Talk:First Leeds

List of routes & Changes

Is it really necessary to have the companies full timetable, services and price of tickets included on the page? Wikipedia is not a timetable! The article should be about the company, not the entire list of services it provides. It seems more like advertising for the companies services. If this type of edit is acceptable should it be extended to cover every bus, rail and airline article from all around the world. It would make wikipedia a bit cumbersome! Surely the information would be better placed on the Wikitravel Travel.org website? Richard Harvey (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Bus services in WY can change 7 times a year or more (http://www.wymetro.com/BusTravel/ChangingTimes/CT.htm), and prices can change whenever the companies feel like it. I suggest just having a summary of both here and a link to the bus company's website for more detailed information. Unless someone is prepared to update it every time something changes, it's probably best to have "for an up to date timetable, go here".mh. (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(Richard asked me to take a look at this article.) I agree that this level of detail is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry; Wikipedia is not a directory. mh's point about maintainance is also a dealbreaker. We have a few featured articles about public transportation networks (SkyTrain (Vancouver), BC Rail, Manila Metro Rail Transit System, Manila Light Rail Transit System) that could serve as good models for this article's development. ×Meegs 14:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I was invited to comment. I am also in agreement that the timetabling is over-detailed and can be replaced by a link to the appropriate website and a summary of the routes. There is, however, a broader point in that there are many First pages and the routing/timetabling information is in a different format in each. What is needed is someone to take an overview of all the articles and produce a consistent format. BlueValour (talk) 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Simillarly asked to visit here (which is great!). I'm also concerned about the inclusion of timetables, but more so in terms of verifiability and notibility. I'd be inclined to have this go too. -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Jza84 here (and have also been solicited for my comments). The big issue is notability - have the routes or fares received significant coverage in publications not connected with First? For example, major new services or severe cuts might receive this coverage and be worth including the article. Much of the current article doesn't indicate that this is the case. Warofdreams talk 23:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have much knowledge of First buses outside West Yorks/Greater Mcr (I live in Leeds) but I think a lot of First operations (especially ticket types and the "Overground" network) are pretty much the same around the country. I think it would make sense to have these in a generic article for First bus services and more specific bits (such as tickets issued by PTEs) in the appropriate "local" First article. If nothing else I think something needs to be done about Yorkshire Rider/First West Yorkshire/First Leeds/First Bradford/First Calderdale & Huddersfield. Lots of articles but they're all the same company. Lots of duplication as well. mh. (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also include Teamdeck to the above. That is where I first noticed the problem of timetables occurring, which is why I asked for the article to be checked out as an example of all the others, to save repetitive talk page edits. I especially asked Jza84 as it would also impact on many other projects such as the Greater Manchester wikiProject that he is very involved with. Undoubtedly a large amount of hard work has gone into the various article entries, apparently by Faz2105 who is also involved in the same project. Regrettably my knowledge of the specific articles is also limited, but it is apparent the large amount of detail detracts from the articles, yet I don't want to see it all summarily deleted from Wiki. Jza84 as Faz2105 is on the Greater Manchester Project with you, could I be so cheeky as to ask if you could get him/her to condense the various timetables/ticket prices into a single article, or as Warofdreams mentioned on his/her Talk Page transfer it to WikiTravel? I think that option would be preferable as it also allows more leeway than Wikipedia for such edits and a link from the various articles could still provide the information. I have asked Faz2105 to check this talk page out as his/her comments are also very important (hopefully I can also then get enough info to amend my his/her ref). Richard Harvey (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure I can ask, that's no problem at all. However, I must stress that User:Faz2105 (who seems to be rightly identified as the primary contributor of this kind of material) isn't a very chatty soul. Indeed, a quick glance through his contributions show 0 edits to talk space!

I've just seen you've directed him to this discussion, so hopefully he/she will be here to review what's been discussed. If no comment is passed and contributions continue I guess we'll have to tackle that as it comes / make some of the suggested changes ourselves. -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well having waited for some sort of response for 6 weeks, to allow for possible holiday trips etc, I note there is not only no response on this page; but additionally no further contributions from User:Faz2105. That obviously means the timetables have not and potentially will not be updated on an ongoing basis, which was my main concern. Does anyone have any particular ideas on dealing with them or if not is there any objection to removing them from the article pages? Obviously they will remain in the article history archives, so may be retrieved if required at some future date. I will leave this to sit until this coming Friday, the 22nd, to allow time for any comments, after which I will start to work on removing them, from this and the other bus company articles, as per all your initial comments above. No doubt that will probably be followed by some edit reverts from other users on the articles affected. Richard Harvey (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been removing the content from various other articles willy-nilly, and linking to this page. I haven't seen this, and certainly disagree with removing the routes. Yes Wikipedia isn't a directory, but routes are the main things a bus company do. Perhaps you could have discuss this in a better place rather than deleting everything on loads of articles without anyone knowing. Arriva436^talk 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I ought to make myself clearer actually! I was generally talking about routes on articles. I feel that fares info that adorns many of the FirstGroup articles is excessive and should go. I just think that route lists should be dealt with indiviusally, not just on this talk page and then do everything else! I hope that is a bit clearer?! Arriva436^talk 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having a {{future uk public transportation}} tag if you say Wikipedia's guidelines is to just remove future routes or changes?

List of routes is not the same as timetables. You say the information is available on the bus companies website, yet have removed it from Bowers Coaches article who are a small company operating in Derbyshire and Cheshire and the list of routes is not available on a PTE website, unlike in West Yorkshire and Greater Manchester areas. Sheliaval (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A quick check on the Bowers web site listed on the page gives : List of routes with one more click getting the time table, so to say info not available on the web is stretching it abit - BulldozerD11 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I actually said PTE websites not bus companies.

2. The Bowers website is unreliable. I've tried to access it a few times and it's been down. They also seem to be unsure whether they want to use bowersbuses.co.uk or bowerscoaches.co.uk 3. The list on the Bowers website is simply a list of routes, you have to manually open each one to check the frequency, unlike the removed tables from Wikipedia pages. Sheliaval (talk) 08:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of timetable and ticket info

I've removed the long tables giving details of every service and ticket that First Leeds offers. It gets out of date too quickly, is difficult to maintain and the information is on their website anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTTRAVEL seems to be appropriate here. I kept details of the overground services because that seems to be a reasonable summary of their major routes without being too details. mh. (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Timetable Info

Can I make a suggestion ! There are associated projects on the Wikia.com network that are more suited to that type of information as they have a different set of rules with a wider brief. Buses are at the UK Transport Wiki here and they are looking for people interested in buses and route information etc as well as other forms of transport (Trains, Trams, & Roads). BulldozerD11 (talk) 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of logo

Is the First logo allowed on this article? Unless First Group put it there themselves or someone has First Group's permission then it's not. Sheliaval (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added a non-free media use rational to Image:FirstGroup.svg, so it looks like it now meets Wikipedia's non-free content policy, though I would prefer if someone converted it to PNG format. Permission from First Group would be a nice bonus. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Best removed, it does not add much to the articleSovalValtos (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:First Leeds/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires representative photographs Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates Copy edit for WP:MOS Keith D (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Leeds. 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://web.archive.org/web/20080704133524/http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Housing/Planning/Planning_policy/Kirkstall_Road_Renaissance_Area__Planning_Framework.aspx to http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Housing/Planning/Planning_policy/Kirkstall_Road_Renaissance_Area__Planning_Framework.aspx

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) 12:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge?

I think this article should be merged with [First West Yorkshire] due to the fact that First Leeds is technically within that company. Slender (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)