Talk:Taxis by country
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
MyGlobalTaxi.com
editI have removed this link. Links advertising specific taxi services or, as here, a limited range are not appropriate to Wikipedia. TerriersFan 15:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Proposed restructuring
editAs part of the rationalisation I am carrying out of taxicab articles, I am proposing creating two new articles:
The reason is that both these countries have several other articles scattered about that could do with pulling together to make it easier for readers to find the information they want,
In addition to material from here I intend to merge:
UK - Minicabs from Taxicab, The Knowledge, Cabmen's Shelter Fund, Hackney carriage (part), Public Carriage Office
US - Taxicabs of Chicago, Car service, Hackney carriage (part)
May I have comments, please? TerriersFan 03:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good. Cheers, --Mabuse 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't been around for a bit, so haven't had a say for a while, but I think this is a very bad idea. I don't think we want articles on separate, distinguishable subjects merged into a single large, unwieldy article. I'm not sure what the logic behind this is. The Cabmen's Shelter Fund and the Public Carriage Office at least should have been left as separate articles, since they are separate and distinguishable organisations. -- Necrothesp 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Before I started the reorganistion we had a single, over-large Taxicab article and a disperate, unconnected mass of other articles. We now have a good structure of Taxicab-Taxicabs around the world - Taxicabs of the United States, Taxicabs of the United Kingdom, Taxicabs of Hong Kong and Taxicabs of Singapore. No content has been lost and redirects ensure that the information can be found. With regard to Taxicabs of the United Kingdom the article is neither large nor unwieldy. Naturally, it still needs work but we now have a good, coherent article where the reader can find the information they require in one place. Compare that with the situation before; bits and pieces on UK taxicabs all over the place. What is the downside? Neither of the topics that you mention are long enough to overbalance the article. If so much additional information is added that it justifies them being broken out again, then fine, but that does not seem likely to be the case. Unless you are able to suggest a better structure, that finds favour on here, than that I have worked hard to produce, then things should remain for the time being and be allowed to shake down. If problems arise, we can discuss them and, if necessary, I will sort them. TerriersFan 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see no point in merging articles on separate organisations into one large generalised article. This is not done elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there is no reason for it to be done here. There is no problem with merging generalised info into a single article, but distinguishable organisations should have their own articles. In an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia, which is not paper and allows internal linking, there is no need to combine everything into one big article. If I am looking for info on the CSF or the PCO, I do not necessarily want to wade through a general article on taxis. It also messes up the category structure - the article Taxicabs of the United Kingdom is now in Category:Metropolitan Police, for instance. Why? It has nothing to do with the Met in general - only the PCO is relevant to the Met. It's also in Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom. Are taxis a charity? No, they're not. I really don't see the "advantage" of this new structure. I have no problem with the rest of the article, but I think info on these two organisations should be transferred back to the relevant articles, where it was perfectly happy. -- Necrothesp 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent point about the categories; thank you. I have now fixed Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and Category:Metropolitan Police (and am about to fix some others) so the relevant title appears in the category. TerriersFan 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- However, the fact remains that I do not believe that these two articles should have been merged and I'm afraid that you have provided no good reason why they should be. Using the logic of putting everything into the same article, presumably there shouldn't be separate articles for each British police force, for example - they should all be subsections of Policing in the United Kingdom. What's the difference here? I do not think that the use of long articles into which everything vaguely related is slotted is either helpful or necessary on Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Excellent point about the categories; thank you. I have now fixed Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom and Category:Metropolitan Police (and am about to fix some others) so the relevant title appears in the category. TerriersFan 17:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I see no point in merging articles on separate organisations into one large generalised article. This is not done elsewhere on Wikipedia, and there is no reason for it to be done here. There is no problem with merging generalised info into a single article, but distinguishable organisations should have their own articles. In an encyclopaedia such as Wikipedia, which is not paper and allows internal linking, there is no need to combine everything into one big article. If I am looking for info on the CSF or the PCO, I do not necessarily want to wade through a general article on taxis. It also messes up the category structure - the article Taxicabs of the United Kingdom is now in Category:Metropolitan Police, for instance. Why? It has nothing to do with the Met in general - only the PCO is relevant to the Met. It's also in Category:Charities based in the United Kingdom. Are taxis a charity? No, they're not. I really don't see the "advantage" of this new structure. I have no problem with the rest of the article, but I think info on these two organisations should be transferred back to the relevant articles, where it was perfectly happy. -- Necrothesp 12:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Before I started the reorganistion we had a single, over-large Taxicab article and a disperate, unconnected mass of other articles. We now have a good structure of Taxicab-Taxicabs around the world - Taxicabs of the United States, Taxicabs of the United Kingdom, Taxicabs of Hong Kong and Taxicabs of Singapore. No content has been lost and redirects ensure that the information can be found. With regard to Taxicabs of the United Kingdom the article is neither large nor unwieldy. Naturally, it still needs work but we now have a good, coherent article where the reader can find the information they require in one place. Compare that with the situation before; bits and pieces on UK taxicabs all over the place. What is the downside? Neither of the topics that you mention are long enough to overbalance the article. If so much additional information is added that it justifies them being broken out again, then fine, but that does not seem likely to be the case. Unless you are able to suggest a better structure, that finds favour on here, than that I have worked hard to produce, then things should remain for the time being and be allowed to shake down. If problems arise, we can discuss them and, if necessary, I will sort them. TerriersFan 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't been around for a bit, so haven't had a say for a while, but I think this is a very bad idea. I don't think we want articles on separate, distinguishable subjects merged into a single large, unwieldy article. I'm not sure what the logic behind this is. The Cabmen's Shelter Fund and the Public Carriage Office at least should have been left as separate articles, since they are separate and distinguishable organisations. -- Necrothesp 18:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Taxicabs of the United States
editI have completed the first stage of the restructuring and Taxicabs of the United States is now open for business! TerriersFan 18:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Taxicabs of the United Kingdom
editI have completed the the restructuring and Taxicabs of the United Kingdom is now open for business! TerriersFan 22:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Laxys.com
editI remove the heading. It was attempt by some unknown taxi company in India to promote their brand. Unless you are traveling by Prepaid Govt taxi, or radio cab, no other cabs facility are safe or reliable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shantanu (talk • contribs) 03:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Editing warring
edit@Eebakatepe: please explain yourself for repeatedly adding content that I had removed for being deemed promotional, unencyclopedic value and appears more of a press release for BYD. WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case. You have already been warned twice for edit warring, as I have done on your talk page, and continued behaviour can lead to a blocking of your account. As you are a new user you need to understand there are policies and guidelines for editing which must be followed. I will leave your edit up for discussion and will revert back if I hear nothing from you in due course. If you edit war again I will be going directly to the administrators. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
BYD F3 do operate as taxis in Philippines. Mentiontiong the information is not promotional. It is encyclopedic. This is not press release for BYD.(Eebakatepe (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2018 (UTC))
- This does appear promotional which it why I've reverted the content many times over. I don't think you understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as you are new. Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Taxi Tân Biên
editluôn luôn làm hài lòng khách hàng 125.235.231.55 (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)