Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

We should also figure out how to determine importance. Probably most routes as low, most operating companies as mid, and most general information as high. --NE2 20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the first thing we should discuss is how "important" a bus route has to be for its own article. On one end are former streetcar lines, as well as articles like Grand Concourse buses, where the routes are old and have many sources. On the other end are obscure shuttles that operated for under a year. (See also this deletion discussion about a not-so-obscure route.) So where do we draw the line? My suggestion is that we go by how much we can write about the route, especially information that's not only minor routing changes. So the first, or even the second or third, bus rapid transit route in a city is probably fine, but a 20-year old suburban service is probably better covered on a list. --NE2 19:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I feel should have its own page:

• Any current local bus line that operates on a regular basis (at least 5 days a week) year round. Most of these routes are used by thousands of people each day. Many of the older routes have a history dating back to the streetcars, and the newer ones still have a lot of useful information that if I were the information-seeker, I would want to know. An individual page allows a history to be provided, and for there to be links to the line's schedule and news articles about the route, among other topics.
• Any former bus line that existed for a significant amount of time. This way, an article can describe its origin, why that line no longer exists, what line currently provides its service. I have mentioned former routes that share the same numerical designation with current routes on the same page as those respective current routes, giving a brief description a few lines long, and providing the dates they operated, the areas they served, and the routes currently serving the same areas. If someone has a better idea on how to address this issue, they should share it.

What does NOT belong on its own page:

• Express commuter buses, unless enough information can be provided to make the line worthy of its own page. These lines usually provide a single-digit number of trips each day, are generally used by a relatively small number of people within a localized area, remain mostly unchanged, and have a minimal political impact. They, instead, can be placed in a chart on a single page.
• Temporary shuttles that served a purpose for a limited amount of time (i.e. the Light Rail shuttle that operated while the Light Rail was closed for the double-tracking project).
• Routes that operate for sports games or other special events only (i.e. express buses to Oriole Park at Camden Yards.
• Routes that provide service for public schools only (i.e. Route 49 (Baltimore)) and therefore operate on school days only.
• Failed experimental services (i.e. Downtown Area Shuttle (DASH)). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebwite (talk • contribs) 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 51 Line is the problem with that approach. Looking at its state before deletion, it looks like it could be compressed to a few paragraphs without losing anything important, and included in an article like List of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn. --NE2 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO it is difficult to separate buses and drivers. Would you be interested in including drivers in this project? There are a handful of specific driver related articles (Bus Driver being the most obvious), but there are also bus driver trade unions (such as CAW Local 111) that could stand to fall within the care of this project as they often have input (or at least opinions about) routes and buses. Further areas of consideration would be bus operating companies (Coast Mountain Bus Company), manufacturers (New Flyer Industries), and related regulations(Category:Traffic law). Cheers.--Bookandcoffee 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including any of those. --NE2 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please help add to Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/Bus route list guide. --NE2 15:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Sebwite mentions above, often a route is not the first to have its number. One example is Route 33. This is a case where we need to disambiguate. From that guideline:

Two different methods of disambiguating are discussed here:

• disambiguation links — at the top of an article, a note that links the reader to articles with similar titles or concepts that the reader may seek instead of the current article.
• disambiguation pages — non-article pages that contain no content and refer users only to other Wikipedia pages.

I had to deal with a very similar issue when writing articles about state highways in Virginia. For instance, State Route 27 is the third route to have that number. The first one - State Route 27 (Virginia 1918-1940) - is now part of SR 168, so I redirected it there. The second - State Route 27 (Virginia 1940-1953) - is now a number of secondary routes, so I wrote a separate article. Note though that State Route 16 (Virginia 1918-1940), its old number, redirects there.

I suggest that we do something similar with bus routes. The complication is that not all routes will have their own articles. An anchor like "15 1950" in the table for a Route 15 that started in 1950 should be sufficient, and for numbers where the current route only has the table entry, we can add links there, probably in the history column. --NE2 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about various ways to address this issue. The decision that ultimately led me to place them on the same page is based on articles that I have seen about cars. For example, there have been different cars called Chevrolet Malibu over the years that all look different from one another, and have not all been made in consecutive years. Yet they are all on one page. Sebwite 00:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my reasons why I believe there should be a page for ALL local bus lines, regardless of how large or small they are, as opposed to articles for just some, and information on a chart on a page about others in the same category:

• In a large city, such as Baltimore, most of the bus lines are a major part of life in the city. Some of them are used by more than 10,000 people each day. Even smaller ones (such as Route M-17 (Baltimore)) are well known by bus riders, area residents, and others, are mentioned every now and then in news stories, and are a stronghold to commerce in the region. They are the very thing that allow employees to reach their employers. Those who do not ride them regularly are aware of their existence. Having smaller bus routes listed only on a list of page is like having individual pages for the states of California and Texas, but having information about the states of Rhode Island and Delaware only on a list of U.S. states.
• Many of the older bus routes have their history rooted in the city's streetcars. While others have said that a suburban bus that has only been around for 20 years should be on a list of page, I feel this is like having a page devoted to U.S. presidents way in the past, such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln, but providing information about Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton only on a page listing U.S. presidents. Even the newer bus routes have a story behind them. Though they may not have started out as streetcars, they are tied in with the growth of the communities they serve.
• An individual page, regardless, allows information that cannot be placed on a chart to be provided, such as photos, external links to references or schedules, or internal links to communites and landmarks the line serves. Additionally, I have inserted sections on the existing Wikipedia pages for some streets, communities, and landmarks describing public transportation at those places. These can be extremely valuable to the information seeker.
• It is not uncommon to find a topic for which there is not just an article about the entire subject, but one for each unit within. For example, there is a page for Royal Caribbean, and also a page for each of the company's ships. Many subway systems have a page for each station, even smaller ones, describing the communities where they are located. And there are pages about even small neighborhoods within cities that are not well known to outsiders.

Sebwite 16:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any mentions of Route M-17 in the (admittedly incomplete) Google News Archive. That's a simple bus route that connects the Owings Mills Metro Subway Station to nearby offices, and should probably be covered there. Not every bus route is important enough for a separate article - and I say this as someone who's interested in them, not as someone on the "other side". Your comparison to states or presidents is flawed, since states and presidents are much more important. External links and references can be provided in a list, and are. Internal links can be added in the notes column. --NE2 22:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, what do you think about an article titled list of M-Line bus routes in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area, formatted like list of newly-formed bus routes in Brooklyn? The ones that did evolve from streetcars can have a "main article" link, while the others can be covered there. --NE2 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I know it may sound weird, but for many reasons, I believe that it could cause problems to leave out just a few routes because they are smaller, say M-17 for example. It may cause some confusion in the information-seeker, something I am trying to prevent. Additionally, the articles I have written on Baltimore bus routes are not completed yet. I am still in the process of posting links to news articles on them, while trying to find a way to save the pages for Route 51 and Route M-9. As I have temporarily placed the information about M-9 on the page for M-2, I have thought of combining the two routes into a single page on Reisterstown Road buses. The article I created for Milford Mill Road, Slade Avenue, and Smith Avenue is on a single page, as these three roads are physically a single road. I have thought about the same for buses, particularly M-lines: Sebwite 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did just look at the article on Brooklyn buses. Forming a page like this seems like a great idea. I actually think it would be an excellent idea to form a page listing and detailing all Maryland Transit Administration local buses routes, including Routes 1-98 and M-1 through M-17. There could also be similar pages for former Baltimore bus routes, Baltimore streetcars, and Maryland commuter bus routes (3-digits). Such a concept would be great as the Wikipedia standard for any city.

However, Rome was not built in one day, and it may take a while to build such a page (any help I would appreciate). I wish for it to include as much information as possible that is included in the individual pages I created, including the current description, history, details of changes, photos, and external links to schedules, plus other information that may be added in the future (I had planned eventually on adding charts detailing certain information, such as frequencies).

I do not wish to delete or redirect any of the current pages until the information is on a new page like this. It'll take me several days before I can get seriously busy. Sebwite 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just started the article titled Baltimore Area (MTA) Bus Routes. This is just a start. It is far from being complete, and only includes Route 1 so far, but I plan to expand it in the coming weeks to include all other routes if others don't by then. Sebwite 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Routes with history, mostly former streetcar lines but also early bus routes, like the A Charles Street from 1915 (now part of Route 11), can definitely have their own articles. It's the more minor ones like 29 and 50 that don't make sense as separate articles. --NE2 01:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

NO. Because we are not technically associated with your project, please remove WikiProject London Transport from your project template and place our project template there instead, thank you in advance and for your co-operation. Unisouth 14:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC) — WikiProject London Transport Founder.

The template is based on template:TrainsWikiProject, which does the same thing. --NE2 22:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:LT is on that template because it was put on there when we were called WikiProject Underground as you may know, we have expanded to cover all aspects of London Transport. Therefore I have asked the removal of the 'tag' on that template. Unisouth 16:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that every item needs a 'date of last confirnation' entry in the table - an extra column; just looking at the table for Kent, I can see several areas where the list is wrong - but no way to tell it is not current (Also worth pointing out that over 40% of Kent's routes are simply not mentioned - almost all of Arriva's West Kent Services, for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.105.163 (talk • contribs)

Using the access date in the references may be sufficient for this. I should however note that a discontinued route should not be removed, but marked as discontinued or added to a separate list. This is because Wikipedia is "timeless", and does not favor the present. --NE2 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Baltimore Area (MTA) Bus Routes --NE2 23:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've scrubbed together a basic article guide for Local Bus Operators at User:Foxhill/content to add/Local Bus Operator article guide. Please feel free to comment, pull it to pieces or mould it into something else. It's local-centric purely as National Bus services and coach services would require different layouts and sections for subsidiary's etc Foxhill 15:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A4 Bath Road Park and Ride - I think I agree with its deletion, but someone might want to try to save it. --NE2 00:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Baltimore Streetcar Route 1 --NE2 00:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I note your project banner is set up for assessments, but you don't seem to have the categories and what-not set up. Do you want them? If yes, please drop a note on my user page and I'll at least set up the groundwork. John Carter 19:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any basis for this conclusion? I ask because some people raised this point at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Egged bus lines. nadav (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the difference between Category:Bus transit and Category:Bus transport is essentially local city/county public transit vs. intercity bus travel, but I'm concerned that this distinction may not be sufficiently obvious to others. Would it be possible for one or both of these categories to be renamed to something a bit clearer and less easily confused with each other (e.g. "Local public transit")? Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the scope of this project? Is it focusing only on articles for individual routes? Will you be expanding to cover all Bus Operator articles and stubs? Would it be useful to take ownership of the relevant templates such as {{Infobox Bus transit}} and perhaps make a Bus Operator Article guide? Oh and a tagging spree might help get more members (not that I condone sprees you understand) 82.11.41.163 00:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the intent is to cover anything related to buses. It's basically WikiProject Trains but with buses. I think what's needed now is more input here on this talk page to determine what needs to be done and then actually do it. --NE2 01:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not particularly focused in this topic (just browisng some WikiProjects), but it is of interest to the project members I can contribute with a list of bus routes for Buenos Aires (Argentina) and Sydney (Australia) cities, and maybe some links to support that information. Don't have bilbliography but have lived in both sities and extensively used their bus networks as primary transportation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see here. Thanks, BG7even 13:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. [Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index|The bot]] is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

A courtesy notice, even though the project seems dead. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Currently, 319 articles are assigned to this project, of which 83, or 26.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject buses}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you call in English a truck that carries a "passanger container"? Image included. Mieciu K (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion over at Talk:list of bus routes in the West Midlands county#overhaul that may benefit from some input from you guys jenuk1985 (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume this is "bussy" enough to be part of the project, but wanted to check. If you feel it is, please add the banner to the atheism one on the talk page. (There is also an advertising project, but they seem to be inactive, so that aspect of it will have to go WikiProject-less unless someone can think of another relevant project.) Richard001 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been adding "RDT" to applicable templates to help distinguish them from other templates and now more as a norm to show they are RDTs (or Route Diagram Templates). Although i did not propose this, i carried it out being bold and thinking it was uncontroversial. Similar suffixes to the same types of templates have been added (not by me and even some with the suffix RDT not by me either) such as "map", "route map" and "route diagram". As recently this has been questioned, could i ask for people's opinions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template#Suffices. Simply south (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Jenuk1985#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 549 for an important current debate. Mhockey (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how active this project is, but you might be interested in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 September 4#category:Wikipedia bus watchers. Bencherlite^Talk 07:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Bus spotting has no cites. Does anybody have easy access to citable materials on this? Thanks. -- 201.37.224.91 (talk) 14:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, I've recently spent a lot of time and effort on 2007 National Express coach accidents, including adding a lot of reliable citations. Perhaps someone else can look over it and see if it is good enough for a GA status. Regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have more than a cursory look, but I would split the two articles. They can both sustain articles in their own right, and I don't think the mere fact they happened in the same year and were both NatEx (were they even both directly operated?), is enough to tie them together, and I can't see any suggestion that this was anything more than conincidence (correct me if wrong). MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't personally create the article, and both RTIs were already in the article. I just stumbled across it whilst working on improving MAN SE related articles, and found the coach crash article looking rather 'unloved', and seriously lacking in citations to reliable sources (the main prose of the September incident had 0 citations). This was how the article looked before I started on it: only 7 citations (and one of them was a dead link), just under 8 kb in length, and no edits for five months - and this is now: infoboxes added, multi-use of 28 citations, navboxes, appropriate ELs, a good layout to the page, an increase of nearly three times in article size, and probably the most important issue - detail of the whole incidents (not only the detail of the actual crashes, but also the investigations, and full legal processes to their conclusions).

Onto your comment on the spliting of the article - well I personally can't do that because I'm just an IP editor - so someone else will have to take that plunge. However, my own personal opinion would be to keep the two incidents in the same article. The article, as it stands is 28.5 kb, which is well inside the article length guidelines - and apart from maybe some images or diagrams of the incidents, I don't think there is much more to add to it. Another reason why I would support keeping them together is sort of summed up in the opening paragraph - The 2007 National Express coach crash can refer to one of at least two motorway road traffic incidents (RTIs) involving National Express Coaches in the United Kingdom in 2007. So someone might remember one of these (but may not remember the exact detail - dates, location, route number, etc), and search for something like "National Express coach crash of 2007" (or something similar) - and then be surprised/advised/reminded that there were two incidents. I also think it would be important to keep these together because they were both caused by deliberate actions of the driver (one was dring like a maniac, and speeding in a tall high-sided vehicle round a tight bend (and who had a load of previous convictions for speeding and tampering with the speed limiter) - and the other was driven by a drunk) - in both these RTIs, there was absolutely no fault with the actual vehicles. I fully agree that it was purely conincidental that they both happened in the same year, but I do take issue with your comment on the actual operator. Unless you are a bus or coach 'enthusiast', the average layperson will just accept they were both 'National Express' coaches, and probably wouldn't even think they were sub-contracted - to the vast majority, they would see the NatEx logos/graphics down the side of the coach, and see the NatEx route number - and would be satisfied that it was indeed just a NatEx coach. Until I started editing this article, I personally hadn't realised they were sub'd out (though don't have a problem with that).

And my final comment on why these should not be split - both these incidents, when viewed in the same article, highlighted that there was some kind of serious flaw in the way NatEx (or their subbies) were operating their coaches - one driver was able to pick up the keys dispite probably stinking of alcohol; and the other driver was employed dispite having a known and proven propensity to speed in passenger carrying vehicles - and in one of these incidents, NatEx Chief Exec seemed to vhermently claim their company had far stricter blood/alcohol limits, and that they were "obsessed with safety". So these two incidents in the same article probably have more 'weight' by being together, than they would if they were split - and would certainly encourage the reader to explore and seek further info beyond what is in the actual articl. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Keeping them together based on editor's ideas that there was a common cause, is an absolute no no I am afraid - see WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Helping people find which article they want is not an issue, we have more than enough ways to disambiguate similar articles. 16:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The {{infobox bus accident}} template needs updating - it has no documentation like other infoboxes. I left a message on the templates talk page. Rgds, 78.32.143.113 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there should be a separate parameter within the WPBus tag for bus manufacturers. ----DanTD (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A batch of bus route articles have recently been sent to AfD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 231
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 73
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 74
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 75
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 28
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 33
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus routes 51, X51 and 951A
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 80

Comments are welcome! Jeni ^(talk) 00:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capital City Green
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 68
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77

The latter is a bundle of several routes. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some opinions and advice on my current project. It will be creating the article Bus routes in Cardiff which intends to be a more comprehensive version of List of bus routes in Cardiff which I will redirect when finished. Taking a look at the article in my sandbox, is the information encyclopaedic? I understand that WP is not a timetable so I've tried to keep such info to a minimum. If it's okay, I'll proceed to continue this article for every Cardiff Bus route in the city. I had intended to create an article for every bus route in Cardiff, but these seems more appropriate. However, I have created articles for the 3 most high profile routes which have their own vehicles, branding and livery: Baycar, Capital City Red, and Capital City Green. So any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Welshleprechaun 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems fine, a similar thing to what I did in Bromsgrove (Bus transport in Bromsgrove, to be fair I need to add a map and some images). That said, you shouldn't be redirecting the list article as they are two separate things. Jeni ^(talk) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be incorporating the information from both articles into one. It would seem senseles to have the two articles they would contain nearly the same info. Welshleprechaun 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I recently blanked a section of the Greyhound article because its content was either not-at-all cited, or cited to a source that might not be reliable. As an occasional Greyhound customer, I've had issues with them as well, but my experiences are (obviously) not documented anywhere. (However, in general, I like bus travel with Greyhound.) I would appreciate if an expert could take some time to expand the section with verifiable content. (Perhaps this is not the best forum to make such a request?) Thanks, Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 21:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any standard format for fleet lists/rosters? (The ones I've seen on different Wikipedia pages seem to be a slap-dash mashed-up condensing of the very detailed information that appears on bus-specific web sites.)

• Wikipedia lists seem to use the year (sometimes of manufacture, sometimes of aquisition) as the primary sort key, but enthsiast sites normally list by fleet number. Any objections to following the latter? (The advantage is that it helps the casual searcher to answer the question "What bus is/was that?")

Useddenim (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Bus transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, there is a proposal to cover the boat aspects of amphibuses in a new wikiproject. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Boats . 76.66.194.212 (talk) 07:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

A GA review has started on Tillingbourne Bus Company. The article is in the early stages of being created, and there are gaps in detail and information, and the prose does not yet flow. However, the review is on hold for seven days to see if contributors are able to further develop the article to meet GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 01:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject buses should be capitalized and moved to WikiProject Buses. (capital B). most projects have it like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.193.104 (talk • contribs)

Bump, yes, I also agree - it needs to be {{WikiProject Buses}} 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

A few articles on local bus companies and their routes in England have been sent to AFD:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Far East Travel
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galloway European Coachlines ‎
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simonds of Botesdale
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in East Anglia (mostly bus routes)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Stowmarket & Needham Market
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Ely
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nightingales of Beccles

I have !voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transport in East Anglia , suggesting keep or merge, but they will probably all fail the Notability guidelines without significant independent coverage. There may be scope for pruning and merging to one general article or list. -84user (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Following the Closing Admin's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Central Suffolk I've started an RFC at the Village Pump on the issues raised by the recent AfD's. Comments are invited here Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

As a result of the above RfC, and the attitudes of a number of very young editors who are creating these articles, I'm planning on nominating some non-notable route list articles for deletion. The first of these is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Colchester Input is welcomed. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

List_of_bus_routes_in_Pittsburgh

this website above had been only check in November 2010 when would it be check again? I had been updating a lot of buses

Hanjie talk May 10, 2011 02:31 UTC —Preceding undated comment added 02:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC).

I've noticed that a lot of the articles on bus stations are not tagged for this project. As such I plan to ask at WP:BOTREQ for a bot owner to add the tag to all the following categories and the articles they contain. Any categories/articles that are already tagged will not be affected.

If there are any categories that should not be so done, please remove them from the list. Similarly, if there are any that I've missed please add them. In both cases, or if you have any other objections/comments please leave a comment below the list. I'll leave this here for a few days before making the request, and it will likely be a few days after that before it will be actioned (although that is not guaranteed). Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Following a week without comment, I've now made the request at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 42#Tagging bus station articles for WikiProject Buses. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any way to request assessment of a new article (or reassessment of an old one)? The only mention of assessment on the project page at present is simply a link to a general page (about assessment) that has no specific connection to WikiProject Buses. SJ Morg (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

No response to my question, but I just discovered on my own that the project does have an assessment page. I fixed the erred link from the project's main page to go to that page, rather than to a general WP assessment page that was not related to buses. However, the page history shows that four of the eight articles listed in the WP:BUSES "Requesting an assessment" section have been there for more than 2 years. Maybe the assessment list will receive more attention now that it's linked from the WP:BUSES page, but the whole project seems only semi-active at best (a total of only 8 posts to the talk page (this page) in the last 7+ months). SJ Morg (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armoured busKitfoxxe (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Another two being nominated today (2012/2/7): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Dennis Enviro350H, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Alexander Coachbuilders 42.2.2.188 (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have requested background on vehicle categorization at WP:TRANSPORT, but it seems that project is moribund, so I extend an invitation to participate to editors active here.- choster (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Im a big editor of bus services around the Bristol area. I currently have a conflict and would like the opinion of other people on this project. Wessex Connect was the trading name of Flights Hallmark around Bristol, this has since changed to Wessex (I do have confirmation from the company about this) should the article be changed, even though many sources still mention the old name? Mark999 (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

A seriously deficient article with no attempt to pass WP:GNG, somehow survives one AFD as no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greenie Bus (2nd nomination). Please consider.--GrapedApe (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I just added a new commons tag for the Trailways Transportation System. I'm sure there's more images than what I've added, so why not fill this up? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon everyone

I thought people might like to know that Lothian Buses have been nominated as a good article on Wikipedia. However, for it to pass, it does need alterations and improvements. The full review for it can be found at Talk:Lothian Buses/GA1, any help would be appreciated!--5 albert square (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Over the years we've had many debates on the inclusion of lists of bus routes or not, whether they are notable, encyclopaedic, and/or useful. Now that wikivoyage has joined the wikimedia fold it seems an ideal time to move those articles that aren't encyclopaedic in structure, would be a more useful in a place for readers seeking local transport information, and in a place without a requirement that the routes be notable. It also allows them to still be linked from wikipedia articles where appropriate - unlike previous options of moving them to wikia. I was going to boldly start tagging these lists for transfer, but having been involved in many deletion discussions for these articles such action may been seen as pointy without discussion first. So would anyone have any objections about tagging these articles to be transferred across to our sister site? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I do - what's up with them here? They're still useful and records show they get a reasonable amount of traffic each day, proving useful for people doing research or travelling on the buses. I think that a move to wikivoyage this soon, when people don't really know about it, would dramatically reduce the number of visitors those pages get and therefore make them more pointless on wikivoyage than wikipedia. Rcsprinter (chatter) @ 07:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • They would soft redirect from here so the visitors you talk about would be sent there, but they are more appropriate over there because it is designed to be the the first port of call for this information. per its scope

    Wikivoyage articles should be useful for at least the following contexts: Online use by travellers on the road – for example, travellers huddled in a late-night internet café in some dark jungle, who need up-to-date information on lodging, transportation, food, nightlife, and other necessities.

• • I know you're protective of the articles you've created RCSprinter but this is an alternative to the continued deletion debates about your articles - they can be stored there - where it is more helpful for the people looking for local transport information.Plus they can be expanded there to include more travel guide orientated information fares/landmarks that would fail WP:NOT here.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't mind a move over there, I would just like them here too, like duplicates. Rcsprinter (state) @ 16:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I have no objection to at least tagging them. It seems an excellent plan and would save a lot of aggravation here. Are we sure that Wikivoyage actually wants that level of detail which may be hard to keep updated though?--Charles (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Having just had a look at Wikivoyage's deletion and notability policies I do not think they will touch lists of bus routes with a bargepole. The most they will do is provide links to operator websites. We should do the same or less.--Charles (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure thats exactly true Charles as the information already exists there for certain geographical areas for instance VOY:Bus travel in Israel or VOY:Brisbane#Noteworthy_routes. I think what they're trying to avoid is overly detailed articles about the history or layout of the route(s) - the kind of thing that would elevate the system or route to a notable article on here instead. But we could ask them if that's considered a potential sticking point. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 00:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I looked at the talk page of the Israel article where there is quite a lot of flak about it listing routes. The list for Brisbane is restricted to four notable tourist routes, unlike the comprehensive lists we are seeing here. I also notice that WV does not allow highway/motorway articles unless they are specific tourist destinations like Route 66. Thorpe Park, a significant theme park, gets redirected to the locality article so it looks like notability thresholds are strict there. It seems to be a gazetteer of notable destinations rather than a detailed guide to transport. No harm in taking test cases there to see what happens though.--Charles (talk) 10:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
        • The talkpage dates from mid-2006 whilst wikivoyage wasn't founded until December of that year. All discussions prior to that time (prior to 2012 in relation to English discussions which were copied to wikivoyage much later) relate to the policies and guidelines of the separate wikitravel site. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Many Wikivoyage articles are geographical regions or destinations (usually town/city level) but there are a few categories as exceptions. Phrasebooks. Travel topics, such as advice on diving, boating or getting through the airport with sanity intact. Itineraries. The latter would include voy:Route 66 or "Across Canada by rail". These don't overlap our articles on Ontario Highway 401 or U.S. Route 66 in Illinois as they're written to instruct the reader to "get in, start here, see this, do that" as guidance for a tour along a given path. Wikiproject Roads rarely lists landmarks and things to see along the way (our state-level US 66 descriptions are the exception as they'd mention a few landmarks which are well-known or on a historic register). Even then, Wikipedia has more basic facts (distance charts, historical timelines) and far less emphasis on what's worth seeing in every town along the route. K7L (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
• This report may be interesting and decision changing. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 20:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with the notability of the articles? I fail to see how it would change anything.--Charles (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not, really since you fail to take into account the raw nature of your data. Can you tell me how many times for instance the Google webcrawler visited those pages in December? Once a day perhaps? Remove 30 from each of the totals. How many times did Wikipedia maintenance bots check to see whether tags needed dated or removed? How often did you personally check/edit the pages in that time period? How many hits are caused by Link prefetching of pages due to links on other pages (particularly Google if it's the first returned hit)? In reality these figures are at best meaningless at worst misleading. You then go on to make completely irrelevant arguments "I’ll set up a scenario: I live in the USA, OK, and I’m going to visit England for a weekend next week." - That's not in the scope of Wikipedia in fact it's clearly defined as not in the scope of Wikipedia in WP:NOTTRAVEL it is however in the scope of wikivoyage "articles should be useful for[...]: Online use by travellers on the road" so you'd be better making that argument there to defend them being moved and not deleted completely as another 4 have just gone. Then there is your thinly presented threat "I want proper consensus for a big move like this – otherwise it ain’t happening." - You are not the sole arbiter of consensus on wikipedia, the last series of deletion debates have all shown interest in moving if Wikivoyage will take them, if they don't then consensus currently holds for deletion on many routes and will be gained for others. Finnaly there is your opinion that "The buses are staying here." - no they're not. they are already disappearing rapidly and I've suggested a lifeline for you it might work it might not - but I expect the deletions to continue unless moves start. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
    • If Wikivoyage is not interested then UK Transport Wiki on Wikia may be a safe place to put the UK articles.--Charles (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Agree with this, Wilbysuffolk has undertaken a number of these moves already and if wikivoyage (currently) do not want these then it's a shame to move them to a commercial site but there is little other option. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it up with the bus routes for god's sake!!! You just get involved in them unnecessarily. Charles - no one cares for your opinion, you're a dick to pretty much everyone and you've broken many rules, but always get away with it. Leave buses alone.  Adam Mugliston  Talk  17:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worth noting there is currently an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire which is of relevance. Jeni ^(talk) 23:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in the West Midlands county Jeni ^(talk) 23:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lincolnshire Looks like an attempt to pick off the smaller pages without consensus. I notice the London and Manchester lists are not afd'd. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

There is pre-existing consensus from RFC (at the village pump) that all lists (of bus routes) will need to be discussed individually in terms of whether they are suitable for keeping deletion. On that basis it's reasonable to target the smaller articles which are often less notable or unsourced. In this case however the nomination rationale is poor - the nom should reconsider its wording. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm putting this here rather than on a user talk page so that it's in an open and neutral location. I'll notify editors who have recently (within the last month) sent list articles to AfD on their talk page that I've opened a new section here as a courtesy.

Can we, perhaps, calm down a touch with sending every article to AfD all at once? My concern is that it simply encourages copy and paste responses without considering each article on it's merits. Although I would tend to move towards a deletion in most cases with these articles, the reasons for doing so may be different and the potential redirect targets are going to be missed by people. It's also not encouraging people to follow through every AfD if there's too many of them - the resultant lack of voting might well be considered to be counterproductive from a project improvement perspective. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with the above. There is just no way they will ever become notable. A prose article article about transport in the area such as Transport in East Anglia is far more notable and should replace these lists. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 12:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, I also think we've all gone a bit mad but I guess we've got rid of them a lot quicker .... Infact I think I started it all with the 15 first being up ... I do apologize Davey2010 Talk 15:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Has there been any thought to creating an official bus route guideline to help editors? It seems it's been very ambiguously discussed at multiple places around Wikipedia. Mkdw^talk 21:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Checking the above discussions and other link discussions, would I be right in thinking that there is a general consensus that 'Lists of bus routes in xxx' do not belong in WP, with reference to WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDIR and WP:GNG? Also, that it is recommended that existing content should be deleted, or could be 'transwikied to Wikivoyage' (for example wikivoyage:Bus travel in Israel) (Comment: I have now noticed a comment above that says that Wikivoyage are unlikely to accept this content as it is unlikely to meet their notability requirements PeterEastern (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)). The following links include more detail:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Worcestershire (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in Lincolnshire (delete)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in the West Midlands county (delete)

If this is policy, then should we codify it, and consider the edge cases? For example:

Does this by extension also apply to all lists of routes, for example train routes, ferry routes, coach routes and air routes. If this policy is broader than buses then possibly it should be written that way, or would that open up the discussion to broadly. Should we produce policy relating to buses, and allow others to extend it as they see fit?

Are there any exceptions to the above - ie any situations where list of bus routes are notable? People have commented on the inclusion of train routes on station article. Is the view actually, that a short list of routes as part of a notable article is ok, but that a long list in an article which is not notably is not? If this is the case then we should state that?

If we do create this then we can refer to it on articles which are considered to contain non-notable lists (for example on the List of National Express Coach routes article which currently has a 'this may not be notable' banner, but which then has no further information about why it might not be notable).

-- PeterEastern (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I found 113 "List of bus routes in …" articles (sorted from longest to shortest):

--Useddenim (talk) 03:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Of those 113 about 15 are redirects, all of which are up for deletion plus a further 5 route lists up for deletion. The total deleted at AfD so far appears to be 103 [1] in previous AfDs, 12 closed as Keep, 1 merge, and 9 as no consensus these were all subsequently deleted as part of the 103.There may be others that have been boldly redirected, speedily or proposed for deletion. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter, There does appear to be a current broad consensus along those lines - but so far it has only been tested on UK routes which were massively oversubscribed (checking the list of remaining route lists I see we have 5 for the whole of Canada, the UK had over 100). I think the problem is that if secondary sources do exist for for a bus network in an area they should be being used to create a prose article about the bus routes in that area rather than a list so the lists in themselves will never end up notable (though they form a verifiable part of notable subject article as you mention about station articles or as in Megabus_(Europe)). - Instead what we've had is mass creation of these lists sometimes literately copied from primary sources (which don't establish notability) and reformatted.

In my mind the List of National Express Coach routes article should be condensed down and merged into National_Express_Coaches (like the Megabus one) but it's quite unwieldy so how best that could be achieved would require discussion.

--Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses and the research. Personally, I am not taking a view on the rights and wrongs of these deletions for the purpose of this discussion, my motivation is more about ensuring that if we are in the process of deleting 100 articles because they don't conform to WP policy, that we should clearly articulate that we believe that policy to be. If 'list of bus route' articles go against WP policy then we should refer contributors to the articles to our interpretation of the policies in one central place (which could, I guess, be in draft form, and be presented within the scope of this 'WikiProject_buses' article). PeterEastern (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I note in an earlier discussion on this page someone has said "'Having just had a look at Wikivoyage's deletion and notability policies I do not think they will touch lists of bus routes with a bargepole. The most they will do is provide links to operator websites. We should do the same or less". PeterEastern (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I wrote that and it still seems to be the case. Those who wish to create this kind of content can do so to their hearts' content at UK Transport Wiki where no sourcing or verifyability is required. It may not rank as high in search engine listings but then why would people around the world want to know details about the number ninety four bus in Suffolk? From the strong consensus for deletion that has been seen for most lists I think we can say they are non-notable. Why some people still think that a detailed list of school bus routes in London, which are not even open to the public, are somehow notable quite baffles me.--Charles (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There will be pushback from the editors who took the time to create these lists. However, I think that any historical (i.e. routes that are not current) information should be kept (particularly if a section of an article), as it can be difficult to find this info elsewhere. Useddenim (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a pushback when these articles started getting deleted, that now seems to have died down. I could see lists that intersect with other wikiprojects receiving more trouble (London will be one of those, intersecting as it does with the London Transport wikiproject). On your second point there has been clear consensus on "former route" lists for deletion, this doesn't prevent editors creating a Buses in Bristol style article with a full and interesting discourse on that information but the information shouldn't be left in list form if it's going to unsourced (when the primaries used to source the article are updated to represent the new route.) Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, no. I was thinking more along the lines of the Routes section of this article, or genuine historical information of long-gone operators, not the routine changes and deletions that are part and parcel of any big system. (I understand that it's somewhat different in Britain, but generally in North America the definitive history of “XYZ Streetcar Co.” (or whatever) tends to be a single limited edition that quickly becomes scarce and (even more) expensive in short order.) Useddenim (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The conversation above rightly considers the work people put into this and what happens to the data and where else it could be hosted. I suggest that this is possibly a reason to state Wikipedia's position on this clear, which appears to be that bus route list are generally not encyclopedic and fall foul of the policies noted at the top of this section, and that we then encourage discussion to focus on where this information can be hosted. The UK Transport Wiki project] has been mentioned above, which I note includes a number of pages with bus routes, for example List of National Express West Midlands Bus Routes. Possibly that is a good host for information for the UK (and indeed Ireland according to their home page)? Are we however suggesting that prose summaries of historic routes for notable companies may be appropriate within WP, as long as they are cited properly and secondary sources indicate their significance? PeterEastern (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Useddenim (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

A little tip here; there's a redlink for List of Denver RTD Bus routes and an article called List of Denver RTD Bus Routes. Should I redirect the redlink to the existing link, or should the existing link be renamed? -------User:DanTD (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nominate both for deletion. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 22:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses

 – Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this exactly. sorry if this is not the correct place.

There is a company named Suburban Express in Illinois that has an unusual history (19 year old student takes on greyhound and wins, after surviving two commerce commisson investigations, predatory pricing by greyhound, etc). There was an interesting wiki article for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suburban_Express&oldid=542659074. Suburban Express recently took some heat for their collection lawsuits (ie www.suburbanexpress.com/suits_to_reinstate/ ) and for tangling with some reddit moderator. Now the reddit people have hijacked the article as a way of making it a "self-object". A very vocal reddit user, almostgrad100, is pushing a sympathetic editor to destroy the article. I'd suggest that someone get in there and make it back into a useful transportation article, rather than leaving it the mess that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.28.115 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2013‎

File:Trailways Of New York Social Media Logo.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

image:Bus No Phone.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 11:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

With all the coverage of the Chicago 'L', I feel like the Chicago Transit Authority's bus division is being neglected. The List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes has no navbox and the lead section is barely visible. How can we fix this? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Does it need an infobox? I feel like most standalone lists don't have them. What information would go in it? Ibadibam (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if an infobox is necessary, but an image, some expansion on the lead paragraph, and maybe something else might help. I'm looking towards something like the lists of bus routes in the Five Boroughs, as well as those in Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester County, New York as models for what should exist on the CTA bus list. And as I mentioned, finding a navbox for it would be good too. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to apologize—I completely misread your initial comment as "infobox" when you wrote "navbox". Yes, a navbox is a great idea. Something analogous to {{NYC surface transit}} for the Chicagoland region could work, but I can't think off the top of my head what would go in it other than CTA and Pace—not quite enough to warrant a navbox. Maybe a different scope? And as for the lead paragraph, be bold! Ibadibam (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That was more or less what I had in mind, although I'm starting to wonder if a general navbox for Chicago mass transit in general would be the way to go; Something that would include the 'L' but isn't as extensive as {{Chicago L}}. Then again, if I'm not mistaken, I believe there are a few bus companies from Indiana and regions outside of Pace that have routes going into Chicago (anyone from the region should chime in.). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of Indiana agencies that you can see collected on Template:Public Transportation in Northern Indiana. As far as I know, everything in Illinois has been absorbed by RTA as either CTA or Pace. Ibadibam (talk) 20:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Another idea; The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey still has it's own bus fleet, as you can see here, here and here. Most of them apparently operate within the vicinity of the three major airports of NYC and Newark, New Jersey. Unfortunately, being outside of the Tri-State area has made me forget this, and not even their official site covers the existence of the buses. Why hasn't this been covered anywhere? -----------User:DanTD (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There is mention in the JFK and LGA articles of the PANYNJ shuttle buses:

• John F. Kennedy International Airport#Bus
• LaGuardia Airport#Bus

I'd imagine the PANYNJ website doesn't cover them because they consider them part of airport operations, and leave the individual airport websites to give details. Ibadibam (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The name of the article Driver's license (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see Talk:Driver's license for the renaming request. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

For 14 months, the photographer Daniel Meadows was a bus driver. No passengers, but he did drive a bus. This soon resulted in a photobook, and over the following decades it resulted in two more photobooks and much of a fourth one. Any decent history of late-20th-century photography in Britain will mention Meadows's tour of Britain by bus

Of course this has nothing to do with bus transportation in the normal sense, but I hope you don't mind my attaching "WikiProject Buses" to the article's talk page: doing so let me use its handy parameter "imageneeded=yes". I did that because the very bus still exists, at The Transport Museum, Wythall (see Talk:Daniel Meadows#Image needed). If anyone reading this is planning a trip to Wythall (close to Birmingham), do please take a camera and look out for this particular bus. Thank you!

Incidentally, I wonder how many other uses of buses there have been for more or less artistic purposes. Further, Priscilla, Nicholas Treadwell's Mobile Art Gallery; more? -- Hoary (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

It's generally safer to put too many banners on an article than too few. But it's worth asking, how big of a role did the bus play in the project? Were there many pictures of the bus? Did he document and discuss the operation or maintenance of the bus? A lot of artists of various media have used buses for transport. Some works have even mentioned the buses (like "Magic Bus" and Magical Mystery Tour). But if they don't focus on the bus itself, they may not really be of interest to this project. Ibadibam (talk) 04:01, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The venture resulted in Living Like This: Around Britain in the Seventies (London: Arrow, 1975; ISBN 0-09-911400-3); National Portraits: Photographs from the 1970s (Salford: Viewpoint Photography Gallery; Derby: Montage Gallery, 1997; ISBN 0-901952-81-8); The Bus: The Free Photographic Omnibus, 1973–2001: An Adventure in Documentary (London: Harvill, 2001; ISBN 1-86046-842-X); and much of Daniel Meadows: Edited Photographs from the 70s and 80s (Brighton: Photoworks, 2011; ISBN 1-903796-46-6). I don't have my copy of any of these with me right now, but do remember that the bus was discussed in the third (note its title) and fourth of these. A double-decker bus wasn't chosen for its value as a conversation piece; instead it usefully had space for a bed, a darkroom, and interior exhibition space, and its design lent itself to exterior exhibition (photos behind windows). "Daniel Meadows and his Free Photographic Omnibus outside the Serpentine Gallery, London, 1973" is the caption of a (ruthlessly cropped) photo on p33 of David Alan Mellor's No Such Thing as Society: Photography in Britain, 1967-87; Meadows and his bus are mentioned on pp.21 and 138 of Val Williams and Susan Bright's How We Are: Photographing Britain from the 1840s to the Present. No, Meadows didn't focus on his bus; he focused on the people drawn to it. He has written quite a bit about it, however, in The Bus. His website rejoices in the domain name photobus.co.uk. The connoisseur of double decker bus aesthetics will likely find Meadows's books of less interest than, say, Ralf Obergfell's Last Stop (routemasters.co.uk). However, even the bus connoisseur might enjoy the occasional excursion; while I hoped to interest those in England's west midlands in a little busman's holiday (with camera) to The Transport Museum, Wythall. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

PS A clause got truncated: I meant to say that even the bus connoisseur might enjoy the occasional excursion from the core concerns of bus scholarship. Unsurprisingly, National Portraits turns out to say nothing about the bus. I have Daniel Meadows: Edited Photographs from the 70s and 80s in front of me now; p.127 is devoted to a photograph captioned "Daniel Meadows and his bus, a 1947 Leyland Titan PD1, reg no. JRR 404": an unusual degree of attention to the bus considering that this book is about a photographic oeuvre. Living Like This isn't really a photobook (it's a combination of text and photos), and certainly isn't like today's prototypical photobooks; Williams says "An astonishing 17,000 paperback print run was planned, with 3000 in hardback". The hardback never materialized and we're not told of the final number of paperbacks, but it was high. The text within it doesn't dwell on the bus, but repeatedly mentions it. Talk of the bus is part of the blurb on the back, and a photo of the bus and its driver heads the acknowledgments page. -- Hoary (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please see discussion here. - Epson291 (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

As WP:WikiProject Optare was tagged as inactive in March 2014 and no-one has contested this, I have redirected the article talk page template Template:WikiProject Optare to Template:WikiProject Buses.

If anything else needs merging, please go ahead, or let me know if you need admin help. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect this was a move for the better. Thanks for doing that. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (state) @ 09:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Wow I've been a member for 3 years and had completely forgot!, Actually seems like I'm the only "active" member on the list too ...
  

Meh perhaps the entire thing should be redirected as was never a "fully-active" project anyway,

Absolutely agree Rcsprinter123 it was for the best!, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than deal with on individual article talk pages, thought it best to run a central discussion here. Historically the various London bus operator pages, Arriva London, London Central, Metroline etc have contained lists by garage of the routes operated, eg Garage A operates routes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. These were updated as routes transferred. Unfortunately much of this was uncited.

In order to address, all articles were rewritten with the routes operated by garage provided by a single cite, compiled on the one date (20 September).

To maintain integrity each article should read: As at September 2014, Garage A operated routes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This section should remain constant, with a separate section listing the comings and goings, eg:

On 1 November Garage A commenced operating route 6 and on 1 December will commence operating route 7. On 1 November route 3 passed to Operator X and on 1 December route 5 will pass to Operator Y.

As the cite is an annual publication, when the next edition is available it can then be updated to read: As at September 2015, Garage A operated routes 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.

To put in a real world context, Arriva London should read:

As at September 2014, Palmers Green garage operated routes 34, 102, 125 and 329. Route 34 transfered to Metroline on 8 November 2014. Route 125 will transfer to Metroline on 31 January 2015.

Assuming nothing else changes, when the September 2015 edition is published it should read:

As at September 2015, Palmers Green garage operated routes 102 and 329. Busgb (talk) 08:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

People over at Talk:Peterborough Queensgate bus station are complaining that "it's just called Queensgate bus station" and want to move it. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) is pretty clear for UK railway stations and rail/bus interchanges, that you include the town name even when the short form is the WP:COMMONNAME like London King's Cross railway station. At present I can't find any official guidance on bus stations, but it would seem to make sense to align them with railway stations, and in this case the main operator calls it Peterborough Queensgate. Perhaps people could comment over there? Le Deluge (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, one person at Talk:Peterborough Queensgate bus station was trying to move the article back to its original title, but there was a technical problem with moving the associated talk page, so it was listed (incorrectly) at WP:RMTR, then contested. Nobody is "complaining" about anything.

Anyway, I was going to expand the article as it is presently contains no more information than a sentence or two at Peterborough Queensgate shopping centre would. However, I'm not willing to get into a protracted exchange, so I shall leave that to Le Deluge. I look forward to reading the improved article. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway needs help updating since it has an outdated tag. I've posted on a talk page a minute ago, or I'll send it to FAR. JJ98 (Talk) 06:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated O-Bahn Busway for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

In the category Types of buses, there is one that I miss. It is barely mentioned in the Combination bus article, as what is exact opposite to that.

Well, as the mentioned article is about trucks with a passenger "container" temporarily or permanently mounted, I want to write an article about buses that have a cargo compartment in the rear half, and all the different variations of that. As opposed to what most people believe, that kind of bus is not something from the past. Those with a open-top, rear cargo area are long gone, but those with a closed box and a cantilever tail lift are still in use and even still manufactured. I believe that there are less than 100 still in route traffic in Norway, Sweden and Finland now, but they used to be quite numerous in the past. Anyway, I'll leave the rest of the details for the article.

What I'm not really sure of is what English word I should use to describe it. In the past I have struggled to find a fitting word in English, and since we don't seem to agree about the word among the Nordic countries, one can't really use any of those. Earlier I have used the word "cargobus", just as a way to describe them, but it doesn't describe them very well. So when I finally found that article yesterday and saw the word "bruck", I finally found something that I liked. I love that playing with words. It originates from a native English-speaking country, it is an old word, it could not be considered a trademark (at least not anymore), and there's no ambiguity to it (except for things that have a totally different meaning). But does the word appear in any dictionaries? Are there any reasons for not using such a word? (I'm not native to English, so I wouldn't know.) The Australian word for this type of bus, "passenger-freighter", is a word that I'm not comfortable with. It's too long and too common. And besides it can easily be confused with passenger freighter, which there is an article for.

My proposed name for the article is: Bruck (bus + truck)

I will write that article sooner or later anyway, but it would be nice to know what word I should use to describe it. It will start its life in my sandbox, so it may take some time before it appears ... or it may not. I don't know how much time I would spend on it. Finding sources for what I already know is probably the hardest part, but I guess I'll manage.

I also saw that there is a bit of an error in the language linking between articles. While the German, Norwegian(nynorsk) and Suomi articles are about the "bruck" type, the English, Czech, Hebrew and Polish articles are about trucks with passenger mounts. I'll fix that myself when I get the article out of my sandbox, but I don't mind if anybody wants to clean it up now. I also think that the categories on Commons should be split, but as "Bus and truck combinations" fits well for all types, the "bruck" type could be a subcategory.

If anybody wants to help, I don't mind. I want to do the summary and technical part, plus the Nordic part (maybe except for Finland) of it myself, but if anybody wants to do the parts for North America, Australia, Germany, Austria (these are mentioned in the German article) or anywhere else in the world, you are very welcome. Just let me know here.

Bergenga (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And so I have created the article. It is still very unfinished, at least when it comes to sources, but I felt that I didn't have much more to add at this point, and that hopefully somebody else can add something too. I will probably leave it for a while now, but will add sources whenever I get across some that are referencable. None of the unsourced parts of the article are anywhere near controversial, but accurasy is probably not very good. The historical aspects are those that I am least sure of.

Another thing is my limited knowledge of truck-related technical terms in English. If anybody with good knowledge can clean up my rather messy attemts at describing stuff, I would be happy. I just hope that I have described them in a non-ambigous way.

Bergenga (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the MBTA is a big and complex enough topic to deserve its own WikiProject, so I've created a proposal to that effect, and I'd like to hear your opinions on it! Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Note your input is also sought on the several proposed names and scopes, made as this proposal has been reviewed.

Your input is still sought on the proposed WikiProject Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Thank You — Lentower (talk) 20:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

As you may know, there seems to be extensive coverage of London bus routes on Wikipedia, for example, London Buses Route 1. However, we appear to lack info on bus routes of other areas of the UK. Earlier this year, I tried to add a couple of articles on a couple of routes near me as an experiment to try and bring London style coverage to my part of Scotland. Yet, one of my articles was deleted due to lack of notability. Why should London get better coverage than any other city? As a Scotsman I should have a duty to cover Scottish bus routes on Wikipedia. I will start work early in the new year. But, I don't want any deletions to interfere with my programme. Is there any way in which I can get my articles more notable? Please help me achieve these ambitions in future? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

A lot of London route articles get deleted too, or at least redirected to List of bus routes in London (see for example Route 62, Route 116, Route 153, Route 414). One currently going through AfD is Route 403. A common outcome for routes outside London is to redirect to the "List of bus routes in county" article. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I've proposed extending WP:USSTATION to bus rapid transit station articles (within the United States). Feedback welcome at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)#Expand to BRT stations?. Best, Mackensen (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I've started a discussion regarding this article's title. Input is requested and welcome. oknazevad (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

In the last couple of months, a lot of content has been pruned from bus related articles and the most common reason given is WP:NOT. This includes editors who are focused on and editors who are not focused on bus articles. There has also been disagreement between editors from different geographies on the inclusion criteria for existing articles/lists. Certain articles are also left in a rather vulnerable state and in its current form may not even survive an AfD.

One way to deal with this is to have a uniform set of guidelines for articles, lists and inclusion to get it to work in harmony with existing, more general policies. Right now, only the article one appears to be usable. If members can get together to come to a consensus, the articles that come under the scope of this Wikiproject will be in a much stronger position. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 251 on the notability of bus routes that would seem to apply to many of these articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a request for Category:Step entrance buses/Category:Step-entrance buses at WP:AFC/R. Would one of you handle it? Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at AfD regarding an article that is within the scope of this project. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bus & Coach of the Year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

There is an RfC at Talk:List of bus routes in London that you may wish to comment on. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Metropolitan Transportation Authority (New York)#Requested move 13 September 2016. epicgenius (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Transit Authority of River City, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The article IXpress is included in the list of articles that may contain original research. The references are all pointing to the company or to videos in youtube by the company. can it be fixed? and if so, how? I am triying to fix it, but after reading find reliable sources all I could find were articles like this: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitchener-waterloo/waterloo-region-new-buses-federal-provincial-funding-1.4027874 with almost no information I can use. If the company web and youtube can't be used I don't know how to fix it. Thank you for the help. --Rogerx2 (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

kind of just going to copy and paste what i said over there

Does anyone have any information about this particular series? Bus 9000 made its first appearance today on the Blue Line and there doesn't seem to be any information on it (possibly 5800 series renamed?) 148.8.23.48 (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Buses.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Buses, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Someone on this project might be able to help answer this question on hte reference desk. SpinningSpark 09:27, 8 July 2017 (UTC)