Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/Archive 2

Expert help with Bristol Bus articles please

I have been some work on the cleanup list for WikiProject Bristol and some bus articles are included, which are outside my areas of expertise:

• Bristol LH has a deadlink to "Bus Lists on the web" (http://www.buslisstsontheweb.co.uk/) for a claim about the LHS6L built (LHX003)
• Bristol RE which needs a page number from Millar, Alan (1992). Bus & Coach Recognition (3rd ed.). Ian Allan Ltd. ISBN 0-7110-2060-4.

If anyone can help that would be great.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Re Bristol RE: I've only got the first edition (1984, by Ray Stenning) and fifth edition (2007, by Alan Millar). It's page 54 in the 5th edition - the first doesn't cover chassis, only bodies and integrals. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks I've added page no & changed to 5th ed.— Rod ^talk 18:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Inviting editors to an AfD for Niazi Express

Dear editors, if you have time, could you please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niazi Express. It is about a Pakistani bus service company and I would welcome more opinions. Thank you.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Milwaukee county transit system afd article

Mostly copy-pasting from what I posted on the London bus article

As someone who likes making bus edits to articles and I guess related to wikiproject buses (I just made this account today after doing it with an ip for some time), would it be possible for you guys to help participate in the discussion about the possible deletion of the List of MCTS (Milwaukee County Transit System) articles here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_MCTS_Bus_Routes

So if some of you do decide to do that, i'd appreciate it. I was just going to start off saying, how other bus articles weren't deleted and discussed and link to some of them, like these ones the London guys had in the last decade. And then I would probably say that it does need more work but it is making good progress. So that was just my thoughts and i'd appreciate it (as a bit related to wikiproject buses) if it would be possible to help contribute to the discussion about the deletion of a possible bus route article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbird942 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MBTA bus routes in South Boston

There's an AfD about bus routes in the Boston area that may be of interest to this community. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Oakland Coliseum station

Would anyone here mind taking a look at Oakland Coliseum station in reference to the bus information on there. I am currently having disagreement with Pi.1415926535 on the necessity of the bus service table and the usage of the airport logo in the article.

For the past couple of months, I have been adding information to the article using other articles about rail-bus interchanges that also have bus service tables for reference, including a couple of good articles like Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and Flushing–Main Street. My primary motivation for adding this information is my knowledge on the subject, in addition to AC Transit officially establishing the Oakland Coliseum station as a major bus station/transit center (Source). The Oakland Coliseum station is in a low-income/high-density neighborhood that heavily utilizes all forms of public transportation (as is the norm for low-income/high-density neighborhoods), and the 12 bus routes that serve Oakland Coliseum carry over 2.5 Million Passengers a year combined (The rail stations in the complex see a little over 2.6 Million Passengers a year for comparison). The idea of bus tables being too excessive hasn't really been enforced on the other articles that I referred to in editing this article, so why is it necessarily being strictly enforced on this particular article?

A concern I also have is that Pi.1415926535 is removing the information simply for aesthetic reasons without taking the actual informative content that he would be removing into account. If I am in the wrong I will be more than glad to remove the table, but I think that my edits have certainly been informative and relevant to the subject, and are in line with many other articles on here about bus-rail interchanges. TITANOSAURUS 07:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please don't try to divide the discussion. Link back to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. SounderBruce 07:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The station sees bus ridership that exceeds Amtrak ridership and almost meets BART ridership as I explained above (Source 1 for that statement (Starts at Page A-1), Source 2 for that statement (Page 20)), so I wanted to make sure to get this project's perspective on it as well as I think that its members would be able to provide a unique and helpful perspective on the disagreement. The discussion may indeed continue on the WikiProject Trains talk page. TITANOSAURUS 08:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Besides the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Oakland Coliseum station, there is also Talk:Oakland Coliseum station#Excessive detail and now Talk:Oakland Coliseum station#Request for comments on bus table inclusion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of lists of transportation service destinations

There is an RFC on the inclusion of lists transportation service destinations, including lists of bus route destinations. See WP:VPP#transportation lists BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

AfD call for "List of bus routes in <region>"

People are invited to comment on a call for deletion of List of bus routes in Lahore, List of Toronto Transit Commission bus routes, List of bus routes in Metro Vancouver, and a number of similar pages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lahore. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of interest

Members of this project might be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ikarus article re-evaluating

Hey! I just rewrote the whole article of Ikarus (Hungarian company) from scratcha few days ago. Could someone please re-evaluated. Because it is hardly a Start-Class article anymore. :) --MediKron (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have re-evaluated it as a C-class article. Rcsprinter¹²³ (cajole) 18:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you @Rcsprinter123:! It does help to improve my articles! :) --MediKron (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Addition

I want to add an article related to an bus company in india. It is already in WikiProject India and WikiProject Maharashtra but not i the main WikiProject Buses. Please tell me how can I add it to the WikiProject. Regards Map Collector (talk) 12:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Map Collector: You don't say which article this is. But all that you should need to do is to go to the article's talk page, and at the top, add {{WikiProject Buses}} close to where the {{WikiProject India}} already is. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Night buses in London

A proposal to rename List of night buses in London to Night buses in London is being discussed here. Toweplus (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Bow / Bethnal Green sockpuppet damage. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Images

Some bus articles seem to have an excessive number of images. While in larger articles like AEC Routemaster and Volvo B10M, multiple images are appropriate to break up the text and illustrate features mentioned in the text, it does seem an overkill in smaller articles. In East Lancs European and Wright StreetCar we have images that are sandwiching the text, and in Alexander ALX400 and Wright Crusader, multiple images of the same thing in gallery format. Do we really need a front and rear image on every chassis type a body was fitted to? For mine, a single image in the infobox with a commons gallery link is a better way.

Can understand a gallery may be beneficial in a shorter article to illustrate features mentioned in the text, but does having multiple images of fundamentally the same thing add any encyclopedic value? It seems these images are being shoehorned in, which goes against image policy that states:

A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons

And a bit further on the policy states:

A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. Just as we seek to ensure that the prose of an article is clear, precise and engaging, galleries should be similarly well-crafted. Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made.

Likewise, are images of the rears of buses notable? Sure they all have one, but with no mention in the text or not differing from one bus to the next, they are the notable enough to need illustrating. In the case of New Routemaster, yes as it is discussed in the article and relatively novel for a 21st century bus, but in the case of Alexander ALX500 or East Lancs Myllennium Lowlander they are bog standard, so can't see a need to illustrate.

Thought it best to discuss here to gather more opinions than would be generated on individual articles. 46.233.116.138 (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

With respect to rear views, that is often a distinguishing feature for the type of engine fitted, at least for rear-engined North American buses. Useddenim (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

At least for British buses, which is all I'm generally involved in, I tend to mostly agree with you. I would personally prefer one front and back picture only for bus bodyworks or integral buses, and one of each body avaliable on a bus chassis article (with the infobox being one of these). Maybe more if the buses were exported and had significant differences.

As it is now, I prefer a gallery, per ALX400, than the whole text seemingly having images to it's right. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In addition, if there's a decent interior picture, might be worthwhile including that, preferably in a gallery with all the others. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 06:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

British double-deck chassis having rear engines are more easily distinguished by the rear view than the front (which for a given bodybuilder may well be the same for different types of chassis). For instance, the three main types produced prior to 1978 were the Leyland Atlantean, Daimler Fleetline and Bristol VR; This photo is the rear of a Daimler Fleetline; this photo shows four Leyland Atlanteans (and a Leyland Titan) with bodywork by various manufacturers; and the red Atlantean in the middle has ECW bodywork, of the same style as this Bristol VR. Notice how the lower portions are very different - the engine covers were provided by the chassis manufacturer, not by the body builder. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I'm one of those who has been adding galleries of rears and others etc - The reason for doing so is rears can vary (ie the ALX400) and given we have rears for cars I don't see why we shouldn't for buses (I would assume readers may want to know what the back looks like?),

The sandwiching thing is also an issue on car articles aswell however as I'm currently on a 1280x800 laptop I assumed the layout looked worse for me than it would someone who's on a much bigger laptop (and possibly a mobile?),

Image placements - The rear at East Lancs European would look silly just being in a gallery on its own

Wright StreetCar - This should probably be switched to a gallery (something I'll do if consensus is to do so)

Alexander ALX400 - To a point I agree the images are excessive however I was generally trying to show the rear window which is different but maybe that doesn't need to be shown - It was just to show there are differences between models,

Wright Crusader - The image in the infobox is a Dennis Darl SLF whereas in the gallery it shows a Volvo B6BLE and a Volvo B6 and then you obviously have a rear shot - I don't actually know if there's any subtle differences between these models (like there is with the ALXs) but again thought they should be included,

If anyone objects to the the Streetcar and ALX images I'll happily do the required work, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My view at the moment, after reading the discussion so far, is that

• Where there are multiple images on a short article, they should be in a gallery
• We should have a front and rear picture

I'm a bit conflicted with regards to, for bus bodywork articles, whether there should be images for each chassis type. It comes down to whether there are significant differences - for the ALX400, is there really a significant difference between these 3 images:

• 
• 
• 

Yes, there are differences, but are these significant enough to warrant a picture? (the rear window option appears not to be chassis related - DLA's have had several variants, cf 1,2,3) And do people generally agree with my first 2 points? ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

You learn something new everyday!, Well given the ALX has various rears I would say that article should then only include one image,

Yup agree with both points. –Davey2010^Talk 15:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't particularly see how the rear of a bus is particularly notable. Yes they all have them, but much like with people they aren't really notable. Would prefer they weren't illustrated at all unless there is some mention in the text to show notability. As for galleries, there is a place where there are multiple versions e.g Wright Eclipse, but to just show minor differences that arise from being mounted on multiple chassis like the three ALX400s illustrated immediately above, then not needed. someone interested in that level of detail is better served by the commons gallery. 11Expo (talk) 13:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If the article is about a make/model of rear-engine chassis, and the only available photos are with bodywork fitted (and more than 99% like that, since we have hardly any photos of a chassis prior to bodying), then the whole of the chassis is hidden except for the wheels and the engine cover - which is at the rear. As I pointed out earlier, a rear view readily shows differences between a Leyland Atlantean and a Daimler Fleetline, which a front view cannot show. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes generally only bodied picture are availble. If the differences are noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the prose then and there is space, then yes they should be included, but if trivial then a bit OTT to shoeehorn in. Many of these articles don't have room to fit in multiple images, but if it comes down to only having one, should be front on. 11Expo (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I've changed thumbs to gallery on the Wright StreetCar article and have removed 2/3 rears on the ALX article, Have left the images as are on the Wright Crusader article as I'm not entirely sure what to do for the best here, –Davey2010^Talk 19:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox automobile

Please go to Template_talk:Infobox_automobile#Template-protected_edit_request_on_20_September_2019 and share your opinion on whether or not track width should be added to the infobox, alongside wheelbase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceIR (talk • contribs) 17:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

moved to own section ~~ OxonAlex - talk 19:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Passenger data

Does any entity produce passenger data for bus commuter transport? I am hoping to find a table that has yearly or monthly data saying how many ticketed or boarded passengers there were for each Greyhound/Megabus origin and destination city pair. I have found this information for air commuter data from the Department of Transportation. E,g. in 2018, I can say that 187,748 passengers went from CLE to MDW or 502,414 went from ORD to DTW.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco Transit Agency Stored Buses

List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines Anyone got some verification or sources on where the buses are actually stored? The infomation really should be removed unless you work with their bus facility operations. Transit plannerL (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC) How valid is the information be part of the bus and train routes anyways? Transit plannerL (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Night service (public transport)

Would someone from this WikiProject mind taking a look at this article and assessing it. I tried to clean up some of the formatting, etc., but there's still probably more that needs to be done. Most of the content is unsourced and some is a bit promotional in tone. Moreover, it's not entirely clear from some of the entries how they belong in the article since I'd image most major cities worldwide have public transportation systems that operate 24/7. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I will try doing part of this when I have time. Hkbusfan (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Coaster

Hi y'all, I would welcome some more eyes at Toyota Coaster where we are having some discussions regarding images. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Ikarus 260 and 280 end-of-life challenge

The last cities to use Ikarus 200 series, which includes 260 and 280, Budapest and Győr, are ending routine (non-heritage) usage of these buses this Sunday. After these, we will only be able to ride these in expensive heritage rides or occasional events. Can we start a translation and expansion challenge for this article accordingly? Erkin Alp Güney 07:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

MCV EvoSeti

I'd like to discuss the name of the MCV EvoSeti article. The article uses the EvoSeti spelling, but the manufacturer itself uses eVoSeti (note the capital letters). See here for example. Do other editors think the article should be moved? Elshad (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Citylink Requested/Suggested Edits

Would someone mind please making the following changes to the "Citylink (Idaho)" page? Background: Citylink is actually the name of two organizations, Citylink North and Citylink South. We have two separate websites... Citylink North is located at https://www.kcgov.us/486/Transit-Services. Citylink South as a defunct site, which they are currently rebuilding (but it's sort of serviceable for now): https://idahocitylink.com/ My suggestion for a short recap of the two organizations and services provided is as follows (for disclosure I work for Citylink North but work closely with Citylink South as well): "Citylink is a partnership of public transportation services in parts of Kootenai and Benewah counties in Idaho. Citylink North, operated by Kootenai County, operates three bus routes in urbanized areas of Kootenai County, including the cities of Coeur d'Alene, Post Falls, Hayden, Dalton Gardens, and Huetter, Idaho. The A, B, and C routes all originate and terminate at the Riverstone Transit Center. Citylink North operates six days per week with three routes, as well as a paratransit and senior ride program. South of the Coeur d'Alene urban area, the Link Route provides connections with the local Citylink bus routes leaving from the Riverstone Transit Center, as well as regional routes that connect at the Coeur d'Alene Casino. The Plummer Express Route provides direct service between Coeur d'Alene and Plummer. Citylink South is under the authority of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe. Sorry if I did this poorly, I'm new to wiki-ing lol. Thank you, any guidance appreciated.Amberzonlikesbuses (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Here is another verifiable source: 64.50.6.51 (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

References

List of Calgary Transit bus routes

List of Calgary Transit bus routes needs to be updated with secondary sources. The list currently relies on primary sources that are out of date. It recently survived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Calgary Transit bus routes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Interior/rear photo of buses

Hi friends, Davey2010 removed an interior photo of an O405NH which I placed... whilst the replacement edit of the bus itself had no issue, I figured that if we show the interior/rear photos of all buses photographed, then we can make the articles more comprehensive. I would like your thoughts on that, as the bus area is not of my greatest expertise, so I can't really have a comment to make. If silent responses, then I'll assume ok, as I do not know what is best for that section. --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 03:21, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

The image in question is of the driver cab - 90% of users aren't really going to care about what the drivers cab looks like, Most drivers cabs are the same anyway unlike bus interiors which are obviously different. –Davey2010^Talk 12:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Also you mention rear of buses - As far as I'm aware you've never added the rear of a vehicle - rears are fine too. –Davey2010^Talk 12:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Davey's removal of the image. Front views are preferred when available; side or rear views or interior (passenger seating) views can substitute when front views are not available, or to illustrate specific aspects of the bus type. Unless features of the driver's cab are specifically discussed in the prose (a rare situation), the interior of the cab probably isn't worth showing. That's what Commons category links are for - to provide additional photos that are useful, but not worth including in the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The reading of WP:CARPIX makes for a good reference for what to use here (the words car and bus are completely interchangeable). For the infobox, the best (only) image would to consider would be a view of the bus from the front , showing it as close to itself as possible. If the images are good quality (and of the same vehicle), a rear view and interior view are certainly worthwhile (and yes, both of the seating area and drivers cab can be included). I would just be careful to not let images overwhelm an article. -SteveCof00 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfC on make, model, registration and fleet numbers of buses in accidents

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

General consensus is that RfC was unnecessary; similar identification processes to bus accidents are used in aviation crash articles, no need for sensitivity edits.

---

Should we be including the fleet numbers, registrations, and the make of model of buses and coaches on the pages of both non-fatal and fatal bus and coach accidents?

• Option 1: Yes, keep
• Option 2: No, remove

Hullian111 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Please give examples of pages where there is a perceived problem. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Summoned by the bot) I'm not quite sure where to go with this; in line with Red's request, additional information and your !vote on this would be appreciated. BilledMammal (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Now that I think of it in retrospect, I realise I have a weak request: looking back in revision histories articles such as 2004 Ingoldmells bus crash and 2019 Totnes bus crash, although not strictly limited to UK articles, some articles have previously listed the make, model, registration and/or fleet number of buses and coaches included in crashes. Especially in the case of the Ingoldmells crash, not only does it feel rather inappropriate and insensitive for an article dealing with injuries or fatalities - unless make and model are directly related to the accident, e.g. mechanical failure - most 'enthusiast information' is usually either unsourced or uses unreliable sources for said information. I would like to see if the WikiProject has a consensus on potentially removing such information as standard, with some exceptions, from these articles. Hullian111 (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

If it is unsourced that's a separate issue however I see no problem with listing this information. We do so for aviation incidents so I don't see why bus incidents should be any different. I don't think it is appropriate to remove information in an attempt to be more sensitive. NemesisAT (talk) 08:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@NemesisAT: You bring up a very valid point when referencing aviation accidents - i.e. United Airlines Flight 328 and Pan Am Flight 103 have sections on the aircraft involved, although they are both well-sourced, which wasn't the case with 2019 Totnes bus crash and 2004 Ingoldmells bus crash. I suppose it is down to good, reliable sourcing. In that case, I think that answers the RfC, and in future, I'll personally just stick to deleting unsourced statements. Closing RfC. Hullian111 (talk) 09:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts. Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here. Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:54, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cummins#Requested move 25 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cummins#Requested move 25 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Succession templates for bus lines

I've raised a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Succession templates for bus lines that affects this project. Feedback appreciated. Mackensen (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Naming of route articles

Hi all, I've created quite a few bus route articles now that are contained within Category:Bus routes in England and Category:Bus routes in Scotland. For lack of a consistent naming scheme when I started, I went with (route number) (start point)–(end point). If the route has a "brand name" I would use that instead, for example D1 Denby Darts or X7 Coastrider. I like this format as it's immediately clear what route the article discusses and name clashes are very unlikely (unlike with say Stagecoach X5 as there is another X5 that runs between Workington and Penrith). I was away to rename Harrogate bus route 36 but thought I should consult first before I mess about with existing pages. Please share your thoughts NemesisAT (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the general title format for those routes without brand names was to use the name of the transport authority (usually district or county), "bus route", and then the number, as in your Harrogate example. I prefer this to your new scheme which does not actually give any hint that it is an article on a bus route. By the way, you need to be pretty careful as the notability for the vast majority of routes cannot be shown. Like these ones. Rcsprinter123 (consult) 21:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

All of those have multiple sources focusing on the route, and so pass WP:GNG. As for the naming scheme, it wasn't one I came up with. When I started writing bus route articles there were various schemes in use. Even the ones with the operator weren't consistent (Stagecoach bus route 555 vs Stagecoach X5. NemesisAT (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

While having consistent approach is useful, two things worry me. Firstly, bus companies change from time to time (or even at different times of the same day if they are council-supported!) so including their names would be limiting. On the other hand, route numbers can also change (for example, one that I use regularly was changed from 208 to 28 and had an identical competitive route 18 for a while) or might have several variations due to stopping patterns and minor route variations (another local example uses X1, 351 and 352 between the same termini). Does that just leave us with 'Town A to Town B bus routes'? Geof Sheppard (talk) 12:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

There are few constants. At the end of 2021, Stagecoach Oxfordshire withdrew its route S8 (Oxford-Abingdon-Wantage), and at the start of 2022, Thames Travel introduced a new route X1 connecting the same three towns along substantially the same roads, although there are several differences. It runs at different times and the fare structure is also different. But it's still not notable - bus route regularly get taken to AfD, and may be redirected or deleted (example). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Although destination points can help with clarity, I really think its case by case. A lot of routes start and end at the same place but have different paths. In an ideal world, descriptive names referring to the path the route follows would be given, but unfortunately this seems to have become uncommon. Ultimately the convention holds that names are not descriptions - maybe it would be helpful to add what a person is known for to their article title, but that information could make the site more unwieldy to work with and wikilinks less simple and so on.

I've been using Wikidata to tie descriptive information about bus routes to their names/articles. That way it should at least be possible to query them based on a variety of attributes beyond the scope of a name/title Middle river exports (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth also, your articles do have a decent number of secondary sources. I reckon the outcomes of AfDs regarding bus routes tends to be incongruent with other transportation modes. Individual articles for highway routes tend to stay even if they have minimal significance, and the fact that a number of routes predate roads that have articles or influenced the design of many roads substantially seems to be something people aren't very attuned to. I think it's likely that bus route articles are held to more scrutiny due to many Wikipedians' unfamiliarity with the topic in general. Middle river exports (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

How to stop unconstructive edits on bus related wikipedia pages

I have recently made wikipedia pages for Melbournes busy orbital smartbus routes. However keeping the wikipedia page up has recently become a challenge. Two people have who don't live in Australia nor have any intrest in public transport are trying to act as if they are deleting the page one in particular is doing this with the sole intent of getting the pages deleted by stating it doesn't deserve its own article . The guy who is who has the goal of getting them deleting is trying to tell me why my edits were weren't constructive and I should stop resting their edits. I want this to stop hower I don't know how I can stop them is it possible for anyone to provide me with tips NotOrrio (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I agree it is very frustrating when other editors try to get your work deleted. Been through it many times myself. My advice is not to try and blank deletion discussions as it will only get you in more bother. Remember you can contest a WP:PROD by removing the notice. You can contest a draftification by simply moving the article back into mainspace (and after that the article should not be drafted again). But once an article is brought to AfD you will need to try and prove it is "notable". For bus articles I've found newspaper reports that cover changes to the route, cancellations etc. The side effect of this is that often the routes I'm able to make articles for are those threaten with withdrawal. Good luck! Garuda3 (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hydrogen fuel cell buses

Hi all - had a good go at hugely improving the Hydrogen fuel cell bus article. Would love if someone can take a look at it, certainly needs more. I can't seem to find much about the massive growth in China, and I'd love to find some decent pros/cons information. Costs to operate, cost to purchase, fuel efficiency, that sort of thing. Take a look! Turini2 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying routemaps: minor variations of the same route?

Hi all, having a big go at working on some routemaps for some major bus route articles. A problem raised when I made my first one - Template:EastRider X46/X47 - was that maybe the two routes that largely follow the same roads need clarifying at their divergence point, see below:

EastRider X46/X47
Kingston upon Hull – York via Beverley, Market Weighton & Pocklington
Hull Paragon Interchange Beverley Road  A1079  Beverley Bus Station Bishop Burton Market Weighton Pocklington Bus depot Wilberfoss Kexby Osbaldwick York The Stonebow York railway station
X46 and X47 interwork to provide 30-minute frequency

How can I, following route diagram MOS, clarify these two almost-identical lines between Beverley Road and the University of Hull, or is the distinction clear enough for the average reader? An idea suggested by another user is for two separate lines of the same colour, but I'm not sure whether that'd be overkill for just three stops. I can't just, say, do:

 A1079  X46 only
University of Hull X47 only
Cottingham X47 only
etc.

That does come off as a bit clunky, and I don't think that'd work for longer splits like this. But I open the floor to debate. What's the best way of clarifying it? Hullian111 (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Giving shuttle buses their very own article

Until now there has seemed to be no progress on giving shuttle buses their very own article. I have decided to changed it by creating a draft at Draft:Shuttle bus the draft is still incomplete however you can speed up its completion by giving the article improvements.

Note I used british english to make the article, I live in Australia however I decided to use british english primarily because I wanted to use either british or american as those are the main two and british english is more similar to Australian English . This very well may change and until the draft is fully approved I will create a discussion for which english will be used for the article. NotOrrio (talk) 10:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

NotOrrio: How are you thinking of sourcing the article? Do you know any good research or discussions into the concept of shuttle buses? Rcsprinter123 (comment) 12:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@NotOrrio Might I also recommend, while we're on about sourcing, using list-defined references via WP:LDR? I've noticed you've cited the same WikiMotors article three times; using LDRs would help declutter the article and save you time if you are planning on sourcing the same article again. Hullian111 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you're going to struggle to find sources on this. For bus-related articles, I find routes threatened with closure tend to get the most sourcing. A regular Google News search for "bus" will often bring up good stories. Once you find a good source this way, search on Google for that route number and area and you may find earlier coverage of it. You can use the refine by date feature too to uncover older articles that may not have shown up initially. Garuda3 (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

First of all a big thank you to those who replied providing me with advice for this articke

I worked on it a bit and finally decided to publish the article, although I am moving the article to main space as I believe it is ready for mainspace the article has not finished its full development i.e including more examples of shuttle buse around the world (plus giving the existing ones more detail) and having a section about the history of shuttle buses NotOrrio (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and declined the submission, as the draft is nowhere near ready for publication. First of all, there's no coverage of employer shuttles, temporary service disruption shuttles, or a number of other types. The article also uses wikis and promotional/tourism websites as sources rather than books, newspapers, journals, or other reliable sources; I suggest looking at industry groups such as the APTA or the TRB for some more scholarly sources. SounderBruce 10:20, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

thanks for looking thorugh and providing areas of improvement I will make sure to address these problems before republishing NotOrrio (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Single-deck bus

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Single-deck bus—has been proposed for merging with Rigid bus. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. XAM2175 ^(T) 19:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

London bus drafts

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

• Draft: London Buses route 17
• Draft: London Buses route 20
• Draft: London Buses route 33
• Draft: London Buses route 34

Please feel free to edit them and make them better articles! Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. May be useful to have these as drafts so when news stories come out, they can be added and thus archived. This will help establish notability for these routes. Just bear in mind that drafts need to be edited at least every six months otherwise they are deleted. Garuda3 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Roads4117 (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Roads4117: if your intention is ultimately to move these drafts to mainspace, I should point out that bus route articles are often sent to WP:AFD and rarely survive, see WP:BUSOUTCOMES. This is why pages such as London Buses route 17, London Buses route 20, London Buses route 33 and London Buses route 34 are redirects to lists. Furthermore, you should not be altering these redirects to point to your drafts, because that is against Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:43, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh OK, thanks for that - I never knew this, so it is handy to know :) Roads4117 (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look at the history you can see route 17 used to be an article, before it was turned into a redirect. Secretlondon (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

OK then, may use a little bit of that in my own words. Roads4117 (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Alexander Dennis Enviro200 MMC and Alexander Dennis Enviro400 City

Two articles (Alexander Dennis Enviro200 MMC and Alexander Dennis Enviro400 City) have content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another two articles (Alexander Dennis Enviro200EV and Alexander Dennis Enviro400EV). If you are interested, please visit the discussions. Thank you. Hullian111 (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board Wiki as an acceptable external link

I've stumbled upon a few articles with Canadian Public Transit Discussion Board Wiki articles as external links; I'm not sure if they're appropriate for use on Wikipedia as such, so I figured I'd come here and see if anyone else is concerned about its use as such. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 21:48, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sold on it personally. Its a MediaWiki project that anyone (who signs up, no IPs there) can edit, so I personally wouldn't advise citing it; treat it like you would a Fanon wiki or a page that, er, cites Wikipedia itself. Hullian111 (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Alright - thanks. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Shanghai Bus Routes

I recently started working on several articles on bus systems/routes in Shanghai. Would anybody be able to take a look & give some feedback/contribute to it?

Yan'an Road Medium Capacity Transit

Shanghai Trolleybus Route 14

Shanghai Trolleybus Route 20

Greatly appreciated. SBS6577P (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Images

Recently there has been some dispute on various articles as to how images should be placed. Many bus articles ahave been overloaded by some overly enthusiastic editors who feel that as many as possible should be jammed in. This goes against a number of sections of policy and the manual of style.

• What Wikipedia is not and specifically WP:NOTGALLERY point 4 states: Photographs or media files with no accompanying text. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. In other words we shouldn't be filling articles with multiple images, we have commons galleries for that.
• WP:GALLERY: states A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons. It also states Generally, a gallery or cluster of images should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text.
• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Locations states Most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement. Left-aligned images may disturb the layout of bulleted lists and similar structures that depend on visual uniformity, e.g. by pushing some items on such lists further inward. Hence, avoid left-aligned images near such structures. It also states Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er; or be­tween an im­age and in­fo­box, nav­i­ga­tion tem­plate, or sim­i­lar. In other words no line should ever have: image, text, infobox or image, text, image. There should only be one section of text and one image, either left or right on each line.

A lot of the problems are occurring by too many images being added into articles that are not long enough to accommodate them, because the infobox is longer than the text the image on the left, causing sandwiching, e.g. Plaxton Cheetah, Volvo B7L, Wright Renown. The image on the left needs to be removed so there is only the infobox image, e.g. Plaxton Leopard, Volvo B13R, Wright Solar Fusion.

Likewise articles should not have images immediately opposite each other in the text section, e.g. Northern CountiesPalatine, Plaxton Premiere.

Examples of articles that are fully complaint are Alexander Dennis Enviro400 MMC, Volvo Super Olympian, Wright StreetDeck.

If editors disagree with the manual of styles and policies, they are free to make the case for changing them on the relevant talk pages, but until then we should be adhering to them and not coming up with excuses to ignore them. Kermelei (talk) 01:22, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

So then expand the articles?, A few images are fine although I will agree the Premiere images are a tad much which I'll sort out, –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Barons Bus Lines' Wikipedia Page Needs Major Improvements

Excuse my lack of wikipedia etiquette because I don't edit as much as I'd like, but it seems Barons Bus operates about 18 different intercity, or somewhat more local routes based out of Ohio. After recently discovering the template used for the Template:HealthLine in Cleveland, it seems that same template would serve the Barons Bus page greatly for their extensive route network. C2 J45driver16 (talk) 04:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I shouldn't forget to mention, some of their routes stop at major Amtrak stations, or many other transit facilities, so the symbology could look great with some of their routes passing through different modal platforms. I have access to specific stop locations, and wondered if that same template could work with intercity/regional bus routes. C2 J45driver16 (talk) 04:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Hobart Bus Mall#Requested move 17 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hobart Bus Mall#Requested move 17 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

routeone website update - and resultant deletion of cited articles

Just to keep you all informed in case you are heavily involved in sourcing bus news online (i.e. like I do), routeone magazine have redesigned their website. This has given it quite a swish new homepage, I will admit, which now gives you the ability to subscribe to certain sections of the website, however it has come with the side effect that a lot of news articles from ~2015 to early 2017 have just been deleted from the site. Articles that date to before October 2020, meanwhile, have also lost their images and publication dates, which now default back to October 29 2020 - for example, this article.

Thankfully, the site administrators haven't changed the URLs linking to the articles in any fashion, so articles that have been lost should, hopefully, be easily be found by copying the URL into sites like archive.org or any other equivalent - e.g. this archive link, which originally linked to here.

Keep that in mind if you also heavily rely on the site for citations. Might be worth an effort to to pick a random Wikipedia article using routeone citations, hop on the Wayback Machine and see if you can rescue any cites that might have been lost in the site update. Hullian111 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Just wondering if anyone here would think the potential redirect Westpoint Bus Interchange to Westpoint Blacktown#Car park and transport would be considered too ambiguous. A Google search for me only results in the Bus Interchange at Westpoint Blacktown in Sydney, but I was looking for bus stops at any other places called Westpoint around the world to make sure.

Just wondering if anyone thinks that it could be confused with the bus stop for the Westpoint Arena in the UK, but as far as I'm aware it wouldn't be called by Westpoint Bus Interchange. Thanks and please ping me, Fork99 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Venice bus crash#Requested move 4 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Venice bus crash#Requested move 4 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)