Talk:Transdev Shorelink Buses

Merger

This company was not dissolved upon Veolia Transport becoming Transdev. It continued to operate under an entirely separate subsidiary of Transdev Australasia, under a different business structure well into 2014. This is evidenced by its use of a separate logo and the subsistence of its own website. I would even argue that evidence suggests that its merger with Transdev NSW has not yet taken place, with the websites remaining separate even today, despite the active moving notification on the Shorelink site. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a lot of evidence showing Shorelink has started to use the new logos. Eg, the notification of the holiday timetables, some of the school bus timetables in word doc has the logo. Some other fact sheets by Transdev NSW also stated Mt Ku-ring-gai as part of their operations. The move of Shorelink has not been done yet, but that doesn't mean they have not merged, it's just they did nothing to change it. They are moving into the current Transdev NSW website, an action which is redundant if they have not merged. Marcnut1996 (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not my point. I do not refute that Shorelink is to be absorbed into Transdev NSW and may have already been absorbed but I disagree that Transdev Shorelink merged with Veolia Transport NSW to form Transdev NSW. In July 2013, Veolia Transport NSW (VTNSW) changed their name to reflect the rebranding of their parent company Veolia Transdev as Transdev. All subsidiaries of the new Transdev Australasia still remained separate at this point. When the Transdev NSW website was launched, it was essentially identical to the VTNSW website that had preceded it. The company was the same one that could trace its origins to the Menai Bus Service launched in 1935 despite various name changes. To claim that VTNSW merged with Shorelink to form Transdev NSW is like claiming that Connex NSW merged with Transit First to form VTNSW. The transition that occurred in 2006 was nothing more than a name change to reflect the new parent company's branding. The acquisition of Transit First was not a merger but an acquisition. While the absorption of Shorelink into Transdev NSW is not an acquisition as they share the same parent company, the same procedures apply. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Shorelink was absorbed into Transdev NSW rather than both it and Veolia Transport NSW ceasing, to form a new business. Thus from a wiki article point of view:

• Shorelink article should be tweaked to state it was absorbed into Transdev NSW
• Transdev NSW should remain as is
• Veolia Transport NSW text should be deleted and reinstated as a redirect Mo7838 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I would disagree. The accreditation of Shorelink has been Transdev NSW Pty Ltd even before July 2013 (search the internet for pre-2013 pics of Shorelink buses), and the name of the current company is Transdev NSW. This shows more of a merger rather than getting absorbed into Veolia.Marcnut1996 (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Both operations are continuing to trade through the same legal entities (companies) as they did pre July 2013, Transdev NSW Pty Ltd (ACN 097 409 437) and Transdev NSW South Pty Ltd (ACN 087 535 153) formerly Veolia Transport NSW Pty Ltd, formerly Connex NSW Pty Ltd, formerly CGEA Transport Limited. Both are likely to remain as separate legal entities as the contracts they have with Transport NSW are likely be held with the individual companies. Also if the assets were sold from one company, Transdev may be liable for stamp duty.

Ultimately the 'merge' is more about bringing the operations together under a common management and brand. Perhaps there is a common holding company within the Transdev Australasia structure, but we are not going to be privy to that information.

From a wiki standpoint, I think we are going to have to assume the smaller operation has been absorbed into the larger. Or alternatively revert to having articles for Shorelink and Transdev NSW as with the separate legal entities, there is a clear distinction. Things should become clearer once the operations are integrated, at the moment it would appear it is still a work in progress and we are crystal balling. Mo7838 (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

• As the Shorelink website was active until at least February 2014 [1] and the corresponding timetables carry no mention of the Transdev NSW name, think we are going to have to run with 2014 as the merger date pending anything cites proving 2013 as the date. Mo7838 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
  • The timetables (20 October version) of 556 and onwards (eg. [2]) say they are "operated by Transdev NSW". Some school timetables listed here [3] that are published and effective from Dec 2013 also has the Transdev logo. Hillsbus was rebranded in Dec 2004 but their website only opened in late 2005/early 2006. So maybe the same thing is happening. Marcnut1996 (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Links

The link to Shorelink about us does not work. Does anyone know of an archived version of this.

Also I have added a reference to the merger with Veolia in the heading and then later noticed that the same reference is present further down. I am not sure how to combine them into the one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleet Lists (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Webarchived link added.

If a cite is to be referred to more than once, at the first instance instead of beginning with ~ref~, begin with ~ref name=Shortname~, Shortname being a shortcode for the article, eg SMH9Nov14 for an article from the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 November 2014, although there is no hard and fast rule as to what format it should take.

When referred to on subsequent occasions rather than adding the full link, just add ~ref name=Shortname/~ (note addition of /). An example in this article is the ~ref name=About~ reference which has been referred to five times, hence the letters a-e appearing against it in the References section. The ~ should read < and >, but because Wiki gets confused, hence I have substituted ~ in their place.

However as information in the lead should also be covered in the body (as it in this article) per citations in lead policy, it generally isn't necessary to cite the lead. Mo7838 (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)