Talk:Share taxi

Discussion from Talk:Matatu

Matatus are called mathrees because the swahili word for three is tatu. By simply replacing the Swahili "tatu" for the English "three", typical of sheng, the word changes from matatu to mathree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.57.174 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 January 2006

When I visited Kenya (a while back, 1998) we were told, I think by the receptionist at the Bamburi Beach Hotel, that matatus were named for "matata" which means "worries" (matata in Swahili-English dictionary) as in the popular phrase hakuna matata. Pbhj (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Use of the term Bush Taxi. The term "Bush Taxi" is not used in Nigeria. Where are the references to it being referred as such? I am Nigerian and other than wikipedia pages, and sites that reference wikipedia I can find no link between Bush Taxi and Nigeria. The article is a very slanted/weird POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinsope (talk • contribs) 18:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

History merge

Steverwanda did a great job creating a much needed general article from the many small articles that had been started on regional versions of share taxis. In order to keep the edit attribution clear, I have merged the histories from sherut, bush taxi and matatu here, for anyone who is looking at the history and thinks that they're seeing the biggest revert war ever.  ;) Cheers, BanyanTree 15:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

BanyanTree -- I'm not sure a history merge was the right approach here (although it'd be a great hassle to fix now), as it confuses the history quite a bit (as you say, it looks like a giant revert war), and it's very hard to tell what some edits actually achieved to the previous article. It's better to simply note where things came from in the edit summaries and perhaps on the talk page. — Matt Crypto 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Matt, It hadn't even occurred to me that it would be disputed; I would definitely have brought it up here for discussion if I had. A talk page attribution would have been the only way to do it, as there was no edit summary attribution and the page history basically consisted of Steverwanda and Ezeu so the authorship of much of the content was not visible in the history. Maybe I just haven't read the relevant policy pages or am suffering from copyright paranoia, but is a note on a talk enough to make the article GFDL compliant? - BanyanTree 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope I didn't come across as too critical -- I don't think it matters a huge amount, and I think the merge was a good idea. Still, I do think it's better in general to keep seperate edit "streams" separate, otherwise the histories get somewhat incoherent. I believe that making sure that a user can find the history and authors of all the content is sufficient for GFDL, so, if the histories hadn't been merged, we could have simply included pointers to the merged articles, and a user could examine the complete histories of the seperate merged-in pages. — Matt Crypto 19:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks good. I'd thought something like this was in order for a while (ever since I learned about matatu while working on bush taxi). While I understand Matt's concern over the histories, it's not too difficult to distinguish when contributors were working on different articles; the edits usually come in flurries. It is difficult to figure out which article that editor was working on, though, unless you click through. But I'm glad to see the articles in one place. It'd be nice to see some more sources added for the matatu info and anything else that was merged in here. — BrianSmithson 16:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there... I'm glad the changes I made seem to be acceptable. Sorry if I acted a bit unilaterally - I would have discussed things more, but there didn't seem to be much discussion on most of the various pages, so I assumed nobody was very interested! I initially intended to merge the African ones only, which I know from experience are almost identical and hence don't really warrant separate pages. For those elsewhere in the world I kept the separate article if it seemed to be substantial and merged stub articles (such as the Israeli one) into a subsection of this article. If any of the general facts at the top of the page don't apply to non-African buses then someone should edit appropriately... — Steverwanda 09:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by user:Alanmak

Regarding the recent edits by user:Alanmak ([1] [2] [3] [4]), I don't agree that, for the purpose of this article, the official designation of Hong Kong for international organisations and sport events, namely "Hong Kong, China", nor it's official full name with partial and unusual abbreviation, is relevant and necessary to be used here. See also user:Jiang's edit summary. The English word "country " is not always synonymous with sovereign state". — Instantnood 19:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with that - saying Hong Kong, China could actually be misleading as it could be interpreted as a list of countries. I'd have thought most people understand what 'Hong Kong' means, and which country it belongs to, and if they don't then they can always click on the link to find out! — Steverwanda 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty true. — Instantnood 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the slow-motion edit war going on here is really silly. What is the problem with adding the word "territory" to the top of the chart? My own personal understanding of the word "country" in this sense is roughly synonymous with "nation", which Hong Kong is not. Why can't we add one word and be done with it? The edit war has nothing at all to do with share taxis. — BrianSmithson 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

There are some dozens of countries which are not sovereign states. Nation is another concept. — Instantnood 22:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My point isn't to debate the meaning of country, state, nation, etc. My point is that by simply adding one word to the chart, Alanmak will stop reverting, and I'll be happy. It seems like such a tiny change to make to keep the peace. — BrianSmithson 22:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus building through discussions is important to Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we've to sacrifice accuracy and neutrality. Further, what I can imagine is that territories which are not countries will start appearing on the list. — Instantnood 07:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I'm discussing this and not simply reverting to Alanmak's version. I'm not sure how his version is inaccurate or non-neutral. It seems to be more accurate to not refer to Hong Kong as a country. — BrianSmithson 17:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The English word country is not necessarily always synonymous with sovereign state. At most time they're not, but it's very true that since forty years or so ago sovereign states always make up the majority on such lists. — Instantnood 18:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get your statistics that most of the time country is not synonymous with soveriegn state? The dictionary disagrees with you; look at which definition is given as #1. Why don't we change it to say "nation or territory" or even "location"? — BrianSmithson 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[5], [6] #1, [7] #1 and #2b. Nation is something else. Territory and location are much broader, and would make the list much longer than we might expect. — Instantnood 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (modified 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC))

Your links only serve to muddy things further (citing another Wikipedia article is hardly convincing; the second supports my viewpoint; the third supports yours). And like I said, I don't care what the difference is between country, nation, and sovereign state. That is something for those relevant articles to sort out. The question here is clarity. If you ask a random person "What countries have you been to?" They are not going to say "Oh, I went to Hong Kong, and the year before that I was in West Africa." These places are not considered countries by the average Joe. If you refuse to compromise on this, we can pursue another method of dispute resolution. — BrianSmithson 14:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Edit: I just saw that the article currently says "Country/Territory". Are you okay with this change, then? It hasn't been changed for the past two days, so I'm a little confused. :) — BrianSmithson 14:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's never black and white, and it's never surprising to find a dozen or so that are not sovereign states on a list of certain figures sorted by country. I object " country / territory ", for that's implying country and sovereign state are synonymous. It would also include many territories which are not countries. You may also be interested to take a look at how the issue is handled in the subcategories (and "sub-subcategories") under category:categories by country. — Instantnood 19:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. I've got bigger battles to fight. This is going to create a large disconnect for many, many readers for whom "country" and "sovereign state" are synonymous. I think insisting on "country" is not serving our readers at all. But like I said, I don't have time to continue a slow-motion edit war over it. Yay for Hong Kong! — BrianSmithson 17:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Two points here: Why don't you just call the geo category "Place" and let it go at that. And for those of you who are transportatin heads, you will be aware that Hong Kong has long had a rather unique transportatoin profile. Shared taxis being part of it. Moreover, it's strange that you people who are ostensibly interested in making better known a cool and important form of daily transport, allow yourslves all of a suddent to become grave StatesPeople. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ericbritton (talk • contribs) 17:19, April 23, 2006 (UTC).

FYI, we do have such a list. See its content and how it's titled. — Instantnood 20:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

International coverage

Congratulations! You are off to a great start here, and this is indeed an important topic which has its full place in WP. For the time being the weaker links that need attention are:

• Latin America (a lot going on there)

• Asia

• The public policy interface – including links to sustainable transportation and the new mobility agenda.

As anyone who has ever used them, shared taxis are a great way to get around and more often than not tend to pop up in an environment where the planners and policy makers have failed to meet people’s legitimate demands. Is there a lot that’s wrong with these systems at their worst. You bet! But in virtually every case, there is something that can be done about it. And should be!

In an attempt to further strengthen this fine start, I am inviting colleagues from the New Mobility Agenda ‘idea factory’ at http://www.newmobility.org and the Sustran list at sustran-discuss@egroups.com which offers terrific coverage of transport in Asia to pitch in and help us complete this world inventory. As to how it fits in with public policy, we have recently set up an open forum at http://www.xtransit.org/ the members of which are also being invited to pitch in here as well. ericbritton 11:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

US or British English?

Any opinions on this? I think it's a mixture a the moment, though a lot of the main blurb was written by Brian Smithson in the Bush taxi article so uses US English. The article covers the Jitney, a US vehicle, but also refers extensively to matatus, dala-dalas etc. which operate in former British colonies and hence use British English so it could go either way. Steverwanda 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Did I write it in AmE? It should have been in BrE, as that's the type of English preferred in most of Africa. I have no problem with changing over where needed. — BrianSmithson 13:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just the double l in travelling. Steverwanda 15:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it should'nt be an issue, English or American, as long as we spell right. I was thinking about the artilce cornmeal, that we should do to it as we have done to this one – but if BrE vs. AmE is an issue, then we'll have a problem. By the way, see Talk:Maize#Why isn't this called CORN?.--Ezeu 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The Operation section

I think this needs some change as it stands - the first paragraph in the 'along the route' subsection contains information about the pricing structure, luggage regulations and departure times, which aren't to do with what happens along the route. My idea was to try and separate information about what actually happens when the vehicle is loading and setting off from more general stuff such as its ownership and pricing. Would it be feasible to have two sections broadly along those lines?

Also, there is obviously a difference in systems between 'ticketing' buses and the sort we have here in Rwanda, where you just get on the bus without purchasing a ticket (even at the taxi park) and pay the conductor when you get off. Probably need to generalise the entry in 'Operation' and add more specific information in the Features in individual countries section. — Steverwanda 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem with separating all pricing into one section is that people often pay at the gare (those who board at the original location) while others pay en route. That's why we've got two pricing sections at the moment, and I personally think it is more logical that way. As for individual countries being different, that is of course correct. But I don't know if further Balkanisation is a good idea. Why not simply add a note that "In many countries this, but in other countries that"? That said, the "Operation" section is written with bush taxis specifically in mind. I have no idea how relevant the info is for other areas. — BrianSmithson 16:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that sounds good. However, the stuff about payment in the first paragraph of 'Along the route' doesn't refer to what happens along the route. Maybe general info about pricing (the government, road conditions etc plus a note of the two systems) should be in one section, then a small part in 'Along the route' about passengers who actually do pay along the route? — Steverwanda 16:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. What about just dropping the "Along the route" heading down a paragraph? Then the pricing at the gare stuff is still in the section that talks about gares, er, whatever they're called outside Cameroon. The only remaining note about pricing goes with people boarding en route and their potential arguments with the conductor (usually called the "small boy" in Cameroon). — BrianSmithson 17:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:LAME

The country/state/region issue should soon qualify for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever, so keep it up. --Ezeu 19:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Remarks by user:Alanmak

Re: " Please stop pushing your pro-separatist or pro-independence POV. " [8] - It's nonsense. Calling anywhere country is far from being separatists or independence advocators. Country ≠ sovereign state. Please justify the accusation, or else please stop. — Instantnood 20:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed info on matatus

The following sounds really suspicious, and as it was unsourced information from an anonymous contributor, I've removed it for now:

Matatus are popular with the younger crowd, and are linked with youth and rebellion. The more popular ones play current hit music through loud expensive speakers, have trendily dressed touts and drivers, and the vehicles themselves are "pimped up" with elabate paint jobs, spinning rims, fancy head and taillights etc.

Can anyone comment one way or the other on this information's validity? — BrianSmithson 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not true in July 2006 around Nairobi and Narok. As far as I know, the current text about regulation in January 2004 is accurate. Speaking of regulation, I also recall they're soon to stop issuing licenses to 15-passenger matatus in Nairobi due to congestion; only 25-passenger matatus and grandfathered 15-passenger ones will be allowed. -Slamb 20:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a remark

In Estonia, shared taxis also exist (mainly in the capital, Tallinn, for urban transport) and they are locally (in Estonian) called "liinitakso" (official name) or "marsruuttakso" (old name but still widely used) or "marsa" (slang name). Unfortunately I do not have the skills nor the time to edit this page correctly to add Estonian information. It'd be nice if anyone who is more skilled than I am in editing Wikipedia could do that. Thanks, or sorry for probably posting in the wrong place.

Done.--GagHalfrunt 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Confusing

"Share taxis are an important form of mobility (and job creation) in many parts of the world but are by and large poorly understood and not well integrated into the overall transportation projects of cities and regions."

What is meant by "are poorly understood"? That's not written properly, I suppose. Does it mean that they are poorly understood by scientists? users? authorities? First world citizens? I think they're a completely understandable service, especially where many people don't have a car, or money to buy fuel easily.. Also, the countries which rely on this service do have regulations (why is it said that it is harder to regulate this kind of service compared to a taxi? In most countries these vehicles are clearly marked, grouped by route / area of coverage, and must follow a special kind of regulation, even if they're private). Moreover, I don't understand why is it stated that share taxis must be old and polluting.. On the contrary, since they are used for a job, they must comply with extra specifications to the transit authorities, compared to any citizen's car (even if a country didn't have a specific law for private transport, which is unlikely, it must regulate that any service provided by a legally recognized company or individual be safe to clients). I don't know if it would be better or worse for the environment if every one of the 3 passengers plus driver on a share taxi drove a separate car (let's say it's not carrying the full load of 4 passengers, but also if it constantly carries two or less, then probably the taxi will be appointed to a different zone over time). Perhaps, since the share taxi spends part of its time driving with no passengers, there's no difference for everyone to travel in a different car. But I don't think that share taxi networks have to be especially 'old and polluting' when compared to other options. It may sound like I am defending this way of transport (I don't actually like having to share space with anyone), but I'm just trying to say that the article either exaggerates it's views or actually doesn't explain itself correctly. Share taxis have (depending on the region) some advantages too, and just being shared doesn't turn a taxi older, but it does make it cheaper. note: please pardon me if I made any mistakes in writing or perhaps seem to be speaking too 'aggresively'.. My english is far from perfect, and because of that, I struggle a bit with words trying to express myself 200.7.17.207 09:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC) user:guruclef

I agree with the above comments. My understanding is that in many parts of the world these services are completely unregulated and operated by owner/drivers and the vehicles may indeed be old and polluting and not be understood or respected by authorities or even be legal but that is not the central point, which is that they are shared and have more flexible operation than a bus. They are clearly very different culturally from a centrally organised and operated bus service. However, in the UK there is a strong policy interest in significant role that shared services such as these can perform and a number of authority-led services have been introduced, and recent legislation now allows taxi drivers to legally offer shared services. I will edit the introduction to make this cleared in the next few weeks unless people disagree User:PeterIto 03:27 29th Oct 2007 (UTC)

Grand Taxis and Petit Taxis in Morocco

Last year I added details of the Petit Taxi and Grand Taxi in Morocco to this page. Both of these were removed by someone saying that these were normally private. I have now checked my facts with a Moroccan and on the web for more evidence to backup my claim. Can I ask someone with a longer track record to add this information to the page.

Here are some references:

"The other option is to take a Grand Taxi. The entire taxi cost Dirham 480 to hire from Marrakech to Quarzazate. If you are willing to squeeze into the back of the taxi with three others, while having 2 sit in the front seat, it will cost 80 Dirham each. The taxi will only leave once it is full." http://www.cameltrekking.com/erg-chebbi-directions.html

"Around places like Merzouga and Rissani you don't always have to wait for a grand taxi to fill up with 6 people. Many times I would buy only 2 or 3 seats of the journey and the driver would agree to take me" http://www.lonelyplanet.com/letters/afr/mor_pc.htm

"To get to M'hamid, the last town before the desert begins, you have to get a shared taxi ("grand taxi) from Zagora, which costs 25 dirham per passenger.

It may take quite some time for a shared taxi to fill up with 6 passengers. If you're in a hurry, pay 150 dirham for all seats, and maybe an extra 50 to pursuade the driver to leave immediately." http://www.triotours.com/faq/ma/to-zagora.htm

"You can also flag down a taxi anywhere along the road. If there's any space, the driver will stop and take you in. When it's full, the driver will wave at you apologizingly." http://www.triotours.com/faq/ma/travel-around-taxi.htm

"It's common for a petit taxi to pick up another passenger along the road when there is a free seat. The driver will stop to check where the new passenger is going. He'll only take him or her in if their destination is on your route or involves only a small detour. The new passenger will pay part of the fare, of course." http://www.triotours.com/faq/ma/travel-around-taxi.htm

Note that I have included text from other websites, but only to validate the claim (and only on this discussion page). When this issue has been resolved this note can be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterIto (talk • contribs) 21:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Carros Públicos

Document seems to be locked, on chart on right in Puerto Rico please add "Carros Públicos" thanks – Moebiusuibeom 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have now added it for you (PeterIto 08:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC))

Dolmuş (Turkey)

I couldn't get the dolmuş - minibus differentiation. It's said in the article that dolmuşes are more comfortable, expensive and rare, opposed to the cheaper and abundant "minibus"es. This sounds like the writer confused dolmuşes with ordinary taxicabs, or at least with the so-called taksi-dolmuş (a regular 5-7 seater passenger car working with the same "departs when full" principle), which had its day in the 70s and 80s but is almost inexistent today (Bursa is the only example i know having taksi-dolmuşes) 88.232.177.54 16:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Jitney's in the US

"The first U.S. jitneys ran in Los Angeles, California in 1914. By 1915, there were 62,000 nationwide. Local regulations, demanded by streetcar companies, killed the jitney in most places. By the end of 1916, only 6,000 jitneys remained"

So this article is telling me that there was the first jitney in 1914, 62,000 BY 1915, and 6,000 at the end of 1916. I don't think this is even remotely true. Christopher Reuter 20:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That is what the reference says. I have googled, and several other articles corroborate the reference used here. There is mention of what is called the "Jitney Episode", the "Jitney Phenomenon" or the "jitney craze that swept the nation" in 1914-1915, which apparently saw Jitney services spring up in nearly every major US city. The figure 62,000 is mentioned in a couple of places, and that indeed the number of jitneys grew to that number within two years. There are also several mentions that the "episode" enseminated in Los Angeles. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. [14] --Ezeu 23:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

School Bus in the US

I'm not sure what that is doing in the list. Although you can ride on a School Bus in the boonies (not sure if that was legal even there and then, but no one made a fuss) and some places have special regulations for seniors and people with disabilities, I don't think it's appropriate to list it in this context. As far as I know most places have regulations that school bus operators may NOT take anyone but schoolkids. Otherwise I think there would be a huge mess with insurance. Tourists looking for a shared ride are certainly not well advised to go asking for a School Bus. If there are other interpretations s.o. should write a paragraph on it, otherwise I'd vote for taking it out of the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.51.15.15 (talk) 04:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the School Bus does not seem to belong here as it is not generally available to the public. Could someone from the US remove it or justify its inclusion! User:PeterIto 03:14 29th Oct 2007 (UTC)

Should Paratransit be included in this article?

From my reading of the article paratransit, it is a sort of Share Taxi and should be included in the name list for the US. Can someone who knows the US better please comment and add it if appropriate?User:PeterIto 03:27 29th Oct 2007 (UTC)

Should Texxi be included?

Texxi is the brand name for shared taxi service offer by a UK company. The service is neat, but is not well known within the UK and is certainly not ubiqitous and feels out of place. Possibly a general section on the use of IT to support Share Taxi may be appropriate within the article. I will modify the entry in a few weeks unless people argue for retaining it here and add a section about Information Technology modern role.User:PeterIto 03:49 29th Oct 2007 (UTC)

I have now generalised the Texxi article and just linked to them at the end PeterIto (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Tightening up the definition of a Share Taxi

To my mind the central aspects of a Share Taxi is that it is a system where members of the public who do not know each other can share a chauffered vehicle simultaneously and where the vehicle is not required to follow a fixed route to a fixed schedule. I understand that some Share Taxis run on fixed routes but not to fixed timetables, some run 'semi-fixed' routes and some run constrained routing and timetabling. Unless people disagree I will update the initial paragraph to reflect this in a few weeks.User:PeterIto 03:49 29th Oct 2007 (UTC)

"Share Taxi" looks like a neologism - usable for article title?

WP: Neologism reads:

Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities. Protologisms are neologisms that have not yet caught on widely. (In fact, note that the word "protologisms" is itself a neologism and its use should be avoided.)

Using neologisms within articles: The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is original research as well—we don't do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: no original research and verifiability. (See Reliable sources for neologisms below for more on supporting the use of neologisms.)

I think you have to prove that share taxi is the most commonly used phrase for this mode of transport - it's NOT just the one wikipedia editors have agreed to use (way back when) for some arbitrary reason, which would be WP:original research. I also have a problem with the possibility that other longer articles have been merged into here, as someone wants "public light bus" to be. Were Jitney, Jeepney and other longer articles deleted into this smaller article? This mode of transport is gaining more and more attention - and is being opposed by special interests. So let's make sure we are using the BEST wikipolicies in putting an article together on this topic. Carol Moore 15:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Merging Public Light Bus

Oppose because each mode which is widely used does deserve a longer article. Carol Moore 15:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Oppose as there is no reason for it not to have its own article as well to give more details. I have, however, added a link to Public Light Bus from Share-Taxi because the Red Bus clearly meets the 'Share Taxi' organisational structure.PeterIto (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose HK public light bus really should not have been linked here. Regular taxis are also shared. Benjwong (talk) 05:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Is this article about Public Light Buses in Hong Kong, or Public Light Buses in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.38.181 (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge service taxi and dollar van

Support In Israel, the term "service taxi" ("monit sherut" in Hebrew) applies to a share taxi, and the "service taxi" article describes a work mode that I'm not sure exists anywhere as a system. In fact, the "service taxi" article does not cite any sources. Image of me (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Its the same thing, i dont see why not, Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Get on with it and merge. Peter Horn User talk 21:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No way, jitneys follow a route! 204.52.215.13 (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is not whether they are different. it is more about whether they are notable enough to require their own article. PeterEastern (talk) 12:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Are dollar van distinct from share taxis? If so, should those two articles be merged? Nightscream (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I think dollar van is just one US variant of service taxi. Is not the name a derivation from the Dollar car rental firm? Merge them. (Normanthehat) 02 October 2010

I have completed the merge of Service taxi. Personally I think that there is too much content in Dollar Van to make a simple merge. Jitneys also played a significant role in the evolution of public tranport in the USA. I propose that we adapt to article (and possibly also rename it) to cover the history of the Jitney in the USA. See this article for confirmation of this.[15] PeterEastern (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a link to "Dollar Van" as a Main Article under "U.S. and Canada." Maybe that's all that needs to be done?

oppose merger: Dollar van does not need to offer a worldwide view because it is about this type of vehicle in USA. It would enlarge Share taxi to much to merge the articles. Maybe Dollar van shoulkd be called share taxis in USA or similar.Nankai (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

add ZR from Barbados?

The article on Barbados offers ZRs as a share taxi... --Smilo Don (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Prevarication?

Along the route: "Usually the vehicle continues along its route even if it is not always full, although prevarication and long delays are common".

I believe that the word needed here is 'procrastination' ([16]) not 'prevarication' ([17]) Pendant (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Good catch. Simpler edit is to delete IMO. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bolvia

On the chart at the top it mentions "Combi" but I have most often heard them referred to as "Trufi" (pronounce true-fee) Combi describes the general van type vehicle.

(logged in and removed my IP... sorry.) Titanium geek (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Split section

Many of the vehicles for hire described in the "Traditional systems around the world" section may be better placed on their own pages, as they appear to simply be informal means of public transportation and so not conforming to the share taxi definition. These sections include: bush taxi, Share taxi#Daladala (Tanzania), etc.

All informal means of public transportation aren't share taxis: a share taxi is a vehicle for hire with a specific and unique mode of operation. It is informal, leaves when full instead of using a timetable, plys a route, may stop anywhere along that route and/or have a fixed terminus, and usually isn't operated by a government agency.

Fleetham (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Cited blogs

I've been adding citations to the page and many have been from blogs. This may be in contravention of WP:Citing sources. Fleetham (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove all the pictures from this and other articles? This comes very near vandalism in my eyes.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The NYT article is not a high quality reference here - it is not about the dolmus, but just happens to mention them in passing. This is not embattled material in any way and we do not need one sentence to be broken up by three or four references. Please take the reader into consideration, and please remember that this not your own private article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I disagree. The NYT is a high quality ref. simply because it's NYT. The other refs are more functional the purposes of the page, but the NYT should remain as it is a mention of a dolmus from the late eighties and a "proof of life". Fleetham (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

A reference of no relevance is pointless, regardless of who published it. It does not offer an ounce of information beyond the use of the word. No one has ever challenged the idea that dolmuşlar exist. The "lesser" references are plenty good to prove the existence of the concept.

This is not about just this one reference; it is more about your overall pattern of over-referencing and turning perfectly legible articles into a maze of superscript numbers. Again, I ask you to please visit WP:CITE and to take the time to provide correctly laid out references. As things stand, every one of your references have to be repaired by someone else, work that could have been much better done by yourself to begin with. Also I found a new function: WP:LDR which might be very useful.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not only that the NYT ref is from an earlier time, it also shows a specific point of operation, is of higher quality than the other ref, etc. It's really important to keep it, even if only because it's a "really" high quality ref and the surrounding refs are "really" low quality ones.

If you have a problem with superscript shambles I suggest you don't solve it by deleting refs. It's not WP:OWN to have a legit. dispute about how someone is removing what could very well be useful infos. I hope WP:LDR implementation on my part is a partial solution. I would like to be able to have every cited page/source in the references only once simply for convenience. This enables people to click the ref's abcefhg and find out what that source is cited for, as well as approx. gauge the importance of a certain ref to the page. I am guessing WP:LDR may hamper this, as it might increase the ref. instance count :P But as you have expressed a dislike for excessive superscripts I will try to implement it.

Thank you for providing WP:LDR, I will try to use it to prevent things like a sentence cited with five or more refs having five or more superscripts. Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to solve the problem of over-referencing other than deleting refs. Then the least useful ones are the ones to go. Also, most of the deletes were duplicates, when one sentence has the same reference quoted repeatedly such as in this example:

In Turkey[15] and Turkish controlled, Northern Cyprus[16] dolmuş (pronounced "dolmush"[17]) are share taxis that run on set routes within[17][18] and between cities.[17]

Here, you managed to quote #17 no less than three times in one single sentence. If one reasonably reliable reference proves all of these points, then only one reference is needed, and only at the end of the sentence. Only if someone comes along and claims that part of the sentence is untrue would it be necessary to start breaking it up. Since #17 deals with everything (aside from Northern Cyprus), only that and perhaps #16 are needed. #18 (NYT) simply serves no purpose. If you feel so desperately the need to quote NYT here, why not place it in Turkey's countrybox on top of the page? Lastly, just because one has found a reference does not mean it has to be included - no need for duplicates.

Why would LDR increase the "ref. instance count"? Also, I don't understand at all what you mean with "gauge the importance of a certain ref to the page" and to "have every cited page/source in the references only once simply for convenience"? The LDR would require the reference only once: in the reflist, where it is easy to edit, which can often be hard when multiples are used.

Lastly, please do take the effort to provide properly formatted references. It is more work for some other editor to go in, find, and to fix them than it would be for you to do it yourself to begin with.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand why people didn't want to read a page of superscripts but all these facts need citations because I tend to add stuff that isn't true. Each fact carries a burden of truth and if that must be a superscript than so be it.

Excessive superscripts are to be avoided and I will make an effort to removed low-quality refs after the facts they substantiate are better-substantiated by high quality ones. If I am to implement LDR refs on this page, I can only do so later and as a discrete task because I might get confused otherwise.

Using WP:LDR does increase the ref instance count. I tried it out on Original equipment manufacturer and now some references appear twice in the "References" section. Two instances of the same ref in the "References" section. That's ok but undesirable. It does work to remove excessive superscripting and surely that's a "reader's paradise". Fleetham (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

You add stuff that isn't true? What is the matter with you? Also, what do you mean by removing tons of perfectly acceptable material as you did in this edit? And why do you have to break everything up into hundreds of sections, most consisting of single sentences? Please stop destroying this poor article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edits 10 March 2011 'replaced removed references'

I don't appreciate Mr. Coppers removing many refs. Let's NOT do this. You may have a LEGIT. COMPLAINT, but let's solve this though TALKING, not REMOVING ALL THE REFS. Fleetham (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This edit was submitted with the comment 'replaced removed references'. This change was actually very considerable. Could the contributor please provide a more complete description of the changes and the motivation for them? PeterEastern (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I note that Fleetham has left the above comment. Can I suggest a better comment would be 'see talk page for reasons'. I have changed the section title to be more neutral. PeterEastern (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dolmus section

I have reworked the Dolmus section into a format that greatly reduces the number of references (from 15 to 3). Does anyone object to that wording and the citations? PeterEastern (talk) 19:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I objects. I don't appreciate people deleting information and then telling me they can because of WP:OWN. I am open to discussion. I have reverted your edit because it appears destructive, but--again--I am open to discussion, not "reverting all the refs". Fleetham (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Peter Eastern's version is much better, in line with WP:STYLE, WP:CITE and general logic and legibility. Fleetham, it should be becoming clear that your "style" of editing is not really the way things should look. I have spent several months trying to suggest ways you could improve, but your edits and over-referencing have, if anything, become worse. Having so many references is unnecessary.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Be patient and discuss things with me instead of deleting well-ref'ed edits. If you don't I will treat you as a hostile bother. Fleetham (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

It is normal practice to make edits first and then discuss any issues that emerge if there is a disagreement which there evidently is in this case. To respond to the issues you raise above: Why is my version with 3 references not clearer than yours with 15? How long would you you like me to 'be patient'? I did not 'revert all references', I rationalised them along the lines proposed by Mr Choppers and what is generally considered good practice. I assume you are referring to Mr Choppers in relation to WP:OWN and his being a 'hostile bother' not me? PeterEastern (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy, not indiv. opinion should guide what is and is not acceptable content in such cases. I agree that clarity is to be treasured and so perhaps "four equals" sectional sub-dividers are appropriate in this case? There need not be a dichotomy between clarity and well-informed copy. Fleetham (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am including a copy of both versions of the Dolmus section here for further discussion. The first is your preferred version, the second is the one I created which you then reverted. What exactly is your objection to this 2nd version which I consider to be clearer, to be better structured and which manages with fewer citations? Note that I have made some minor changes to this 2nd version to correct a typo and reorder some content. PeterEastern (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now also added the original version from 24 Feb. PeterEastern (talk) 07:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

24 Feb version

A dolmuş (pronounced DOLL-moosh) is a privately owned vehicle, normally with a capacity of 14 passengers, that runs on set routes within cities. It also runs to and from outlying towns and villages.

Dolmuşes mostly work on a fixed fee system: whatever the distance, passengers pay a set amount for the route, although there can be different prices for different distance groups in larger cities' dolmuşes. Cities have dedicated dolmuş stops as for buses, but on quieter routes a dolmuş may be hailed at any point on the route.
Dolmuş means "full" or "stuffed", as they depart not on fixed schedules but when sufficient passengers have boarded. Sometimes during off-peak periods, it is common for passenger(s) to pay the fare for the empty seat(s) for the dolmuş to depart without "filling up", if they do not want to wait for the entire car to fill up. It is customary for the passengers to cooperate in passing fares forward to the driver and passing change back.
There are actually two different share taxi systems in Turkey, and dolmuş is one of them, which is rapidly becoming a common name for both systems. In the traditional manner the dolmuşes are somehow vans providing a relatively comfortable transportation. Dolmuşes are yellow vans commuting 7-8 people at a time. They are also one of the more expensive mass transport alternatives. Minibuses however, have a capacity for 14 - 20 people. The picture on the right hand side shows a typical minibus. They are much cheaper and much easier to get access, because the streets are full of them.
Since rapid transit in Turkish cities is still being developed, a dolmuş is often the only alternative. Minibus drivers have a reputation for being aggressive, fearless and rude. Dolmuş drivers, in contrary, tend to know the local commuters in the smaller neighborhoods that they serve and are rather courteous. A dolmuş ride is also considered the only reliable form of rapid transit in Istanbul, for being the only form of mass transit running almost 24 hours a day.

Current version - 11 March

In Turkey and Turkish controlled, Northern Cyprus dolmuş (pronounced "dolmush") are share taxis that run on set routes within and between cities. Each of these cars or minibuses displays their particular route on signboards behind the windscreen.

Some cities may only allow dolmuş to pick-up and disembark passengers at designated stops, and terminals also exist. The word derives from Turkish for "full" or "stuffed", as these share taxis depart from the terminal only when a sufficient amount of passengers have boarded.
Westerners may be surprised by the speed of dolmuş travel.
These share taxis are also found in Turkish-controlled, Northern Cyprus under the same name. Traveling intra and inter-city, the privately owned minibuses or aging Mercedes stretch limos are overseen by a governance institution; routes are leased and vehicles, licensed. Passengers board anywhere along the route (you may have to get the driver to stop if he doesn't honk at you) as well as at termini and official stations. Dolmuş in Turkish-controlled, Northern Cyprus display their routes but don't follow timetables. Instead, they simply appear frequently.

Text proposed by PeterEastern based on rework of current text

In Turkey and Turkish controlled Northern Cyprus share taxis, known as dolmuş (pronounced "dolmush") run frequently along set routes within and between cities. The vehicles, ranging from brand new minibuses to aging Mercedes stretch limos display their route on signboards behind the windscreen but do not operate to fixed timetables. In some cities a dolmuş is only allowed to stop at designated stops or at terminals; in less busy locations passengers may board anywhere along the route. Share taxis depart from the terminal only when a sufficient amount of passengers have boarded and the name Dolmus is derived from Turkish for "full" or "stuffed" for that reason.

The system is regulated both in Cyprus and in Turkey with the privately owned vehicles requiring a license and the routes being leased. A dolmuş ride was described by one Westerner as being 'terrifying, awe-inspiring, confusing, incomprehensible, charming, hospitable and alien.'
References for all the quotes above

Removal of info. pertaining to Turkish-Cypriotic share taxis. This is imp. as Cyprus isn't a de jure Turk-nation. Just because share taxis have the same name in Quebec and Algeria, it doesn't mean we need to conflate their definition. I say, "more paragraphing, more Cyprus--and I think it better than my version". Fleetham (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The reason they can be conflated is that the systems are the same. If there were any differences then they can (and should) be pointed out. Less paragraphing, less over-referencing, I still say PeterEastern's version is superior. Two against one, I'd say consensus has been reached - or would you like to wait a week and invite other interested editors?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Conflation is fine, but I would like to have the fact that some share taxis in the Turk-controlled areas of Cyprus are Mercedeses and also that in these places the "dolmush" are regulated by a "governance institution" as well included. Turkey does not extend into Northern Cyprus, irregardless of what people who live there may say. It must be that it is not the Government of Turkey that regulates share taxis in Cyprus. Fleetham (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have adjusted 'my' version in a way that I hope accommodates your concerns. Incidentally I have also turned up a reference describing a Dolmus in one location as operating with new vehicles. Do you now feel that the new wording is acceptable? PeterEastern (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you want me jumping in there and changing it, but there needs to be a stronger distinction made between Turkey, and Northern, Turkish-controlled Cyprus. These things are for sure not "lic. and leased in Turkey and Cyprus". That's wrong. Stronger distinction between these discrete areas is necessary for a WP:NPOV in my opinion. I even added a "Real Cyrpus" entry under "trad. sys. 'round world" even though service taxis (and US shuttles) may not be considered true share taxis. Just to make the distinction more distinct Share taxi#Service taxi (Cyprus) Fleetham (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer you not to 'jump in' and change my proposed text thanks. With reference to your other comments: Vehicles are indeed licensed and routes leased in both Turkey and Cyprus according to the references I provide. As for the distinction between Cyprus and Turkey and between service taxi and Dolmus then I agree some changes may be useful, however at present it is impossible to influence the article because of your extreme level of editing and tendency to revert contributions by others. I notice that you have made 250 edits to the article in the part 20 days and that you comment on your user page that Share Taxi is 'working in progress'; can ask you when you think this work will be complete? Can I also suggest that no one else touches the article (including Mr Choppers) until you are done with it even if we feel that the edits are going in the wrong direction. This will give you a free run to get the article where you want it to be. We can then discuss the overall changes since late Feb and decide how to proceed as a wider interest group. Incidentally I have now added the text for Dolmus from late Feb before you started editing into this section as well. I note that some significant content has been lost during the recent edits. We seem to have traded content and readability for a profusion of references. PeterEastern (talk) 06:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this after having reverted once again. Having repaired and cleaned up several references (time consuming) I am quite disappointed to see them reverted wholesale over and over again. Several illustrative photos of African share taxis and terminals are not allowed according to Fleetham, without any discussion or opposition allowed. WP:OWN is most certainly being broached here. Slow edits (because some of your work is useful) one by one, allowing for input from others is the way to go. A barrage of superficially researched edits and wholesale changes to the layout without conferring with anyone else is never going to be acceptable to others. Readability trumps referencing, as long as it doesn't come at the expense of veracity. I would be happy to leave this article alone entirely for a week, as long as it is understood that this article does not belong to Fleetham and Fleetham alone.

This is also not a new habit of yours (Fleethan?). Yulon Motor (and several other Chinese car manufacturers) have been targetted for a while, with tons of perfectly acceptable (and well-written) material having been reverted in favor of numerous bullet points broken up by countless superfluous references. I have attempted to communicate to you for nearly half a year about the styles preferred in Wikipedia, but you (Fleethan) refuse to accept anything I say. You also still insist on the "bundling" of references, something which has never been a preferred (or even imagined) method.

-  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we keep this section for and further specific comments on the Dolmus section. I realise that I opened a wider discussion about how to resolve the more general concern about the recent editing to the article and there may also be issues with other articles. I am about to create a new section on this page to discuss our concerns about Fleetham's editing of this article and how we get to a resolution. PeterEastern (talk) 09:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham's edits (disputed content)

Fleetham has made over 250 edits to this single article in the last 3 weeks (between 24 Feb 2011 and 12 March 2011). These edits have raised concerns from two other contributors in particular (PeterEastern and  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ ). The scope and speed of these edits makes it impossible to see what is being changed and why - see earlier discussions on this page - and contributions from other people during this period have generally been reverted. Much good new content may be being added, however in places the resulting article is considered to the less good, see Dolmus discussion above. More seriously, this approach excludes other contributors which is demotivating for others who have worked on the article.

I am proposing the following process to resolve the issue.

1. We add a disputed tag to the article (done)
2. We leave Fleetham to complete his edits of the article in the next few days. Can I suggest 15 March as a suitable cutoff?
3. Fleetham (and everyone else) will then stop editing while we review the article and decide how to proceed.
4. If we are not about to agree between ourselves we will seek guidance from others using the normal dispute processes.

Please can people say if they agree with this plan (a simple 'I agree' / 'i don't agree' is sufficient at this stage).

- PeterEastern (talk) 09:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. (would also like to include in the list of problems that often good content is deleted by Fleetham)  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• 'Disagree. I would enjoy participating in a collaboration. I don't feel that's happening here. I will stop editing the page until some sort of agreement can be reached, however. Fleetham (talk) 17:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I am surprised you don't want to finish off your vision for the article before putting to to discussion by a wider audience? Are you saying you are pretty much complete with the article and it is how as you would want it to be or what? I would have thought you would have wanted to take a bit of time when you were not 'fighting' other contributors. PeterEastern (talk) 10:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. I feel a coolaboration would be more additive and less deletory. Or involve more fact-checking if it was all about deleting. I enjoyed your contribution to the dala-dala section and would be completely happy to have that "face the folks" on the main page as long as it makes a greater distinction between Turkey, Cyprus, and de facto Turkish-controlled, Northern Cyprus, for example. It's a collaboration when people imp. the page and take valid concerns into account when they do so. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This conversation is about your entire style of editing, not just about Turkey and Cyprus. Also, "cooperation", when a page's content is under dispute, means making one or two edits and taking in what others have to say about them before making ten more contentious edits. You have made over 250 edits at breakneck speed, and have reverted every single attempt to improve/change them. For instance, there are two photos to which you seem to have developed some antipathy (Image:Bush taxi minibus type.jpg and Image:TaxiBusesKigali.jpg) and delete over and over again without explanation or discussion.

Since no one but you is allowed to make any edits to this page as long as you are 'working' on it, we figured that maybe it'd be easiest to let you finish your 'vision' for this page, whatever that may be. Then there could be a discussion to whether your version was better than what existed before (or if some synthesis could be ok'd).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you take a rules-based approach to dispute-resolution, and I have agreed not to edit until some agreement on cooperation can be reached. I want collaboration; I don't want people deleting well-sourced material without cause. While collaboration need not be entirely additive in nature (for example PEastern's "dolmush" section is a good example of collapsing un-needed parts), I know that what has been done is not collaboration. I will continue ignore you and revert your edits if they are simply destructive, as I have done. Fleetham (talk) 17:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, when responding to an indented comment, do so using simply one more colon than the previous commenter. Secondly, just as you have decided I am "destructive", I find nearly all of your contributions entirely useless: badly researched, badly written, often factually incorrect and hasty. I can provide dozens of provable examples if you're interested. To me, the number of blatantly thoughtless edits you have committed (for instance, deleting a large number of images based on an easily resolved confusion regarding copyrights) make me doubt all of your edits.

Maybe I am entirely right, maybe I am wrong - but when two editors disagree, it is best to stop changing a page and await input from others. However, you have never afforded me (nor others) that kind of respect but instead keep adding countless edits according to your own agenda and style. This is the problem which must be discussed. For instance, only today you removed a referenced section of some importance ("1 out of 5 stars") from Brilliance Auto without any explanation given.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that my experience of trying to edit this article with you Fleetham is similar to Mr Choppers. I watched the 'edit war' from a distance for a week and then did a careful edit to a single section to see what happened and it was immediately removed. I then tried to discuss your reversion and approach with you and there seemed to be no middle ground, hence this talk section. I feel that without any shared views about what is right and wrong about the current content and about how we are not really collaborating then I can't see how we are going to edit the article together effectively in future. What is clear to me is that we should now do a review of article now compared to the 24 Feb version with the current version and then decide what we (ie Mr Choppers and myself) feel would be the best way forward. It does not need to be an exhaustive review - probably best to give examples of where it has benefited and/or gone backwards. PeterEastern (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of 24 Feb and 14 March versions

I suggest that we now do a quick review of the changes for better and worse between 24 Feb and 14 March version. Given that Fleetham is completely happy with the 14 March version can I ask him to let Mr Choppers and myself take the lead on this and that in each case Fleetham can respond with his view. It will probably not be productive however to have a long discussion on each point. PeterEastern (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what that means. I think it's great you guys want to help! But remain aware that all the names may be totally wrong and readers in Africa might be angry because their specific tribe isn't included. But tribal connections--while still strong among those in the Balkan states--may be something everyone is actively trying to degrade and, as such, may have little influence where these Share taxis roam: the big city and its "low population density" environs. Fleetham (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, lets bring this article back into shape - but i have to go to work first. I don't know what any tribal issues may be.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The main issues for me are the massive over segmentization (no less than sixty sections! often subdivided into sections consisting of a single sentence) and citation overkill. Also, several references repaired by me have been reverted so I will have to start digging through and finding them again. There is also no apparent sectioning pattern, with 3.3 Carro Público subdivided into 3.3.1 Dominican Republic and 3.3.2 Puerto Rico, but 3.20 Minibus taxi (Ethiopia) and 3.21 Minibus taxi (South Africa) being considered discrete entities. There is also the attempts at using LDR referencing - I did so here but it was immediately reverted. Fleetham has since attempted using LDRs but misses the point of them entirely, instead making reference groups and inexplicably using two separate reflists.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, let's not get testy. Fleetham (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we move the "traditional systems throughout the world" to its own page? I have done similar things with Chinese automakers: removing a list of models to its own page. Why won't that work here? Fleetham (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fleetham, I have corrected the indentation of your last two responses on this talk page. It is a small point, but Mr Choppers has already requested that you follow the social convention of indenting by one more level than the question to which you are responding. When you don't do this you make it harder to following the conversation. It also sends out a message to me that you may be in too much of a hurry and might not even really care about such things. PeterEastern (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Creating a separate article for the 'traditional systems throughout the world' section would seem like a natural development in due course. Would it also be more useful to order the sections by county or groups of nearby countries with similar systems rather than by systems in different countries with the same name? More people are going to be approach the article with a country in mind than the name of s particular system, particularly given that in some countries the names seem to be in transition. This might address some of Mr Choppers' concerns about sectioning. PeterEastern (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Responding the Mr Choppers other comments, there do seem to some unnecessary subheadings, such as 'A popular means of transport'. I also have to agree with Mr Choppers general criticism excessive referrencings and short paragraphs. I would like to highlight some dramatic loss of content in some sections - I have just checked Matatu and the original content from Feb24 seems much more meaningful (but unreferenced) than the current text (excessive references and less rich - what is the need for 3 references for the existence of a 'conductor'?). In this case my preferred approach would be to revert to the original text and try to find more references to support that text. PeterEastern (talk) 04:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the indentations. Sometimes I get annoyed with Mr. Choppers and don't read his contributions because of that. I don't want to appear uncivil or hasty, so I will try to abide by convention!

I do agree that there are too many citations. It doesn't bother me but it does some people. I think removing excess cites is something we can all agree on. The only caveat here is that when it comes to cited material I do want every sentence cited. Some people simply put a citation at the end of a paragraph when it supports the entire paragraph. That's confusing because so much of Wikipedia isn't cited. Fleetham (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I also agree about the over-sectioning. Maybe at most four sections per continent is preferable: "East Africa", "South Asia", etc. Then we can say things like, "In West Africa, the share taxi is usually a minibus and depending on country is called...". The problem here is that most sources don't refer to, for example, dala dala as share taxis. Many times multiple sources are needed to show that something is a share taxi (one for the fact it runs a route, another to say it leaves only when full/doesn't use a timetable, etc.) and that causes citing difficulties when you only want to say "In the Caribbean, share taxis are known as tap taps". Fleetham (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that you would admit to not reading my contributions is quite amazing although hardly surprising, and does make you appear both uncivil and hasty. I have noticed that you almost never respond to anything I have to say (for instance, you insist on abbreviating MoU on Changfeng Automobile, even though I have changed it several times and it flies in the face of WP:STYLE#Abbreviations, particularly the section called "Do not use unwarranted abbreviations".

Your personal desire to cite every sentence (and often every word in a sentence) does not follow Wikipedia policy. I have pointed this out so many times that it is getting very tiresome. Again, I invite you to visit an article which has received an FA or GA rating to see how citing and structure is meant to be done. Today's featured article is Anthony Roll - you will notice that the introduction contains a single reference, and the entire 28K article contains a mere thirty. This is a featured article, it defines what a Wikipedia article should look like. You will notice that it is quite different in style from your personal preferences. I also appreciate that you don't want to go through the effort of doing a proper job, no one can make you do that (note your refusal to reference properly), but then you must accept that your version will be changed considerably.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, the intro is more or less ruined. It's chopped down to a mere nothing, with a very confusing section referring to the "state" of the share taxi actually meaning what country they're in rather than their condition, something I only understood after clicking the link. I would advice reinstating the intro in it's entirety, perhaps some of the references already found by Fleetham will suffice to remove the "cn" tag. I also think that Fleetham's idea of "Share taxi" being a precisely and narrowly defined term is somewhat off the mark.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is what I mean. The definition of "Share taxi" for a UITP working paper (page 6) is the following, which is pretty vague and also allows for further interpretations:

Shared taxis - The shared taxis category considered here refers to all vehicles with a seating capacity of 5 people travelling together, not necessarily with each other or to the same destination. Minibuses, known as ‘shared taxis’ in some locations, were not included in this category. Besides, taking account of the disparities in the terminology and in the level of acceptance of these ’shared taxis’ by the local public authorities of the cities, all kinds of shared taxis were included in this category regardless of their official or unofficial recognition or whether they are licensed or not.

Fleetham, above, stated that a share taxi is:

a share taxi is a vehicle for hire with a specific and unique mode of operation. It is informal, leaves when full instead of using a timetable, plys a route, may stop anywhere along that route and/or have a fixed terminus, and usually isn't operated by a government agency.

This is Fleetham's own interpretation of the meaning of "share taxi", and as such should not be used to determine what needs referencing or not. As an example, the definition of "Share taxi" in the Rwandan context (again UITP, pp. 50-51) is as follows, even allowing for vehicles leaving on a timetable:

Share taxis - The share taxis come in two forms: The main form of public transport within Rwanda is the share taxi, known locally simply as taxi or colloquially “twegerane” (let us sit together) which are 14-20 seat minibuses estimated at 2000. They run between two termini (known as taxi parks), but stop frequently along the route to pick up and set down passengers. They almost always wait until full before departing, and can also wait for long periods in locations along the route if not enough people are on board. The vehicles are usually Toyota minibuses owned by a private individual who employs a driver and a conductor to operate and maintain the vehicle on a day-to-day basis.
The second form is the Express taxis which are minibuses of 18 seating offer like share taxis, but they depart on time and do not stop until they reach their destination, except to set people down; actually they operate between major towns, generally Kigali and a major regional centre. Express taxis are quite a recent phenomenon, but are gaining rapidly in popularity as they provide people the security of arriving at a known time.

 ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

While I won't defend my definition, I do believe we must come to some agreement ourselves as to what a share taxi is, because the UITP definitions are confusing. Take the first UITP def. for example. Is a share taxi any public transport with capacity for 5 passengers? Is it simply a minibus? The Rwandan example is more helpful--a less-restrictive share taxi definition could simply be a public transport that uses fixed termini but has no "bus stops" along the route; people can disembark or board anywhere, instead. Fleetham (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In Taxi!: urban economies and the social and transport impacts of the taxicab the following definition for share taxi is found:

Small vehicle used for multiple occupancy taxi journeys

Fleetham (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, share taxi is a nebulous and informal concept. Now, how about you also respond to the rest of the issues I brought up? There are some awaiting you here.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mode of operation chart

This is an incomplete (I will come back and work more on it later) chart of share taxi modes of operation throughout the world. Maybe this will help us to come to a definition for share taxi. I have omitted the fact that all of the below allow multiple passengers to share the ride. Fleetham (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Country	Name	Runs fix route	Stops anywhere to disembark/board	Leaves when full/no timetables	Leaves from termini/stations	Vehicle type
Cambodia	Share taxi	?	?	yes	?	minibus, passenger car, pick-up
Cameroon	Share taxi, minibus taxi	yes	yes	yes	yes	Sedans, minibuses, pick-ups
Indonesia	?	?	?	yes	?
Israel	sherut/service	yes	yes	yes	travels to set destinations	white vans, Mercedes or Peugeot sedans
Kyrgyzstan	share taxi	runs to set destinations	?	?	yes	?
Libya	micro	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	minibus
Mauritius	share taxi, taxi train	?	?	?	yes	?
Myanmar	share taxi	?	?	?	yes	?
South Africa	shared taxi	yes	?	?	?
Turkey	Dolmus	yes	?	yes	?	?
UK	Shared ride taxi	no	?	?	yes	?
UK	taxibus	yes	?	?	yes	?
West and Central Africa	Bush taxi	yes	?	yes	?	van

This is in direct violation of Wikipedia policies, see WP:NOT#OR. As for a definition, a share taxi would seem to be something which generally makes several stops, travels along a predictable (commonly fixed) route, carries several passengers who are not travelling together, and doesn't follow a timetable. These conditions are not always fulfilled, but it is far outside of Wikipedia's scope to invent a precise definition for the somewhat nebulous concept of 'Share taxi'. This is just a red herring, instead we should be fixing the article.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation overkill

In response: While I would like every sentence cited, I understand and acknowledge that is not necessary. It is easier to read a page without multiple citations appending each sentence. I would like Mr. C. to do likewise and also agree that there is no reason not to cite a source for ach sentence. It's a personal preference. And as there is no official wikipedia policy disallowing it, could Mr. C. please just acquiesce on this point? It's an ok thing to do just as bundling citations and removing un-needed citations for increased readability is ok. Fleetham (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not agree to placing unnecessary citation superscripts everywhere across articles. There is a consensus not to overcite, see WP:CITEKILL and again, please visit a random featured article to see what the preferred style looks like. And it is not just me - this is really one of the main problems with your editing habits. And bundling (the way you are doing it) is not ok. See WP:CITEBUNDLE for how it is meant to be used. Bundling can be a useful way not to break up a sentence with superscripts (which is disapproved) when two or more references support separate statements contained within the sentence. Bundling is not for providing three references which all state the same thing.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:CITEKILL is just an essay, but you are right about bundling. And could you please be a little less critical? All I get from you is nag, nag, nag. Fleetham (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The essay wouldn't be up if there wasn't support for it. Find an essay that says every third word should be cited, and we'll talk. And I'm terribly sorry, but as long as you insist on editing in these bizarre ways while refusing to accept changes or listen to what I say (as you yourself stated above) I will keep complaining. Explaining bundling to you also does not mean that you should start bundling all citations given in every article you target, especially not if a bundled citation is also used elsewhere in the article.

Most importantly: Could you please please please visit a few featured articles to get an idea of what we are supposed to be doing? As long as you refuse to accept the Wikipedia editing style I will have to keep attempting to repair your edits.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, but will respond on your talk page as that's a better forum for such discussion. Fleetham (talk) 18:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Guatemalan colectivos

Mexico is not in South America, so I changed that to Latin America. Guatemalan colectivos are virtually identical to Mexican ones, so I added Guatemala to that section. A rutelero is a driver of a taxi, not the taxi itself http://www.spanishdict.com/translate/ruletero. Also, this word is very uncommon. I have ridden hundreds of colectivos in Guatemala and have never once heard this word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werseuch (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That Guatemala ruletero entry was correct and has a source. It's quite possible that both, the bus and the driver are called the same.TMCk (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It has a source, but the source is wrong. Every dictionary (and Guatemalan) I have consulted disagrees with "ediplomat.com" whatever that is anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werseuch (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This article in Spanish from Guatemala clearly speaks of the vehicles when reffering to "ruleteros". See introduction of article. Furthermore I found an online private add about somebody looking to buy vans and specivically rules out "ruleteros" unless they're low milage. That clearly showes that the term is being used for the vehicles. I saw some mentioned in other articles that also used the term for the collectives and as I mentioned sometimes before I think there is a good possabillity that in popular culture they also refer to the drivers as "ruleteros" but I couldn't find a source that is clear about this. since we have to go with sourced content I'll reinstate the edit as was and add the above new Spanish source as ref. TMCk (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Reversion 9 April 2011

I notice that an edit by POL098 on 9 April 2011 was reverted by Fleetham without any reason given. I note that neither the original text nor suggested change had a reference. Can I suggest that where such text is reverted then as a minimum a reference is at found to support the original text and a justification is give in the submission comment field. I notice that the POL098 has since made a good number of changes and new references. He also appears to be a well-seasoned contributor to Wikipedia across a wide range of subjects. As such, I recommend that we give the contributor space to develop on the article without further reversions. I would recommend that we given 24-48 hours before any of the three regular recent contributors respond. I would also recommend that we discuss any proposed changes on this talk page first. PeterEastern (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted it because of misspellings and poor grammar. Fleetham (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Pol098's edit shows no misspellings and the only problem I can see is an extra comma. I'd say this is just more evidence of Fleetham's troubling editing style and feelings of ownership. For more evidence that this is not a fluke but a persistent habit of Fleetham's, feel free to visit the Lanix history page and its associated talkpage.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested ADD 23 September 2011

In PRChina, share taxis like the ones in Hong Kong are numerous. They are called "breadloaf" or "miandi" taxis in both places. My Wikicode is not so strong that I can not safely do it, so do it if you want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QASIMARA (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Traditional systems around the world

This section would be more helpful if the list was by country. The various names for a share taxi in different languages should be in the intro to the article. Have a look at the article Controlled-access highway to see how multiple names (Freeway, Motorway, Autostrada etc) are applied to what is a fairly similar concept. How do other people feel about this?Nankai (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This interesting article seems to be fairly comprehensive and yet a mess as the result of commendably prolific additions coupled with a lamentably idiosyncratic editing "style". Organising this section by region and country would seem (to me) to be the logical method and would make it much more readable, useful, encyclopedic, and would do much to pull the article into shape.

The sheer number of different names for a share taxi, and more importantly the different modes of operation (unlike "motorway", "autostrada", etc. which are different names for essentially identical entities), militate against listing more than perhaps four or five in the lede. I suggest the different names and modes of operation be detailed within the appropriate country/region paragraph(s).

To be plain, I suggest the following format:

Name of larger region / continent / area / country

-name of smaller area / country(ies) / (or smaller region)

-name and description of share taxi service(s), plus other relevant details (regulations, etc.)

-name of another country / area

-name and description of share taxi service(s)

Great - I support your work entirely; actually I believe it was once organized that way. I don't have much time but will check in every now and then.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This is sufficiently flexible to allow for services which exist in both sub- and super-national areas, such as west Africa, or southern Spain. Probably in many cases only one of the headings would be required, for example New Zealand.

I’ve made a tiny start, I hope other editors agree this is a way forward.

Captainllama (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Share taxi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060924233644/http://www.stm.info/English/info/a-taxi-aldo.htm to http://www.stm.info/English/info/a-taxi-aldo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060622214532/http://stl.laval.qc.ca:80/pa1/taxis/i/T06r.jpg to http://www.stl.laval.qc.ca/pa1/taxis/i/T06r.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Two publications worthy of citation

These two articles, which deal both with the history of jitneys (the vehicle) and the etymology of the word jitney, should be cited.

Gold, David L. 2018-2019. “Pursuing the origin of the American English informalism gitney ~ jitney: On the alleged Louisiana French word *jetnée and the fallacy of omne ignotum pro magnifico in etymological research.” Leuvense Bijdragen: Leuven Contributions in Linguistics and Philology. Vol. 102-103. Pp. 383-417.

Gold, David L. 2021. “American English jitney '[any] American coin of low denomination' < gittany ~ jittany 'idem' < Louisiana French *jetonnet *'idem' = French jeton + diminutive suffix -et (A Study in English and French Etymology and Numismatics).” In: Literature is Comparative : Toute littérature est littérature comparée. Etudes de littérature et de linguistique offertes à Roy Rosenstein par ses collègues, ses disciples et ses amis. Textes recueillis par Danielle Buschinger, Martine Marzloff, Patricia Gillies et Marie-Geneviève Grossel. Amiens. Presses du Centre d'Etudes Médiévales de Picardie. Collection Médiévales no. 70. Pp. 232-243.S. Valkemirer (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Ukraine

For what it's worth, the Duolingo Ukrainian language course translates маршрутка (marshrutka) as "share taxi." (Wiktionary calls it a route/routed taxi, among other things.) I don't know whether Duolingo got the term from Wikipedia, or if "share taxi" is actually said by English speakers in Ukraine. Peter Chastain ^[¡hablá!] 05:10, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking for a better footnote 99

The current one is from a depreciated source and only partially relevant to the topic at hand (in their own words Of course, a documentary about Fords is a documentary about the roadblocks and ultimately the occupation). Can the second source be fully used for the claims made by 99? FortunateSons (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)