Faithless78

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NECLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NECLogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New Enterprise routes 781 and 784

Hi. I have noted with interest your recent move of New Enterprise routes 781 and 784 to Green Line routes 781 and 784. I was wondering whether you could clarify this? You said that "These routes have always been part of the Green Line network". Well, strictly no, they haven't. The article says that in 2005, Green Line dropped the services. This meant that all traces of Green Line branding went, and New Enterprise took over. The only thing that linked it to GL was the website linked to the service, which is hardly a lot seeing how rarely that site is updated. You also said that "due to organizational changes, New Enterprise Coaches no longer operates these services." Yes, Chalwell are operating them, totally separate, and not under the Green Line name. I'd like to hear your opinions! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought that they left the timetables on the Green Line site after NE took over as it was still with Arriva. It appears Chalkwell are completely separate, so I have changed the route box template back with "New Enterprise 781 and 784 (Past Routes)". The problem is is that there is no real suitable name that has no issues with it! "London commuter routes 781 and 784" was the old name, but it is still quite bland.

Clearly, you are the expert, having driven for the company and on those routes!! No doubt about that! As you say it is important though to pass on the facts. What we should decide it whether to leave the article about "when it was" (about New Enterprise), or whether to move it on (about Chalkwell). The problem is, some random article about a coach service run by an operator that doesn't even have its own article probably isn't notable!! Any ideas...? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the article current, so perhaps associating the article with Chalkwell will accommodate that. However, the route's history I feel is just as important. I think the whole "London Commuter" thing denotes the type of service that it is without tying it up with just one company, since the route has changed hands on a number of occasions and is likely to do so again since this is the norm for bus and coach operations these days.

The Green Line thing however placed emphasis on the route's history and the type of service that it's evolved from... although Invictaway may have been a better bet. The only problem with that is the fact that Invictaway ran a collection of services at the time with the 9XX prefix, and the 7XX prefix only really came in after a call from TfL to bring the route numbering in line with other commuter and Home Counties services in 2004.

Personally I wouldn't associate the routes with a company in the title. It might look bland, but it leaves the article manageable when the need to update it arises. I'll leave that choice with you I think Faithless78 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you've said it like that I've changed my mind. Yes, I do think that "London Commuter routes..." would be a better name. Then we could keep it up to date without associating it to a particular operator too much. I would keep the emphasis on the operators in the article, and make it clear what happened when. I will let you move the page (and make any other changes). Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of New Enterprise Coaches for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Enterprise Coaches is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Enterprise Coaches (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SK2242 (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of London commuter routes 781 and 784 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article London commuter routes 781 and 784 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London commuter routes 781 and 784 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

SK2242 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)