolleybus systems in one city or ("urban area") that existed as discontinuous segments. There were examples in Europe, and these are in the list. I note that you did not remove them.

Obviously related to "geography." I also think it reasonable to present some information regarding the location of these discontinuous segments.

2.) Trolleybus systems in one city or ("urban area") that were operated by more than one undertaking. There were examples in Europe, and these are in the list. I note that you did not remove them.

Obviously related to "geography," because different operators served different areas.

3.) Trolleybus systems that should be distinguished for technical reasons. For example: the New Jersey "All-Service Vehicles" were gasoline-electric motorbuses, modified for operation from external power or the on-board engine-generator set. This point tends not to be understood today, but had significant implications. For example: bodies could not withstand the stress of "full-time" operation from external power, and this was a significant factor in the short life of the system. Use of new-generation "pure" trolleybuses was not possible because the route system was not fully electrified, and storage yards were not electrified at all. (By contrast, the "single-pole" system used at Drammen had few apparent implications of this type.)

I think it reasonable to "edit," that is, to "remove" annotation of the type described above, as "Wikipedia" articles for individual systems are written (and rewritten).

But not as you did.

Again: If you repeat the vandalism, I shall request the intervention of an editor. Ldemery 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Arsenikk. Deleted content is good to another article (for example Trolleybuses in United States) but not fit good to List. I will comment these sections. --Jklamo 16:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I shall cling, firmly, to my original point: "Deletion of "table-annotation" or "table-footnote" material - without bothering to move this information to "other articles" - is vandalism. Ldemery 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And be sure to include links to "this" list. Virtually all sources include "demonstrations." Ldemery 05:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of "demonstrations" in this list has attracted a bit of tenacious opposition, which is unfortunate. Virtually all sources and lists include "demonstrations" among the "operating" and "closed" (or "revenue") systems. As public transport historians know well, the label "demonstration" covers a variety of operations. In some cases, a trolleybus "demonstration" was nothing more than a test run (or a few test runs) at a tramcar depot. I tend to agree that such operations "might not" belong on this list - but information is not always available.

Other trolleybus "demonstrations" included operation on tram lines in public roads. In such cases, one pole was raised and the other was clipped to a device (called a "skate" in the U.S.) which was towed (or dragged) behind the vehicle, using the rails for return current as tramcars did. (Trolleybus "demonstrations" were conducted by a very small number of tramway systems which had twin-wire overhead.) It would be extremely difficult to justify exclusion of such operations from this list. For one thing, a small number of tramway systems were built and tested, but never opened for public service. All sources include such cases - together with tramway systems that were started but not completed.

Still other trolleybus "demonstrations" included construction of short lengths of twin-wire overhead - and vehicles that carried passengers (free of charge). Deletion of such examples from this list cannot be justified.

There is no need to "stress" over such distinctions. One need only follow the precedent set by previous researchers and include all known trolleybus "demonstrations" - in the manner of previous lists. Ldemery 05:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed the flagicon removal undertaken - rather presumptiously - by "Andrwsc"

As he noted in a personal e-mail to me - but was too cowardly to note here - "Andrwsc" acted prior to adoption of WP:FLAG into Wikipedia policy.

In other words, "Andrwsc" acted according to a "draft" policy, which has not yet been enacted.

That, in my view, is a high-handed and arrogant act by a "Wikipedia" administrator.

The "current" iteration of flagicons on this list, which I undertook in order to improve "user friendliness," is not "perfect" - but: to quote directly from "WP:FLAG"

"[Flagicons] can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries, such as for reporting political, economic, sporting or other statistical data, and many readers can more quickly scan a table with many countries with flag icons because of visual differences between flags."

"Andrwsc" did not dispute this - generally or for this list.

I note in addition the passage from "WP:FLAG": "when added excessively, [flagicons] clutter the page and become redundant."

"Andrwsc" does not make this charge for this list. He merely argues - rather weakly - that:

1.) The [flagicons] were attached to section headers, and most sections were big enough that you couldn't see more than 1 or 2 icons on a screen at a time.

--Well, boo hoo hoo. As noted above, the "current" iteration of flagicons on this list is not "perfect". I think they "should" go in the "Contents" boxes rather than the section. But I do not know how to do this - or if it is (yet) possible. "Andrwsc" did not bother to suggest this, so I will assume it is not (yet) possible.

2.) Many of the "flags" were actually coat of arms, and a large number of them were somewhat obscure, so there really isn't any benefit for users to be able to scan the list using them as visual clues for the table of interest.

--Well, (boo hoo hoo)^(boo hoo hoo).

"I'd also note that about 180 new templates needed to be created solely to support these five articles, which is very much contrary to the purpose of templates - normally, each template would have many transclusions on many pages."

I find a certain circularity to this "logic." It would appear that I'm to conclude that each newly-created template will, as if by magic, automatically sprout "many transclusions on many pages."

Or that this has occurred with each template created up to now.

Or something like that.

I note that the "WP:FLAG" essay fails to specify who some of these "many readers" are: those whose first language is other than English. The addition of flagicons was not an attempt at "decoration," but of improving "user-friendliness" - in particular, for those whose first language is not English, and are likely to recognize national (and perhaps sub-national) flags more quickly. In some cases, I was forced to make additional templates - and to use coats of arms rather than actual flags (which are flown / used in some places as flags).

Let me reiterate:

The "current" iteration of flagicons on this list, which I undertook in order to improve "user friendliness," is not "perfect."

Let me also paraphrase a respected colleague: "Perfectionism is the enemy of the good."

As for the length of this list, let me note that "Andrwsc" did not bother to suggest a scheme for division. One of the two predecessors of this list, as evidenced above, was proposed for deletion. Ldemery 03:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time has come to divide this list to increase user-friendliness and manageability. I think the best way to do this is to make separate pages for the countries with the most systems - Russia being at the top of the "short list of potential new pages." Comments / suggestions?

The "short list" of candidate countries for separate pages is: France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Ukraine, UK and US. Comments / suggestions ? Ldemery 01:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question does not appear on this list, nor on the "sub-list" pertaining to Spain. What on earth are you talking about? Ldemery (talk) 03:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is 166K in size, way too big. Break it up by continent or something. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By continent will not work because some continents had many more systems than others. I have begun to make separate list pages for the countries with the most systems. Ldemery (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted MegaTrolley's commentary beneath the Ecuador table because it does not belong in a "list" - and is not NPOV in any case. Ldemery (talk) 07:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius, Lithuania, still operates an extensive trolleybus system.

Sca (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vilnius, and Kaunas, appear on this list. Ldemery (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "unreferenced" tags that "DAJF" has placed, repeatedly, on "sub-lists" for various countries, "broken" out of this list for the purpose of reducing file size.

This repeated placing of "unreferenced" tags - together with removal of the "References" line, with the internal link "Books, Periodicals and External Links" on each "sub-list," constitutes vandalism.

It is also not consistent with practices related to 1.) formatting ... and 2.) common courtesy ... that I have seen elsewhere in "Wikipedia" articles.

If "DAJF" wishes to divide the "Books," "Periodicals" and "External Links" sections of this list among the sub-lists, then he certainly should not hesitate to do so. Whether this is a "good idea" is not clear, because it would generate significant duplication, so "DAJF" might want to outline his scheme before executing it. Ldemery (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might have worked better if each sublist's References said something like "See references in List of trolleybus systems". That would have been more intuitive and probably would have avoided the tagging. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ldemery, please read WP:Assume good faith. DAJF's edits were not vandalism, but wholly appropriate. You need to also read WP:Citing sources for the guideline of how to create references. A wikilink to another article or list does not constitute a valid reference. You need to include the set of sources you used for each list on the lists themselves. You claim this is unnecessary because they are "sublists", but the Wikimedia system does not include any notion of hierarchical article structure. Every page must stand on it's own merit. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying sooner, but I had not made any edits to this article, and thus did not have it marked as "Watched". My "scheme" for this and other similar articles would be that all entries ultimately have individual citations allowing verification of details and dates in the same way that I am doing on List of town tramway systems in Japan. I'm not saying that this has to be done overnight or that any uncited material has to be deleted instantly (it doesn't), but any citations that can be added to individual entries in this article will certainly increase its value as a reference work. --DAJF (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does the ♦-symbol in the list mean (e.g. at the Hillerød entry for Denmark)? 92.251.210.49 (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates instances where there were (or are) two or more independent trolleybus systems operating concurrently within a single city or metropolitan area. By "independent", I mean owned and operated by two different entities, not merely two physically unconnected divisions of a single transport agency's system (as was/is the case in some places, such as in Philadelphia, Toronto, Bucharest).

However, the listing you cited is for Hellerup, not Hillerød. In Denmark, the KS (København Sporveje) and NESA (Hellerup) trolleybus systems were both located in the greater København area. Some lists, including the one in the World Trolleybus Encyclopaedia, list the NESA system under the city heading of "Hellerup", while others list it under København. Most of the examples to which this symbol applied were in the past (gone or merged now), but cities which currently still have two independent trolleybus systems operating in 2009 include Napoli, Italy and São Paulo, Brazil (and maybe Wuhan, China, but probably one of the two has closed). SJ Morg (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying my previous comment, in the Wikipedia lists, the ♦-symbol is also used for physically separate divisions of a single system if sufficient information is known as to the starting and ending dates for the separate divisions. It is also used to distinguish interurban lines from urban systems focussed on a given city, even if both were/are operated by the same transport authority/company, as there is interest in recording separate historical dates for urban service and interurban service. SJ Morg (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Bus-Cluj1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bus-Cluj1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where were taken these names - Kimkol, Markyn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.70.38 (talk) 14:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've checked, Markyn is still unknown, but Kimkol is probably Kumgol-dong in Tanchon. Gorden 2211 (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of trolleybus systems. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120526024543/http://e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/5A1EF38A3F7EC43087256DD90041F08B?OpenDocument to http://e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/allDocs/5A1EF38A3F7EC43087256DD90041F08B?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907060744/http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=181091 to http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=181091
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ohtuleht.ee/index.aspx?id=177099
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923224958/http://tram.nu/atlas/atlas.php?land=cz to http://www.tram.nu/atlas/atlas.php?land=cz&typ=&ling=en&pos=0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070524051018/http://tram.rusign.com/cz/wires.htm to http://tram.rusign.com/cz/wires.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071229231252/http://www.tbus.bravepages.com/sysclosed.htm to http://tbus.bravepages.com/sysclosed.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

trolleymotion says system exists in Haeju and Ryongdae; I've located other systems in the DPRK but am struggling to see where these two are; Ryongdae station has no trolleybus loops near it, and Haeju's only visible loop appears to be newly constructed and only used by buses. Also, trolleymotion marks it as 'daten fraglich' (questionable) for Haeju so I have doubts on a the cities that were listed in that series of trolleybus magazine. Could anyone else check? Gorden 2211 (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A much better source (and almost certainly the source TrolleyMotion used) is a 3-part feature article in Trolleybus Magazine issues 244 through 246, in 2002, which gave opening years and some details for both Haeju and Ryongdae, and even included a map of the Haeju system as of 1986 (with routing marked as "most probable route", so admitting that the exact routing was unconfirmed). Part 3 included the then-known details on systems other than the one in Pyongyang. These cities should be re-added to the table (they were in the table for years, but did not cite a source), citing TM 246^[1] as a source, but noting that their current status is unknown (and they may well have closed). The note below the North Korea table, the current wording of which was probably written by whomever removed Haeju and Ryongdae from the table, implies that it is dubious that a trolleybus system ever existed in those cities, but appears to base that conclusion on a lack of evidence from relatively recent sources, such as Google Street View, and appears not to have considered that they may have existed at one time but been closed in the 2000s or 1990s. As an example, the TM 246 article's Haeju section includes, in addition to the map, "Trolleybus operation, using Chonlima-84 vehicles (including one numbered 169), commenced in April 1986 across the city from west to east between Yengwan and Kamdok. The exact route is unclear, but ... [more details] ... Ten articulated Chongnyonchanvi trolleybuses were delivered from the Pyongyang trolleybus factory in September 1998." The article's text on Ryongdae includes, "Ryongdae is an industrial settlement and coal mine at .... A 3.9 km trolleybus route between the settlement and the mine was opened on 10th June 1993, but no other information about the fleet or route is available." (as of 2002). The same article includes, both on its whole-country map and in the text at the end, a list of "possible systems", whose existence the authors were "unable to find documentary evidence" of. So, the authors were not merely speculating about Haeju and Ryongdae. Had they had serious doubts about whether those two systems had ever existed, they would have included them in their list of possible-but-unconfirmed systems. (FYI, the list of cities with "possible" systems in the 2002 article in TM 246 was the exact same list as was included, for quite some time, below the table in this WP article – e.g. as here in 2013 (one I just chose randomly) – but also included Sariwon, which by 2013 had been confirmed and was no longer in the below-the-table WP list; however, whoever added that list a decade or more ago failed to identify TM 246 as the source. The note "Confirmation is lacking (Tarkhov and Merzlov)." dates from that time, many years ago, when the list included exactly the nine "possible" but unconfirmed systems listed in the 2002 TM article by Tarkhov and Merzlov, and should have been removed when the list was revised extensively.) SJ Morg (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]