Talk:Dennis Dart

Does WP:IG matter?

The recent gallery removal (per WP:IG policy) and its re-addition (against policy) needs to be sorted (apparently things based in policy need "consensus" before removing). Anyone care to dis/agree?

Gallery has existed for 10+ years and I don't see why a few images cannot remain, As a compromise I did trim the gallery down from 13 images to 5[1] but I was still reverted[2] so the full gallery got reinstated

At best I would generally say 3 images don't need to be there however I'm happy with my compromise version (5 images). –Davey2010^Talk 18:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:IG is policy. Commons exists as a repository for collections of images. There is one image in the gallery (Singapore) that could usefully be moved to the appropriate section of the article, the rest are just bling. This is not a fansite.

Also attacking, threatening and making wild accusations about other editors is hardly condusive to getting people to see your point of view. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I still see no valid reason why 5 images in a gallery cannot exist. You're more than welcome to start an RFC.

There's been no attacks, threatening language or wild accusations made - You asked Matt to revert me so he did (he has made 0 edits prior to the revert) or you're using 2 accounts here, –Davey2010^Talk 11:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I did not ask anyone to revert you. Please stop making wild accusations and indulging in edit warring. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Well you clearly did but that's another discussion for another venue, I would advise starting an RFC and seeing what outsiders think as we're never going to come to a solution here (unless you agree to a 5-image gallery). –Davey2010^Talk 11:33, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you calling me a liar? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Davey2010 - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read WP:IG. JUST PLEASE.

It solves the argument. It's policy. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have read it and don't believe it applies here however irrespective of that I would much rather you start an RFC and let others decide the solution given none of us can come to a sensible solution, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Two editors disagree with you Murgatroyd49 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Your friend/someone you canvassed doesn't count. Again if you really care that much over a gallery then start an WP:RFC. –Davey2010^Talk 14:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please stop repeating your libellious statements. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how this particular gallery is useful to this article. I therefore support the removal of the gallery at this time. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @QuicoleJR, Because it shows the different types of bodies mounted on this chassis, Would you support this version ? –Davey2010^Talk 14:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is there an important difference between bodies that needs to be shown? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:54, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No but I can't see the harm in showing 5 variants of the chassis/body ?, Due to the way the article is laid out it's more or less implied it's only on Pointer bodies which was another reason I wanted a gallery, But if you genuinely believe a gallery is not warranted then I will remove it –Davey2010^Talk 15:04, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The article already, under my recent edit, which you reverted without reading, displayed 11 different variants. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I already compromisedhere yet no one wanted to know (ie was reverted anyway). –Davey2010^Talk 15:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like some of these could be used in the prose of the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In my last version that Davey2010 reverted, some of them were, along with some grammatical and tense corrections that he also reverted. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@QuicoleJR @Murgatroyd49 - Would either of you say this or this version is better?

I was trying to keep the most notable examples in the article if possible but I don't know if it really works over a gallery?, –Davey2010^Talk 15:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is certainly an improvement over the earlier context-free image list. I would support the current version over the gallery version. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @QuicoleJR @Murgatroyd49, I wasn't feeling the layout so have made some changes - Would you say this is better?, Apologies for bugging you both but I would rather we all be on the same page, Anyones welcome to make changes Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 15:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Now look what you have done - deletionists have got their eyes on this and are going to start targeting bus articles (see section below). FWIW, I prefer galleries to a melee of photos which move around depending on your page width and browser, but how many photos do we really need anyhow?  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers, I haven't done anything -

A) I can't predict the future and I can't predict what people are going to do.

B) These were gonna get deleted anyway.

Alls I've done is tried preserving a gallery, So if you want to blame someone start with the guy who created the ANI thread –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not be "targeting bus articles" and I do not see why you would think so. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

We seem to have lost the MPD image, plus the lng image Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

No the MPD image is in the infobox I'll add that to the image caption –Davey2010^Talk 16:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

For relevance wouldn't that be better back in its original place, there are plenty of unused images that could be used in the infobox? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a very good point actually, Funny enough I still had an issue with the Paladin image so I'll have a tweak around later, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

In answer to the original question posed, does WP:IG matter; yes it does, it is a policy. The most relevant sentence in the context of this discussion is: A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article. If there were notable features mentioned in the article that could not be accommodated around the prose, then a gallery would have beeen appropriate. But having a gallery just to show the same thing multiple times with slight differences, as was the case here, was of no benefit. The number of images included around the prose should be in direct proportion to the size of the article. So for a long article, multiple images can be included, for a short article, only one. Adding too many images that cause sandwiching and stacking should also be avoided. Kermelei (talk) 05:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Another question

Is this even notable? There are currently no secondary sources in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

it's much worse than that. With the exception of two books, which I haven't verified, every single reference is a self-published source containing user-generated content WP:SPS/WP:UGC, i.e. bus-spotter fansites. They all need ripping out and replacing. Then whole sections are unreferenced, thus are very likely original research WP:OR 10mmsocket (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is as as stated in the article these were the first low floor vehicles, I will source over the weekend –Davey2010^Talk 16:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, the article does not state that these were the first low-floor vehicles. Still, there is no deadline, so you have plenty of time to source this. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately other than books I've not managed to find anything that can source any of what's here - They were certainly notable at that time for being low-floor accessible as prior to these all uk buses were step-entrance - Without a shadow of a doubt there would've been press coverage of these at that time as like I say they were the first vehicles to be made that could allow wheelchair users and those with buggies so there's definitely notability but sadly there's no online sources to prove it, –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Did you check Newspapers.com? QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I did which returns back 1,789 results, Dennis Dart SLF only returned 5 results[3] and Plaxton Pointer returns 7[4]

So there does seem to be some notability I think, –Davey2010^Talk 16:06, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

This was on my roadmap of articles to sort out - hell, I was tempted to delete the gallery myself - but I initially put it off because of how complex sourcing and rewriting will be for a bus type so ubiquitous.

I'm willing to push ahead on the matter, though - I've of course got my bank of references from old CBW/Bus and Coach Buyer magazines, and for further refs, I'd also recommend using Commercial Motor Archives and whatever can be found on archive.org. Once I get the time, I'll give sourcing a proper crack. Hullian111 (talk) 07:10, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no requirement that sources be available online. Printed material is fine as long as we follow guidelines the same way as for online material. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:58, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree. Of course, it still has to be verifiable WP:V so it's no use if the only copy ever printed is "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'" (as Douglas Adams wisely pointed out!) 10mmsocket (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

No problem with that, I'm happy to provide photos of article, page and issue number through e-mail for verification if need be. Unfortunately, for some of the earlier articles I've photographed, I didn't realise I needed page and issue number, so some will be lacking in those in citations. A bit of a shame they aren't scanned online, a-la Commercial Motor. Hullian111 (talk) 07:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Lack of secondary cites issue has now been dealt with, but there is still plenty of uncited text that in the long term will need to be either cited or removed. Kermelei (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a bunch for stepping in there, I'll see what I can do with my old magazines and a few trips into the Wikipedia Library over the next few days or so. Hullian111 (talk) 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Amazing job, thanks! 10mmsocket (talk) 08:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Why do I feel like Kermelei's recent edits have been purely to remove images from this article which has been their end goal since they've been here?, Reverting back to an unsourced state (pre-Kermelei) is disruptive but so is using "unsourced" as a way gut the article and remove its images.

I'm not particularly pleased with their edits but if others are then that's cool. –Davey2010^Talk 16:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would be careful of getting accusational, but my only gripe with these reverts would be unintentionally duplicating the Carlyle Dart image, which I see you've promptly fixed in post while I was checking the watchlist.

@Kermelei Let's hear both sides of the story: personally, I think the images are fine as they are now, so could you explain your rationale with the rewrite reversion? Hullian111 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Pointless asking them, They'll just say "it was unsourced" - You only need to check their contributions to see the real reason why they're here which is to remove images and they've used that excuse to like I say gut the article and remove the images. –Davey2010^Talk 18:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Davey 2010, you may feel that my edits have been purely to remove images, but clearly you did not look as to what actually was actually done, others seemingly did. What I, and a few others, have done is addressed the lack of cites issue. It now has 30 cites, a month ago it had two that were not self published or user generated.

After 13 years on Wikipedia, surely you are aware of the requirement for reliable sources. Without them, there is no article. You may have been the most active editor on this article with 117 edits, but apart from tinkering, you appear to have added little if any cited text.

Inconvenient as you might find it, I have not been editing to gut the article as you assert, but making it comply with policies. That you choose to ignore all rules and pretend that these policies don't exist is your business, but other than I don't like it or silly comments like its a Wikipedia problem, not an editor problem, you have yet to come up with any valid reasons for ignoring. As this issue is a problem across many bus articles, I have started a more detailed discussion at on the buses project page. Kermelei (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh no I certainly looked at what you did hence why I self reverted and reinstated your version. You gutted the article to suit your own agenda. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Um, that isn't the most civil. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Nothing uncivil about it. I'm simply re-iterating what I stated here which is the users end goal here is IMHO to banish all images and galleries and their contributions thus far prove that point well but sure we can agree to disagree on their motives/edits here. –Davey2010^Talk 19:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Southampton LNG vehicles

I see someone had removed the reference to the Southampton Citybus experiment with LNG powered buses. I realise it was only 16 vehicles but it was the first attempt to deal with the increasing amounts of pollution from diesel buses in the city. As such I feel it at least it deserves a mention. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd support that. Maybe the few CNG/other alternate fuel-powered Darts could get their own subheaded section, as I can pull up a 1996 CBW article on First Cityline's CNG Pointer Dart GasBus, too. Hullian111 (talk) 11:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Seperate sub-section would be the way to go. Southampton was 1993 IIRC. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Hullian111:, I've added the section, can you suppy the appropriate ref? I'll hunt around for any other examples. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh right, you've already done it - give me a few minutes, I'll get the citation together. Hullian111 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done, also filled out the Independent citation properly and added a few page links in the meantime. Hullian111 (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the reference to the Southampton Citybus experiment with LNG powered buses was removed because it was uncited. While a cite has been provided, it only states: The company is the largest operator of gas-fired vehicles in the country. It has a fleet of 16 buses running on compressed natural gas. It makes no mention that they were Dennis Darts, thus it is WP:SYNTH. Kermelei (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Ref added Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)