Wikipedia

Talk:List of bus routes in London/Archive 3

< Talk:List of bus routes in London
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Roads4117 in topic Drafts
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Exemption from verifiability

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments6 people in discussion

User:Class455 in this edit [1] restoring altered material, you gave as an edit summary "Contract changes does not require a source, and never has". Please can you explain how, and where it is documented, that this content is exempt from the policy that 'All content must be verifiable'?[2].SovalValtos (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can actually. If you look at the list, and scroll through all the operators there, you will find there are NO sources cited for operators, and there has never been. This is because they are cited on the indivdual operator's article to prevent clutter. I dont know but I can only assume that a consensus was made long ago or it simply has not been done, and hasnt needed to. Additionally, when there has been an operator change on a London route, it is changed, without a source and without any issues, even though these edits are reviewed at times. Why now have you decided to create an unnecessary issue, as you always have been doing? I suggest you examine previous edits where operators have changed, and explain why there have not been any issues. I can understand your revert of the IP's edit, since they use the "fixed typo" edit summary, which usually means they are upto no good, but that is rather misleading. Of course, I can find and provide a source for route 258's takeover, but this will just break the style of which the article is formatted, so on this occasion I am not going to do so and maintain consistency.What I will do however is update this on the operator's article. However, and I mean this not as a personal attack, I again urge you to stop "looking to start trouble", by creating issues when there are none. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a thought - If we're requesting a source for Class455's changes then shouldn't all of the operators be sourced ? ..... (I asked asked this an hour ago but had internet issues so it never made it beyond preview). –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010 Exactly. I'm also sure there may be a guideline regarding lists and referencing or consensus somewhere, which may point to why these aren't referenced in the first place. The same applies to similar lists such as List of bus routes in Singapore, which the operators do not have sources, and List of bus routes in Hong Kong, which only has two references in the entire article, let alone for operators. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware Operators on each and every list here has never been sourced, So what do we do remove all operators ? .. No you research the route - You go on google images, Search (for instance) "london bus 466" and you realise "Oh yes Arriva is the operator of this route" - You don't start being awkward for the sake of being awkward. –Davey2010Talk 20:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dave- pretty much my thoughts exactly. Enough people watch this page and incorrect entries are very quickly reverted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Jcc - Exactly, As I explained below bus companies never release this info so we have to take peoples word on it, If an IP added it sure I'd be sketchy but all of this kerfuffle over (a) long standing editor(s) is rather sad. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SovalValtos: The relevant literature is at WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 21:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is about verifiability rather than notability.Charles (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The existance of other lists lacking sources is no excuse for posting unsourced material here. WP:V has no exemptions. Going to primary sources such as operator websites to establish the fact as Davey suggests is WP:Original research and not allowed on Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles - I agree things do need to be sourced I agree but it seems silly requesting a source for a bus company taking over another bus companies route, If we cited this one trivial thing then we'd need to source all operators as well as all tos, froms and vias which we both know is next to none impossible, Bus companies usually keep hush hush when it comes to this sort of thing (or if they're Arriva they'll shove it on their site for a week and then delete it entirely). –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In that case it is unencyclopedic ephemera which is unverifiable in the longer term and should not be on Wikipedia. Fancruft.Charles (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you everyone who has tried to answer my question mentioning User:Class455. So far no documentation for an exemption from verifiability for Operators in this list has been forthcoming. I was not content to take the IP's 82.9.38.179 word for the change, nor should any reader have to go on google images and search to verify the content as suggested by User:Davey2010. If such material is so problematic to source perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia being a trivial thing, or "unencyclopedic ephemera which is unverifiable in the longer term" as User:Charlesdrakew said. I would like to see if any other editors can document an exemption in a few days. I may not be able to edit.SovalValtos (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out, this page has been nominated for deletion twice in the same format and has been kept, so you saying that this shouldn't be on Wikipedia is complete bullshit if I may say so myself. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Class455 A page being nominated for deletion in the past and the page kept has zero to do with keeping unverifiable content.SovalValtos (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion 1

Latest comment: 6 years ago8 comments8 people in discussion

Hi,

To clarify the route of each bus line to indicate the route, it would be useful to add a retractible Wikipedia:Route diagram template to each of those lines in an additional column using https://tfl.gov.uk/travel-information/stations-stops-and-piers/.

Please indicate whether it seems a good or bad idea.

--Railfan01 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrible idea on such a long list! Jeni (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Keep the list simple, just route numbers, termini and bus contractor. Ajf773 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide. People can get route details direct from TfL.Charles (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear god no!, As per above the list should be kept simple and anyone who wants to see a map of the route can go to TFL or the main bus operators website, –Davey2010Talk 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Support if that means my gaff has a little icon of its own, thanks to the 69 :o ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Of no real benefit. Uncorneast (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - In what way does this benefit the article? Only articles to do with rail routes are suited to this template. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of bus routes in London. 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:

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) 23:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of bus routes in London. 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:

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) 03:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion 2

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi , for the 87 bus , there are 2 withdrawn ones , I'd like to tell you about the other one. IN 1935 ,the 87 went from Becontree to Dagenham. The withdrawn 87 went from Rainham , Abbey Wood Lane to Brentwood, Yorkshire Grey from 1958 - 1970. Then , it got withdrawn between Baking and Rainham , as well as Romford and Brentwood. But then , the 87 was withdrawn on the 25th of March 2005. The bus number 5 replaced the 87. 95.151.75.197 (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Can you provide sources for these former routes? Ajf773 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The "Former Routes" column on Wikipedia had been disappeared. Why was that possible? Jonathannurse7 (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

London Bus Route No. 48 had been withdrawn since Saturday, 12th October 2019 from travelling between London Bridge and Walthamstow Central to Routes Nos. 55 and 388. Route No. 55 goes between Oxford Circus and Walthamstow Central, and Route No. 388 also goes between London Bridge and Stratford. Jonathannurse7 (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I can tell you I removed the 'former routes' because they constituted original research. I'll update it regarding route 48 when I finish for the day at university.--Launchballer 07:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Bus Route 718

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone add this route? https://tfl.gov.uk/bus/route/718/ Looks like it’s a circular from Morden Station via Rose Hill SK2242 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Bus Routes in London wiki

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

This is at [3] and is reasonably active. Should there be a link of some sort?

(I have numbered the two 'Suggestion' sections here for clarity.) Jackiespeel (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why should we link to a place filled with unsourced info and stuff copied from here. SK2242 (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
The are giving more detail for some routes than WP - and that the wiki exists should be noted. Jackiespeel (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Self published fansites are not reliable sources. Ajf773 (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I meant on this talk page (and there may be WP-ians who wish to get involved there etc). We are probably agreed that 'Talk page - this site exists, no further action required' suffices. Jackiespeel (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
The wiki does cover those routes which no longer have individual pages on WP - my previous comment still applies. Jackiespeel (talk) 13:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route 48" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route 48. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#London Buses route 48 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route 387" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route 387. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 29#London Buses route 387 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route W10" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route W10. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 8#London Buses route W10 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route 611" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route 611. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#London Buses route 611 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route N13" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route N13. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#London Buses route N13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route 691" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route 691. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#London Buses route 691 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

"London Buses route 659" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect London Buses route 659. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 9#London Buses route 659 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to make an edit to the page: List of bus routes in London, as it does not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. 82.10.86.69 (talk) 11:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not done. Edit requests must specific the exact change to be made, ideally in the "change X to Y" format. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
79.67.81.63 (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2021 (UTC)LET ME EDIT W11 BUS NOW!
  Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. SK2242 (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Routes 66 and 66A

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

It is unclear why the 66 and 66A are included in the non-TfL section. Those buses operate entirely within Essex, as such they do not require a London Service Permit. 88.145.90.133 (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Correction, I think they also operate in Hertfordshire. The point is they don't operate in Greater London. 88.145.90.133 (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Ok, do we exclude them from the list? Perhaps this should be the criteria going forward for non-TFL routes. Ajf773 (talk) 03:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
The terminii of 66, Leytonstone and Romford, are both within the M25 and (according to their Wikipedia entries) both in Greater London. I feel they do meet the criteria of "London", from a British perspective. I'd prefer to keep them in this list. NemesisAT (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Route 66 from Leytonstone and Romford is a TFL route. The IP user is talking about non-TFL routes from Waltham Cross to Debden and Waltham Cross to Loughton. These aren't in Greater London. Ajf773 (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    Ah I see, sorry I was looking at the wrong one. I think the question then is whether it is true that it doesn't have the London Service Permit, as the criteria for listing is routes that have that permit. I don't know the answer to that, or whether the other routes have it or not, maybe an editor more familiar with London would know? NemesisAT (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either. Going to leave this discussion open to other editors. Ajf773 (talk) 08:11, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could route 648 be added to the withdrawed bus routes list? This is because TfL has made a announcement saying that route 648 (voted by the public) has been withdrawn and replaced by routes London Buses school buses routes 646 and 656 and London Buses route 248. Also, if you haven't could you also add route 647 to the withdrawed list as it has been replaced with route 174 and TfL also stated that it would no longer run services and would be withdrawn immediately. 195.171.105.114 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Route 159

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Route 159 is somehow being diverted from Marble Arch and I need to get to work 92.10.1.194 (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  • The information currently is correct. Ajf773 (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think it would be easier to categorise this under Category:Transport in London rather than categorise it under every sub-category of that. NemesisAT (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Notes section

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments2 people in discussion

I stand by my previous edit to trim minor details that relate to a small number of bus routes which included route changes, frequencies, operator changes and other trivial details. These details are routine coverage and, at most, belong on the individual bus route article, only if it exists. The list should be kept simple to route number, operator and termini, as it has been for quite some time, until only a few months ago.

I also don't find the many random references scattered around the article particularly useful. If an editor believes keeping these details in the article is helpful for creating new articles or is worried about losing content, then my advice to them is to make use of their own sandbox or also actively participate in the relevant WikiProject. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I support leaving out details where an appropriate article exists for them to go. However, leaving them out entirely is removing verifiable information from the encylopedia and that does not benefit Wikipedia's readers. I fully support creating more bus route articles, but various editors frequently argue for deletion of those (including yourself).
I also don't find the many random references scattered around the article particularly useful. Wikipedia:Verifiability is a core policy and so the references I've added are vital. They also help establish notability of the general topic. NemesisAT (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article has been starting to get difficult to edit with the VisualEditor due to its sheer size, I was thinking about proposing a split. But I'm not sure what the best way to go about that is, and fear splitting the operating routes by number would make navigation more difficult. NemesisAT (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
At a glance the night bus info appears to be a duplicate of Night buses in London, so that could maybe be removed. NemesisAT (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it could be. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This article is a List of bus routes in London and should be kept relatively simple. The random references don't serve any purpose other than proving that current routes exist, the Transport for London website (provided in External Links) already provides this. I support articles that meet the notability standard, as many have been decided already through the AfD process and accept the final outcome of discussions. Irrelevant of the outcome of any discussion there is no need to elaborate on specific routes in other articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
There is no need to write about anything on Wikipedia, but personally I think having verifiable information on bus routes improves the experience for the reader. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, why limit ourselves on what we write?
I don't really think using the official TfL as a reference for the entire list is appropriate. Inline citations are generally preferred. The references added show that many journalists and others do discuss bus routes in groups, as a whole, and individually on a regular basis, which helps establish notability for this list and the individual route articles when they are created. NemesisAT (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It's much more appropriate doing it like that than using individual links to each route's map or timetable, as has been demonstrated in a handful of other bus route lists. At the moment most of the references just point to the route itself and are not attached to anything specific. A lot of them just contain bare mentions of the route number. Referencing is appropriate for significant events or characteristics (which some routes do have), but not routine coverage such as operator and frequency changes. Ajf773 (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I still think frequency changes and operator changes are important encyclopedic information. It is vital that Wikipedia covers the bus cuts that are being made, these do collectively have a major impact on the public.
The list has always had additional information, like notes for 24 hour services. I have simply expanded it. If you feel the article is too large, a split could make it more manageable while not removing any information from Wikipedia. NemesisAT (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, I find it a bit frustrating that I've been working since January to expand this article and you've only taken issue with it now after I've spent many hours on it. NemesisAT (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
The average PT user doesn't really care who operates their bus (so long as it turns up on time), and even then wouldn't even notice that a bus operates every 10 minutes now rather than every 8 minutes. Perhaps they might notice their bus travels terminates to a different location, although route changes are fairly common and they just get used to the new structure. Is all that really worth documenting all that on one huge list? There are plenty of bus fan sites around that are well dedicated to that (and alternatively why we generally don't use them as sources). Wikipedia isn't a collection of indiscriminate information. Ajf773 (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding Routes to the Former London Bus routes.

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, I was wondering if you could add these following routes to the Former part of the list of bus routes of London, they are: 373 - Romford, Mercury Gardens to Grays Bus Station, axed in 2008 when it got withdrawn between Upminster and Romford, proof is here: https://www.london.gov.uk/questions/2008/0502?adlt=strict&toWww=1&redig=6BECE070C93A4F939712A5AC09FD5AED 374 - Romford Station to Harold Hill, Dagnam Park Square, axed on 15/10/2005 because of revisions on route 174. 953 - Romford, The Brewery to Thames View Estate, axed in mid-2000s(?), here's proof of the route https://londonbusesbyadam.zenfolio.com/route-953-feb-2004.pdf. 954 - Rainham War Memorial to Ilford High Road, axed during 1990's(?). Thanks very much, Tehepicbigman712 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Route pages and Fancruft

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I was wondering whether most of the route pages deserve their own article? Take, for example, London Buses route 252. Most of it is unsourced, and the parts that are seem better suited to being on Fandom than WP. Unless anyone can make a case for any of them staying based on their merits, I'm just going to be bold and redirect them to this page. This does not include the X26, which is just notable in its own right (probably the only one which is). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry but am opposed to any redirects. I don't think it's fair to dismiss content as "fancruft" and this feels like an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Garuda3 (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I also don't really see the need to remove content, even if it is about a long-discontinued route. If it is well sourced, why not include it? You are advocating redirecting route articles to this list article while simultaneously removing content from this article. It appears to me that you just don't want bus content on Wikipedia. Garuda3 (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Why not list every bus route discontinued from the '50s?   Kidding aside, if we included all of them, the list would be huge! It's not that I hate bus content, it's purely for consistency in that matter. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, the list is already huge! I don't know how many discontinued routes there are. I did add the info on route 5 to London Buses route 5 so I suppose it could live there, though it isn't really related to the current route 5 Garuda3 (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Drafts

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have made some draft pages which may be of your interest.

Please feel free to edit them and make them better articles! Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bus_routes_in_London/Archive_3&oldid=1175749445"