User talk:Arriva436/Archive 2008

This is the second archive of my current talk page. It starts from the beginning 2008 right up until the end. Where possible, I have tried to provide the replies and/or initial comments I made, to try and provide a more thorough conversation. This means that some of the content in some discussions will have actually appeared on other users' talk pages as opposed to mine, but there's no point archiving stuff if you then don't know what it's about!!

TWM & TC Logos

I've removed the logos you recently added to the TWM and Travel Coventry articles. They don't add anything to the pages. They are changing soon anyway. Westbromdepot (talk) 01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have taken both these logos of the respected articles. In my opinion, they are not needles, as they are heavily used alternate logos, appearing on the Travel West Midlands and Travel Coventry websites; and now the new re-branded National Express website.

On my talk page, you say of the logos "They are changing soon anyway." This is wrong. The logos are not changing, the company name is. Travel West Midlands is being re-named "West Midlands" - with a strap line of "Part of the national express group". This is shown by this picture and is re-iterated by this blog of a TWM driver. This means that a new article will need to be created with the new name and the TWM/Travel Coventry ones put into the past tense (TWN was a company....).

Either that or re-naming the article, but that would obliterate TWM/TC into the history section, when it is an important part of the whole "story" if you like.

I have not put the logos back on for fear of creating an edit war; these are just my views.

Thank you. Arriva436 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Damory Coaches

A tag has been placed on Damory Coaches requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ukexpat (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Damory Coaches

This is absolutely ridiculous. Plain stupid! At 21:06pm I got a message on my talk page saying that Damory had come up for speedy deletion. Now, I know that is is notable, as it was an article about a bus operator, just like any other one. Maybe it did need to show more significance in the intro - which I would have done happily. But before I could even add the "Hang-on" tag, at 21:08pm, you deleted the page. I spent around 20 minutes of my time making the article, to try and help Wikipedia expand on the Go-Ahead Group. Yet as soon as I get warned there is a small problem, I don't even get a chance to fix it. Two minutes it was, just two. No one could have got the hang on tag on the page in time, as I responded immediately. There is no sense in what happened here at all. Why doesn't someone go and delete every bus-related article on Wikipedia. Rant over! -- Arriva436 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And, if you look at the log, if was 21:07 the page was marked, so that makes it around one minute! -- Arriva436 (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Companies are not automatically notable, they generally need some kind of independent media coverage (see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)). If you like, I can undelete the article and move it to a subpage of your user page, you can work on it there and move it across to the mainspace when it's ready. I'm sorry I deleted it so quickly, I didn't notice. I would have given you a few minutes had I seen the times (although someone else was going through CSD at the same time, and they would probably have deleted it if I hadn't - I kept finding they'd already deleted things by the time I got there). --Tango (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on my user page. If it would be possible, I would be very grateful if you could "undelete the article and move it to a subpage of my user page". I do realise that companies aren't automatically notable, and was working towards this, but I do accept I should have done it sooner. On the time it was deleted in, fair enough if you didn't notice, I admire administrators for what they do and I'm sure things need to be done quickly! So as I said, if you could move the page onto a subpage of my user page for me to work on it would be brilliant! Thanks -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! --Tango (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!!! -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work on the logos

I may start doing this as well now I know what is required by the awfully poorly coded betacommandbot. Also, see KF, I'm not sure a caption is necessary? but not too fussed either way. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've just seen how many you have uploaded from your user page, amazing. If I was into that sort of thing, I would give you a barnstar. You must truly be a sworn enemey of betacommand lol. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It's nice to be recognised! With the new system, it has become quite easy to upload things with fair use rationales, you just have to click the right link! Hence, I have been searching for logos, saving them on my PC and then uploading them. On the caption front, I generally only do them if there is another picture (say of a bus) below, as I think it looks better. I don't really care either though!

If you know already, ignore this, but just to say when you fill details into the fair use rationale on the logo part, you only have to fill in the "article", and the second "source" bit (the first doesn't make any difference.), everything else is done automatically!

I currently have 16 more on my PC to upload, which I will finish today.

Just as a note, I have been through all the links on List of bus companies, the Welsh bus operators template and north west England, and also the municipal operations, saved logos where there is a website to get them from. If you start to upload logos, I would recommend visiting Category:United Kingdom bus company templates, and going through the templates and the operators on there.

As you can see from this page, a couple have become orphaned and been deleted, but that sort of thing happens when other people edit the articles they're on!

Once again, thank you, and I wish you luck if you start to do the same! Arriva436 (talk) 13:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If I ever get round to it, I will try that and point you to it. I think I investigated uploading fair use logos in my early days, but gave up in the tanlge of information. I have loaded self made and copy free pics all over the place though, but have now learned in debates about betacommand how to do fair uses. There are many good images incorrectly rationaled that need saving aswell though sadly. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Lancashire United images

Here's one of them!

I have noticed that some of the images you have added to the Lancashire United article seems to have some sort of problem regarding them on the Commons. While I realise that you probably know this already (or will next time you log on), I just thought I'd let you know, as I wouldn't want them being deleted!! I'd also like to say that it's very good you've taken the trouble to upload your images, and it a great step to the Lancashire Utd. article. Thanks, -- Arriva436 (talk) 19:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou very much for bringing this to my attention. Otherwise I might well not have noticed before it was too late. Wikimedia Commons is not an area I specialise in, so although the problem has not yet been fixed, I'm awaiting advice from the creator of the Bot who sent me the messages. Thankyou, and happy editing :-) Lradrama 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine! I'm not too knowledgeable on the commons (I have just created an account there!) but it looks to me as if it just a tagging issue, so you only have to add a template that says "I made this, and under this license" (a bit basic that description!). If so, it shouldn't be too much of a problem! It's nice to be of help and appreciated. Thanks, -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd inform you that the bot owner has replied. It seems the easiest option is to add {{PD-Self}} to the page and taking the {{no license}} tag off. Anyway, "Filnik" has described it on your talk page there. Thanks, -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Train diagrams

Just to say I have seen the train diagrams you have on your user page, I think they're really cool and that you should be very pleased with them! Keep the work up! -- Arriva436^shout! 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I am currently working on a Desiro diagram which should be ready next week. Unisouth (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC for Southern Vectis

Are you aware that a new editor nominated Southern Vectis at WP:FAC? You are the principle editor, and it doesn't appear ready for FAC yet. Please let me know if you would like for the article to be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. I had seen that Southern Vectis had been nominated for being a featured article, but I didn't really know what to do with it as I am not familiar with the FAC process. I read the FAC page, but didn't really understand what to do under the circumstances. As you say, the nomination was made by a new user who has only made 15 contributions to the article. In fact, they tried to nominate the article a while ago but did it wrong. They probably don't yet have enough experience to realise that the article is not yet ready at all!

As for withdrawing the nominations, as I said above I'm not familiar with the FAC process, but if you think it's the best opinion then go ahead!

Meanwhile, I'm going to take some of the advice under given by other users under the FAC entry, and fix it anyway, regardless of the FAC! -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 12:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Disambig style

Hi. Just fyi, the MOS:DAB recommends that only 1 link be given for each entry in a disambiguation page (eg Green Line). Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ryde Transport Interchange

I noticed you've had a tidy-up of the list of buses from this article - just wondered if you realised that you deleted a bus route which still runs? Service 33[1] no longer has Southern Vectis involvement, but still runs under Wightbus, at least for the moment... --Peeky44 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments about my edits to the article. It's a good job you noticed what I'd done wrong, otherwise I'd have left the 33 out. While I checked that all the routes were in (like Wightbus' 20 route) I must have missed that I'd deleted the 33. All is fixed now though! -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 16:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help with bus info maybe?

Hi Arriva436,

I came across you while researching a bus that that the company that I work for has bought. We are Mash Direct in Northern Ireland www.mashdirect.com and the bus had been converted to be used as a mobile kitchen and marketing suite to promote our products at fairs and outdoor shows around Ireland. I am having difficulty finding (and interpreting) information about the bus that I have found and wonder if I might ask your help?

the info I currently have about the bus is as follows:

G538VBB Ld ON2R50C13Z4 ON11366 NC 3998 H47/27D 3/1990 Kentish Bus 538 Chassis Leyland Olympian Range ON11001-ON11500 Built From: 1989 To: 1990 Last Update Sep 2007 Description 500 Leyland Olympian chassis built at Farringdon

I am interested as to the history of the bus as well as where I might find resources such as technical manuals for service - or in fact any other information!

Perhaps you might point me in the right direction?

Thank you for your time and Kind regards from Comber (currently sunny) in Northern Ireland

Caspar Firth Casparfirth (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)casparfirthCasparfirth (talk) 10:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)mashbus@googlemail.com

Strictly speaking, Wikipedia shouldn't be used for these kind of things but there are exceptions, and of course I think helping people is something I should always try and do!

Well, as you have found out, the bus was new to Kentish bus in March 1990, with fleet number 538 and registration number G538 VBB. It had 47 seats upstairs and 27 downstairs. According to this, the bus operated from Kentish bus' Leyton garage on routes 42 Aldgate Tower and 22A to London Bridge Station. In fact that was quite a good site as this page has the bus' history on it! Is says that it stayed at Leyton until May 1994, where it was transferred to Cambridge Heath Garage. It stayed here until September 1997, when it was transferred to Leaside at Clapton garage and given fleet number L538.

Arriva London bought Leaside, and the bus went to Clapton Garage. In February 1998, it went to Arriva's Norwood Garage (Arriva London South), and in November 2001 went back to Clapton garage (Arriva London North). In May 2003, the bus was turned into a driver trainer at Thornton Heath garage, and in February 2004 went to Beddignton Farm garage, still as a trainer. It got repainted into the white with grey bottom training livery in March of that year. In June 2007 it was sold to Enginbus who specialise in bus sales and dealing as well as operating normal bus routes. The last past of the history shows it going to your company in July "bought by MAsh Direct, Comber, County Down". As I said, the history is better here and clearer on this excellent website!!! [2].

I found this photo of the bus with Arriva London.

I hope that helps, and of course that website will show you a lot -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 21:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Maynes

Just to say here[3], they don't run buses anymore, so I'm not sure it should have a bus in the infobox pic? MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I took the image back out! Arriva436^talk 17:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mercedes-Benz World

An article that you have been involved in editing, Mercedes-Benz World, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mercedes-Benz World. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The article survived. Arriva436^talk 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

NX Coaches Logo

Hi! Thanks for your edits to the National Express Coaches article.

However, please retain the "coaches" logo. This has been discussed a lot already. It is used to prevent confusion between the "National Express Group" and "National Express Coaches" articles by providing an easy and quick identification. It is offical, it can be found on NX's website (albeit formatted slightly to fit the infobox). Thanks, Btline (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a big discussion about this on the Talk:National Express Coaches page, and a decision was made. Arriva436^talk 17:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Travel Surrey Dart

Thank you for fullfilling my request! Great photo, shame the rear panels of the bus are wrecked. Travel Surrey will soon transform into National Express Surrey so it was important to get a photo of it. Unisouth (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:Longcross Stagecoach South East Winchester Park & Ride Enviro 300.jpg

Thank you for including this picture in the Stagecoach Group article. In a recent edit, I changed the captions of all Stagecoach pictures (up to the North American divisions) to include the number of the vehicle. I could not locate a number on this vehicle. If you know what number this vehicle carries, please edit the article to include it. Thanks. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the fleet number to the article, it was 27513. I have however been to the Cobham bus rally (in the snow - it nearly got cancelled!! :) ), where I got a photo of a standard Stagecoach Winchester bus. Do you think for the Stagecoach group article, a bus in the standard livery but still showing the buses used in that area would be better or worse than a special park and ride variation?? Thanks, Arriva436^talk 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If a picture of a bus in different livery helps further with the section---add it --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this. However I left the other picture on there (I was going to remove it) because I decided it had more value than I first thought, an image to show that not all buses are corporate branded. Arriva436^talk 18:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image cropping

Hi Arriva, just an opinon, but regards photos like Image:London General E7 on 24.JPG, if it was me, where some of the background isn't that great or important to the subject, I would have cropped the image, on the left side definitely to remove the white van, and probably the right to remove the traffic light. I think this would tidy the image, and make the bus more of the subject by making it bigger in the frame, and especially better for infobox use. But, as it's your pic, I'll leave it up to you. PS what is the building behind, do you know? MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I was intending cropping the image you mentioned, as when I put it in the infobox it wasn't very good! You saying that made me go and do it. In fact, I have cropped most of the images (you should see the original of Image:London General MAL108 on 453.JPG, the bus was tiny as I messed up the two previous attempts - the bendy buses are hard to get you know!!!! - and was ultra safe on the third time). The building is whatever is on the corner of the Strand and Trafalgar Square (the actual road name) Arriva436^talk 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. MickMacNee (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Darwen Holdings icon

Hi, I just made a new icon for WikiProject Darwen Holdings and I was wondering whether you could make the white areas around the image transparent, if you can, thank you! Unisouth (talk) 18:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Firstly, I'd like to apologise at the length of time it has taken me to reply. Unfortunately, I have just been on holiday minus a computer so I couldn't reply, so sorry about that. I should have put the "Wiki break" templates up but I forgot and then didn't have time. Anyway, to the icon: I did have a go at trying to remove the white background, but I don't have any decent image editing programs on my PC so I couldn't do it. I see you have had the image deleted so it doesn't really matter anymore thought it was a good idea if someone could rm the background. Arriva436^talk 09:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have now restored the image in a PNG form. So if you can find someone who can remove the white background that would be a great help! UNI^|SOUTH 13:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Stagecoach Oxfordshire

Help me here. I hope you know more about this than I do, but the image in the infobox was the always focused on the wrong bus. The green one. I have edited the picture and think I've got the Stagecoach Oxfordshire one. Is that right now? -Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have just seen your message about the picture on this article. I too have wondered why that image was in the infobox, but you have done a very good job at focusing in on the correct bus. Well done! Arriva436^talk 09:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

While I'm archiving, I may as well say that I went to Oxford and the infobox now contains a proper photo. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

UK Transport Wiki

I am currently developing a wiki about transport in the UK and I was wondering if you would like to help. Please if so go to wikia:uktransport:User talk:Kentish121 and leave a message.

Thanks - Dudleybus ^{Spake 2 me} 10:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Image in infobox

You've been to Glasgow! The bus station looks as if it was a quiet day. Which brings me back to the subject. When the 'Infobox Bus transit' had a recent makeover the 'image' is now always sized to 250px, which gives a standard look. Previously you had sometimes using a wrong parameter which stretched the width of the box, but the size entry is now redundant. The 'logo' has a default of 200px but that can be sized depending on its shape or dimensions to display better. This usually looks best with the logo the same size as the picture. Glasgow Flyer is an excellent example of a matched logo and image. Captions in the infobox seem redundant in a case like this where the "picture is worth a thousand words" and it has almost become an icon.

Appropriate editing of pictures makes a huge difference and I like the way that you have trimmed some photos when required to create a bus portrait while others give a wider view and show the context. Pictures from your trip are excellent. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice to know that someone appreciates the pictures! I knew that something has changed with the infobox but didn't know quite what it was, so now that you have told me hopefully I can get it right in the future. I never thought I'd get to Glasgow, but I managed to fulfill my own photo request. You never know, I might get to Oxford one day and get a proper photo of a Stagecoach Oxford bus, not on with an Oxford Bus Company Trident on it!!! Arriva436^talk 15:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, I had better mention that the Template:Infobox Green Line coaches route you created would be stretched by the image if a user made it too large. The width of box is defined as '20em' and the user can define the image any size of 'px' (different units). You have already selected a large font and could take further control of the display by also defining a fixed image size in the code and at the same time eliminate the need to use bracketing for the image definition. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the Green Line template, it could come in handy. However, for the moment, I don't think it will cause a problem as I am the primary editor of all the Green Line articles, and they are all on my watchlist. So, if anyone does anything stupid, I should be able to fix it. As I said though, it may be useful in the future. Arriva436^talk 15:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A1 logo fair use

I happened to stray across this, and so have added an appropriate fair use rationale. I hope you don't mind! It seems they are trying to delete/fix all the logos uploaded, even ones uploaded before the new rules came in (on 13 July 2006 if I remember correctly!!) Arriva436^talk 19:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a rationale, much apprieciated! UNI^|SOUTH 05:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Glasgow Airport Link

I have added this new airport service, by the former operator, based on much of the information and the format you laid out for the Glasgow Flyer article. I am sure you could improve this substantially. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this. You made a very good start to the article (better than Glasgow Flyer started as!!!), so there was not much I could do to improve it. However, I have added a few bit and bobs, probably you will have noticed the picture, which I was lucky to get (the lights were on amber..). I have also added some other details like fares, but apart from that it was all good! Arriva436^talk 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Railair

Riva! I noticed you added the Luton ftr to Railair, however, as I understood it/envisioned it according to the sources, the concept of 'Railair' (as inherited from the original usage of the name) covers more long distance coach links (the LB 285 is really only in the article as it was called Railair, causing a naming problem), and the Luton ftr is more like a rail connected airport bus type shuttle service., i.e. I originaly intended not incuding these shorter shuttles, a lot of them do connect to the nearest rail stations. Thoughts?MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... It's a hard one this. I thought airport bus referred to things like the Glasgow Airport Link, which links a general area to an airport. Thus the Luton ftr (as it goes directly to a train station) would be railair. I noticed on the Virgin trains "Express Coaches" doesn't mention the name "Railair" at all! However, I don't really know, and if you think it's best to remove the Luton "train2plane", then feel free to do so!! Arriva436^talk 17:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This months Metro

The next months metro will be delivered on the 1st of June 2008 BG7 19:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Image moves to commons

When you do that, use {{ncd}}, assuming it has the same name on Commons ... it makes verifying the bit-for-bit copy part much easier for admins as it links automatically and categorizes them appropriately. Daniel Case (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that. Arriva436^talk 10:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image added on Eastbourne Buses page

Hi there, just a quick note to ask if the photo added on the Eastbourne Buses page was taken by you? EddersGTI (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the photo on Eastbourne Buses, no, I didn't take the photo. I uploaded it on the commons on a Creative License, as the image was one from Flickr that could be used. I do take photos of buses and put them on here, but I've never been to Eastbourne!! Out of interest, why did you ask? I might be able to help!! Arriva436^talk 16:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Both the photos on the Eastbourne Buses page have the same driver, whom i know. :). Thought it was quite strange. EddersGTI (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Really! I hadn't noticed that - what a coincidence. I had nothing to do with the second photo either, only the Dart!! Arriva436^talk 21:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So where was/ is Megabus???

Dear Arriva 436, I have tried to update wikipedia with some new and very relevant information about 'Megabus'. What I know is as follows; Megabus have a web-site which advertises about 4 journeys plus a day to and from Leicester to London St pancras. However, it runs absolutely no service to these locations whatsoever. I booked a £7 ticket on this service last Monday, and turned up to be told by National Express staff that megabus had not been operating from leicester St Margarets for a number of months now, although during that time a number of people have turned up in expectation of it. Until a few months ago, Megabus were operating a very early morning service, as advertised on the web-site. I have lost my £7 FARE, and the matter seems very plain; I have been scammed.

Therefore, I updated Wikipedia with information that I know to be correct; that they are operating fraudulently. I only know that this fraudulent activity is taking place between leicester and london, I have no idea of the overall scale of it, but it is definitely correct. So - given that I've updated Wikipedia with true information, that could prove very helpful to prospective Megabus customers, I would like an explanation for why my comments have been deemed 'unconstructive'??? Please phone Nat Express Leicester, and check out the Megabus web-site if you wish to confirm the truth of my contribution.

DonalB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.55.196 (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have read your comments regarding Megabus, and if what you say is true, then I would strongly advise complaining to Megabus or even the Traffic Commissioner about the matter. If they are charging people for tickets on services they don't run, it is a very serious matter.

However, despite this, Wikipedia is not the place for the kind of edits you have contributed to the Megabus article. Wikipedia should contain factual and verifiable information, not editors' experiences. You may want to read about what Wikipedia is not to reflect on this. As well as me, two other users have reverted your edits to the article, showing that it isn't just me who thinks it is wrong.

If your complaints come to anything, and it is proved that Megabus have been operating fraudulent, then it would be good to add to the article what has happened, as long as it is notable and has proper references. Until then though, sadly the text has no place in the article. I hope you can see my points. Arriva436^talk 15:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Central Connect

The article on Central Connect may be deleted. Please add to the discussion. Thanhuk (talk 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The article survived! Arriva436^talk 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Reading Transport Route Details

Your recent edit to add route details has completely thrown me. On the one hand, I'm not entirely convinced that this information is notable enough - it almost feels like a violation of WP:NOT#DIR. On the other hand, and this is important, the work that you've apparently put in is huge, and the resulting tables are actually very well laid out, so I commend you for that. Out of interest, what is your rationale for including them? _TalkIslander 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments about the Reading Transport Ltd article, there are a number of reasons while I feel that the routes should be included in the article. One is that it gives an opportunity to include pictures of the various coloured buses used on the premier routes. These are now an important part of the Reading operation, and I believe that images support the text, which currently lists the routes and the colours. After all, a picture shows a thousand words!

Regarding WP:NOT#DIR, I think that routes are perhaps slightly more important on bus company articles, as that is an operator's sole job. Without routes, buses would be redundant!

There are loads of examples of major bus company articles including the routes. Lothian Buses, maybe one of the most respected operators in the UK, has a comprehensive list, as do major First Group subsidiaries First Glasgow and First Manchester. Stagecoach Manchester and Arriva Fox County have routes listed, and Transdev Yellow Buses have their own article. The list is endless.

Many bus operator articles have information that I think goes even further than routes. You wont have to look hard to find major details on fares and tickets as again in First Manchester and First York. First Manchester also has details of Easter and Summer services! Many articles also have large tables on fleets, like Lancashire United.

I would also like to mention London Buses. There is a list of bus routes in London, and each route has its own article.

Regarding Reading, I hope the route information has a place there, as I think it is quite important. Maybe some of the routes could be taken out of the table, I suppose the Nighttrack routes are less important than the premier routes, and could go.

I hope you can see the points I am making. Thanks for the positive coments on how the table looks! Arriva436^talk 18:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that I have not included some of the routes that appear on the Reading Buses website, like the schools routes which are not that important. There are two school routes in the Newbury Buses section however, which I am going to remove. Arriva436^talk 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The latest Metro!

The next Metro wil be delivered on the 1^st July! UNI^|SOUTH 17:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

For contributing to the concessionary fares discussion at Talk:Lancashire United. You have been very helpful. :-) Lradrama 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Lradrama has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Lradrama 08:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the WikiSmile, it's nice to be appreciated once in a while!! Arriva436^talk 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The latest Metro!

Delivered by UNI^|SOUTH 09:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Blue Bus of Penwortham

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Blue Bus of Penwortham, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw the expansion you just posted. Good start, but can you provide independent sources that discuss the Blue Bus line? Those would be quite useful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the comments about this article. As you have seen, I am in the process of expanding this article to meet the notability guidelines. I am currently editing it, and I have just added some of the references you mention. I realise I should have probably removed the prod noticed after I finished, but I had intended dong it yesterday, and forgot so I was panicking to get the article improved before it got deleted, as the prod was overdue. Whoops!!

I hope you can see what I have now done. I am going to keep expanding the article, hence I have placed the {{underconstruction}} tag at the top of the page. Arriva436^talk 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have finished improving the article for now, but please feel free to mention any improvements I could make. Arriva436^talk 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Help please!

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles

Hi! For the first time in my Wikipedia life, I don't know what to do, in that I don't know how to deal with a certain situation.

I have chosen to contact you because I have come across you before, and you are an administrator, so I hope you have a more policy-minded approach that what I have (panic!!).

I have today become aware through my watchlist that one user, Richard Harvey, has been removing a lot of the content from Wikipedia articles about bus companies. These include fares information, but more substantially route information. He is claiming this on two policies, WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory and on some WP:ADVERTISING.

Well, the more silly of the two I disagree with is advertising. I don't think that many operators would use Wikipedia to advertise their services. A list of routes is no way going to make a potential user get on one of their buses. They will need something more than that.

I also disagree with the argument that Wikipedia is not a directory. While some of the articles on bus companies have some of this info, for example many pages on London Bus operators have garage addresses etc. which I do think is unnecessary and usually remove, I feel that route information is different. The routes of a bus company are basically the main part, without them the buses would be pretty useless. I believe that including details of the routes on Wikipedia helps give the reader some idea of where and how the operator runs.

The main point though is what Richard Harvey. He has had a discussion on Talk:First Leeds that has led to loads of pages being changed. I hadn't seen the First Leeds page, so had no time to disagree, but now literally 50+ (maybe 100) pages have been changed, some ruined. It you look at his contributions, you can see the scale of the problem.

Many pages have now been left as pathetic stubs, with one, Blue Bus of Penwortham how having deletion proposed. He has also removed the info, and that's it. Look at Bluestar (bus company), where tow sections are just left with no background info, just titles with logos, and no content.

I thought that large scale changes such as these had to be discussed individually. What has happened is that it has been discussed on one talk page that I (along with many other people I suppose) haven't seen, and then tons of pages been changes, all just giving the reason of "See Talk:First Leeds" (which of course, I hadn't seen, so had no chance to give my views etc etc. it goes round and round!!). In my opinions this is unacceptable.

He has also changed many articles of bus routes in Glasgow and the West Midlands to redirects of their operators, again linking to "Talk:First Leeds", which has nothing to do with bus route articles. I notice he has stayed away from the London Buses articles, which makes me wonder whether the user is scared of the response at WikiProject London Transport, and is sticking to thing he knows there will be no trouble over.

I would revert the edits, but as you can see it you be a mammoth task and would probably start an edit war. I would also contact the user, but they already seem to be uncooperative and I already know their Nike style views - just do it!!

I maybe wrong on the removal of content front, but I want to know whether you can make changes to loads of articles and just link to one specific talk page.

Anyway for now, help!! Arriva436^talk 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is the lack of discussion behind what is physically taking place. Wide-ranging content removal on such a large scale on so many articles should not take place without discussio. That is unless of course, Wikipedia policy is clearly violated. Which in this case, I can confidently say, it isn't.

Listing of routes operated by a bus company. That is the issue in question. Yes? Well, we can all confidently agree that is not advertising. We are writing an article about a bus company, and a list of routes displayed on a company website (which is advertising) would be very different. It's obvious why and how, and people involved can easily see the different between a Wikipedia list of routes and an advertised "buttered-up" list of routes. Take this for example, which goes into detail about how things have been ammended and tweaked "due to our customer demands" and such-like. That is advertising.

Now then - a directory. This is more complicated, as there are various things which constitute a directory. Cross-categories, (sales) catalogues & loosely associated topics are not an issue with this case. If phone numbers or any obvious contact details are involved, however, they should definately be removed. The main issue, is that it could be a resource for conducting business. And, if the picture is widened, that just brings us back to advertising. Look at it this way - this is an ancyclopedia. The aim is to tell people about a subject, in this case, a bus company. But not to advertise it. You know how bus companies advertise their routes? Following our customer requests... and due to extremely encouraging use of this route... and a bus ride through the beautiful Lancashire countryside, with dipping valleys, sea-side resorts... and all that trollop? THAT is advertising. A list of routes, and ONLY a list of routes within a detailed article, serves the purpose of an encyclopedia, and not an advert. And no policy is violated.

Now that needs communicating to the user who's deleted all this stuff. Lradrama 22:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Harvey

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles

Unisouth, I thought I would inform you of quite a big problem that has happened today. If you look at Talk:First Leeds, User Talk:Lradrama and User talk:Richard Harvey you will see that Richard Harvey has taken it upon himself to remove a lot of content from articles without anyone (unless you happened to see Talk:First Leeds) knowing. While I accept that fares and other info is a bit excessive, I feel that removing routes is going too far, as they are the most important part of what a bus company does. All the articles have just been changed without any discussion, unless of course you have happened to see Talk:First Leeds.

However, what I think will worry you most is the fact that Richard Harvey has decided to redirect all of the bus route articles in Glasgow and the West Midlands to their operators. This could cause a particular problem when he comes to the London Buses routes, these have already survived deletions, I don't know what he is going to do! Anyway, this was just to inform you, you can take any action you feel necessary, even nothing!!! Arriva436^talk 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I have given this user a stern warning about his actions. The best we can do for now is to revert all his doings as I see you have been doing. UNI^|SOUTH 08:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There are more ways to solve things like this without stern warnings and reverting everything back, which just causes hard feelings towards others and edit wars. Let's try to keep everyone involved friendly, so they can work together to resolve the issue. I am dealing with it atm. Lradrama 10:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for your support in this Unisouth. I just thought I'd notify you on this, I think we need as many people in the discussion as possible to get a solution to this. It appears that we are getting into diplomatic discussion now! Arriva436^talk 15:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks for what you have done so far Lradrama! I think that a lot of people are now entering a more formal discussion about the problem. I am glad you do think that route lists are not advertising, even if other things are. I am also glad I have done the right thing by not reverting (well, only one but that wasn't a list) anything yet. I hope we can get this sorted out soon. Arriva436^talk 15:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, no worries, and don't hesitate to give me a shout if you need some help! Best wishes, Lradrama 16:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've been away from home for a week so have not been aware of the extra messages. I have moved the discussion to User_talk:Richard_Harvey/Bus_articles and placed a hopefully constructive start message to get things underway. :o) Richard Harvey (talk) 09:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RTL Open Day

Nice picture - I'm guessing that you were at the depot today, then? Perhaps we passed one another at some point without knowing ;P. _TalkIslander 18:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your kind comments regarding the pictures I took at the Reading Transport open day. I probably did see you at one point but the wonders of the internet mean I don't know who you are! I thought it was a great day and a credit to everyone at Reading Buses. The highlight had to be the cavalcade at the end. I went to Reading town so they were a bit separated by then, but I still got a nod from James Freeman as he drove past in 1112 and I took a photo!! Arriva436^talk 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Bus articles

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles

Hi Lradrama! Any chance you could perhaps reiterate some of your opinions you said previously at the current discussion at the above link? I'm the only one who has said anything yet! If you could, it would be great. Thanks, Arriva436^talk 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes of course! :) Good to see you're still at work on the case, because I still believe all this deleting was wrong. Lradrama 10:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have referred to the Lancashire United article in my reply, because as you can see, the Services & operations section of that article is just lists of routes, with no contact information, flowery advertising or anything like that. Other sections on that article need work yet, such as Fares, although only special purchasable tickets worth noting are discussed in that section. Hope my reply helps, but don't hesitate to contact me again if in doubt. Lradrama 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have triggered more participation anyway. ;) Lradrama 14:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for that. It is of great help and now more people are commenting. Arriva436^talk 19:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Glasgow Buses

You made me laugh when you removed the Glasgow Aiport buses, as they were half of the active entries left on the template. I think we should just delete the entire template, and delete the few remaining routes, and delete pointless redirects, and delete redundant route infoboxes for bus companies. In other words, flush the whole project. Template:Infobox SPT Bus and Template:Infobox First Bus are now orphaned and Template:Infobox Glasgow Citybus has only three unpurged routes left. The user who started this has not followed through. I also think that the user who started the bus route inquisition, if they were sincere, should have cleaned up this mess that has been left behind.
Thank you for the quality work that you have done in developing bus related articles. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so late replying, I've got a new computer, run on Vista, really annoying!! (There is also no spellcheck, so watch out in this reply!!) I have read your comments regarding the above template. I moved the aiport routes as, as I described in my edit summary I didn't feel they were city centre routes in quite the same fashion as the others. I would say that the sheme does seem a bit pointles now, it hasn't been followied through. The articles were never as developed as the London Buses ones either unfortunately. There is a disscussion surrounding bus articles, which was started partly because of some of the routes being changed into redirects. It is situated here.

As you say, there seems little point in keeping any of it now, so perhaps having some of the items you mentioned would be a good idea to start to clear it up.

I appricate the thanks you have given me for the work I have done for bus related articles. I can return this by thanking you for the First Student UK article. When I took the photo of the UK bus (at the Alton Bus Rally!) I knew some details of the UK school bus scheme had a place on Wikipedia - I didn't think to create a new article! I can also support you with your continued efforts to improve some of the logos I have uploaded, I still don't know how you get the bad ones to be such good quality. Arriva436^talk 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Searching for a good quality bus company logo is a little challenge of mine. I was happy to find the WightBUS one, because I had been hunting for a long time. The image on the homepage is so poor that I just knew that better quality had to be available. Sometimes they just do not exist on the web, and sometimes the logo on the company website is different from the bus branding which, in my mind, does not reflect the corporate identity on the street. Good local source for a better logo would be to scan from a publication, like a timetable, letterhead or annual report. Please let me know if there is something specific that you need or that you are not happy with. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. I have been following the general discussion on bus routes but decided just to leave it alone.

Glad to see that you are always hunting for new logos!! I agree that sometimes they don't seem to exist on the web. I have scanned a logo on before as the operator had gone out of business and website gone down. I would like to take up your offer of "Please let me know if there is something specific that you need":

Ever since I became a user in late 2006, I have been looking for a logo on Go West Midlands. As you can probably see, there are two existing logos this and this, which are frankly terrible, one is so blurred it's untrue, the other provides the clearness but not the colour. If you could possibly perhaps have a look for a better version it would be fantastic, after nearly two years I'm a bit fed up!

Re the bus articles discussion, it is probably a good idea to keep out of it! Thanks in advance, Arriva436^talk 18:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

New Logo

Done! Better logos have been uploaded for Go West Midlands, London Central and Oxford Bus Company. I thought this was mission impossible, because Go West Midlands seemed to have disappeared from the web. I found an old report which has logos of all members of the Go-Ahead Group at that time. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for uploading those new logos. They are all great, especially the Go West Midlands one, which as I said I have been looking for for ages!! I'll never know how you found it, Go-Ahead seemed to obliterate any mention of the name when it was sold! Once again, thank you! Arriva436^talk 17:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - but I've done it to you again. This time it's a slightly larger image for Cowes Week 2008, which can be sized to match the pictures better. This is a transparent PNG image, which is also "cleaner" than the JPG which has a "grainy" background. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, after all, Wikipedia is all about gradually improving things. I've just been upgrading things myself actually, look at the difference! 1 compared with 2. Arriva436^talk 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: You can speedy delete logos that you have uploaded yourself, and give the reason that they have been replaced. It is redundant to tag them the way you have done if they are not being used in any articles, and you want them gone. Use the template {{db-g7|rationale=DeletionRationale}} (see Template:Db-g7 for more details). -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it will help get rid of them quicker! P.S. I've done it to you, I have replaced this GIF with jagged lines (which we both have uploaded a version of) with this bigger PNG. I hope that's OK. Arriva436^talk 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: Image:736 Ryde.jpg

Image:736 Ryde.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Southern Vectis 749.JPG. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Southern Vectis 749.JPG]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I see you tagged the image yourself. Hadn't expected that to happen, but my bot now checks if the author tagged the image himself. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Erwin85 (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of the problem with the above bot, in that it notified me of something that I had performed! It is nice that you told me what had happened without me having to enquire. I think that the bot it a good idea and hopefully you can iron some of bugs out. Once again, thanks and I wish you good luck with the bot! Arriva436^talk 16:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stagecoach in The Fens

I was wondering what your source was for Stagecoach in The Fens being part of Stagecoach Cambridgeshire M in m (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your question about Stagecoach in The Fens, my source that it is part of Stagecoach Cambridgeshire, is the Stagecoach Cambridgeshire article itself - which says that it is. I hope that answers your question. Arriva436^talk 14:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

August Metro

Simply south (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

UK operator article drive

Hi Riva. Can you look over Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/UK bus operator quality drive. It is intended as a formalised way to do the improvements on operator articles like fare sections/addresses etc you mentioned recently. I didn't want to make a proper task force as I'm keen to spend the time working on the articles rather than beaurocracy, but as you are interested and might be a willing participant, I decided to knock up a quick page we can work from in coordinated fashion. If it needs additions/changes let me know - it's not live yet. Once I have created List of bus operators of the United Kingdom (which I'll be working on from now so no rush) I will turn it into the status table and start working through them. Obviously we can invite others that were involved, and others will come in if they see the edit summaries, but I think based on the buses project sub-page we don't have to have another long consultation exercise to gain consensus before starting. (I will take it slowly just in case though). MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yes I would be interested in becoming part of this, it seems a sensible idea. Before I say anything else, I should probably tell you of List of current bus operators of the United Kingdom, would List of bus operators of the United Kingdom be the same then? Hopefully we can get all operator articles up to standard. Arriva436^talk 17:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I knew about that one, this is going to be a pure alphabetical list of current and former operators, public and private. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then. Are the big group operators going to be included in the same list? It seems a more logical idea. Arriva436^talk 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I created List of bus operators of the United Kingdom as the alphabetical list to use for the drive, and renamed the other one to List of current bus operators of the United Kingdom to be better in line with what it is. I am having second thoughts on the idea of a quality code in the status table, we have some articles with large amounts of text in need of wikifying, and some articles with a route list, fleet list, but virtually no text. MickMacNee (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean about this "quality code", could you run it past me once more please?! I think I understand the status table. Arriva436^talk 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Check it out now, I've made some changes. I've binned any idea of a quality code, in favour of just noting issues about refs/notability/style. I just have to create and link the status table, and I think we are good to go. MickMacNee (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's done too, see the page for the link. I'll wait for your comments as to whether it all still makes sense before going live, (upon which I'll add it to the Buses project page as an active collaberation, and put a message at the top of the page to say it is active). MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

← Right, before anything starts, I've had a go at the status table, by filling Thames Travel's entry in (sorry it's so far down!!). It this the general idea of how to do it?

Two questions, one is that do you think that all article need infoboxes. I've recorded TT as needing solely for the fact it currently doesn't have one, but do all articles need them?

Also, in the status table, where you put "yes" in signifies a "bad" thing, i.e. no refs would be "yes". However, the column "COMCAT" has "yes" if a category exists. Should this perhaps be changed to avoid confusion? Arriva436^talk

Good spot, I have changed it so that every 'bad' thing (not that they are all seriously bad) is a 'yes'. Infoboxes, well, I don't know - personaly, I absolutely hate them and think they ruin all but the largest articles, but they exist, so let's just record if it doesn't have one, whether we then add one comes later. Remember, this isn't a policy or anything. So, good to go? MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I realise they are not all "seriously bad", I was just using it a a general term. I agree with you about infoboxes. I don't really like them on smaller articles as frankly, they just get in the way. Also, in smaller articles they just duplicate all the info that is in the article, just in smaller writing!! I don't see why we can't go and start now? Arriva436^talk 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I've kicked it off. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but can you add a link to List of bus operators of the United Kingdom in the See also sections for the drive? I have removed the UK buses template from the regional operator boxes, I was never happy about having it in them when I first did it as overloading articles, but the list has a link to it at the top, so hopefully with that as a see also they aren't too far away from the 'main' article, and the op. articles aren't overloaded with templates. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

← Excuse me butting in here. Since I have cooperated with you before, I thought I should comment about this on your talk page. I will not officially join this project, but must congratulate you both for taking on this on. Good luck! My participation will be to clean up anything that is obviously incorrect or draw your attention to things that look out of sync. Sometimes when we are knowledgable about a subject we make assumptions and do not fully describe for an outsider. I will continue my quest for good logos that illustrate the corporate image of the bus company. I agree that Infoboxes can be ugly if filled with lists and prose instead of a single entry per parameter - so don't do that. (Bad/Good). The default size for images in an infobox is 250 (I know you like 300), which keeps all of them the same width without stretching. An infobox can also be used just to match up the logo and a bus portrait, instead of having two floating images. (Check out Anglian Bus using default widths for both images). Do you prefer lists or tables for bus routes? Again, thank you for the good work. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to join in, it realy isn't that complex. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Secondarywaltz. I know your contributions and the logos are especially helpful! I think 300px helps show up an image if it isn't particually good, although smaller sizes are fine if it's a good image. I will now fill in the infobox on Anglian Bus, thanks for that. I generally prefer tables for routes when there's a long list, and lists if there are only a small amount of services. Anglian bus is border line. Some route tables have too much information though. Arriva436^talk 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've worked in Southampton, Sutherland and points between. Currently I live in Ontario and am working on a Canada project similar to yours for England. That is why I appreciate what you are doing and that is why I can't fully commit, but I will contribute some housekeeping. My idea for Anglian Bus was to demonstrate how an infobox need not be intrusive and can be used to keep things tidy without much entry, but not to require anyone to complete it. Here a note is included, although personally I don't like a note for the image to clutter up a full infobox, which should simply be a current "bus portrait". A good photograph speaks for itself and if it is there to explain something like the "Fleet" or a "Route" in a longer article, it should be in the relevant section of the article, not the infobox. As for size; I think that when the logo is a banner style it looks best the same width as the bus image and 250 is a nice compromise so as not to enlarge the infobox. What I don't get is the user who turns templates into picture galleries with tiny images. Arriva436, when you started to edit your images, you upgraded them from snapshots to art, and I notice that you continue to improve articles by replacing poorer images uploaded previously. MickMacNee, I hope I have convinced you that an infobox does not need to overload an article, and in fact it should not be allowed to. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the infobox issue is secondary to be honest guys. I don't see how it comes under any guideline presently, so, in true wiki style, live and let live. Lets just hammer this drive. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I agree. An infobox is secondary to good article creation. I think that for articles on subjects like this, people too often rely on lists, tables and statistics, rather than crafting a couple of paragraphs of fully researched well written prose about the company. Users were often just copying fares and route lists from a bus company website and calling it an article - and I think that is when you probably said "We can do better than that!" My reponse here was simply to the chat above. I am supportive of what you are doing and will watch for progress and follow your lead (on infoboxes and everything else). Drive on! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

← The infobox issue in an interesting one, and has made me think about it a bit, I think keeping images in them does make it look neater. Thanks Secondarywaltz for your comments about my images. Behind the scenes, I have been moving the images I originally uploaded on here to the commons, a project which is now complete. (Although if you see one that's left tell me). During this, I tried to improve images which weren't up to scratch (taken with a really cheap camera I didn't even have to pay for!) I have visited some of the places again to get better shots, as I think good images are important to an article, as it shows the opertors "image". For now though I can constrate on the drive, as no text no article, whereas an image or infobox don't matter!! Arriva436^talk 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For the recent articles you just did, I would have removed the links to modelbuszone.co.uk as commercial links, contrary to WP:EL. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, for AMK Group, I noticed you filled in the table, but didn't add things like the ref and see also sections. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about AMK Group, I have now made the additions! It had already been tagged as possibly not being notable and I sort of forgot that I still had to add the other things! As for the link, I did look at it and thought it was just some photos of Aldershot & District buses, but on closer reflection I realised it was a big site which someone had obvious linked to to get views. I have now removed this. Shall we start to make comments about the drive on its talk page from now on, as this section is getting a bit crowded?!! Arriva436^talk 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest moving this whole section over there. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, I have done this, starting from the point I asked about infoboxes and all the "yes"s being bad except one. I have not copied over the beginning conversation between MickMackNee and I which isn't relevant there. I have kept a record of the discussion here as I don't like deleting content from my talk page. Arriva436^talk 16:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

National Express West Midlands Line 33

Line 33 is the branding name, like premier 997. Me^{Myself and I}with the UK Transport Wiki 17:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about this, as I hadn't realised and thought it was a horrible americanisation. I have been thinking about it, and surely if "Line 33" is such a strong brand, then the article should be called something like "Line 33 (National Express West Midlands route)"? I moved it to keep it in line with the standard routes, after all it's not a "Premier route" is it? Another reason I moved it was that it said the link to the UK Transport Wiki was "National Express West Midlands route 33", although I have just discovered this is incorrect. Arriva436^talk 17:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edits to my edits

Hello. I see that you have been adding a lot of context to the National Express Coventry recently, in the "PrimeLimes" and "cash fares" section. Unfortunately, these additions appear to have been opinionated slightly, they have a point of view in them. Wikipedia promotes a policy of having a neutral point of view. For any biased addition the counter argument needs to be given. Another policy is to cite sources, i.e. show where the information came from and prove it is both reliable and neutral.

In your edits to the above article, none of these policies appear to have been followed. You have added large quantities of unsourced and bias text. If I'm frank, I can see from your contributions that you are against bus priority schemes in the articles you have contributed to, and appear not to like National Express Coventry. When I reverted your edits for the first time, I made it clear why I was doing what I was in my edit summary. However, you have just put back the information with no reasons as to why you are doing so.

In the text you have added there are various facts and figures which have no source, in effect you could have made them up. Another way I can see you don't like the university corridor scheme is your use of sarcasm. The line "buses serving this route have now been cut from three per hour to two per hour, marking a major improvement for users" is an example of this. Wikipedia is about giving reliable information, sarcasm isn't needed.

If you can find sources for your edits and word them so that they don't violate the neutral point of view policy then some of the text may have a place. But, as it stands, it doesn't, so I am going to revert your edits once again. I hope you understand why. Arriva436^talk 15:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I accept that some wording may be a little strong. However, the page as it stands looks like an official webpage for the bus company, and placing of advertisements is also contrary to policy. It is not possible to reference some material (eg, the reference to the Advertising Standards Authority, but I am in possession of documentary evidence of this). There is in fact little referencing in the existing article, which is categorised as lacking in citation. Some element of balance is reasonable - the article as it stands lacks balance and my additions, indicating contrary points of view to "hurrah for Coventry buses" provides such balance. If you can point to any points in my edits that are not factually correct, I will either justify or remove them. Austenba (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You say that "the page as it stands looks like an official webpage for the bus company, and placing of advertisements is also contrary to policy". Well, the main section that contributed to this was the "fares" section. I have deleted this per the polices and other pages given in my edit summary. Although it's earlier than other pages, it was going to go anyway as it has been discussed (all operators) and the general consensus was that it wasn't needed, being available in most cases on the operator's website.

You also say that "It is not possible to reference some material". Well, if it isn't possible, then you should add it. If you are in possession of documentary evidence of an ASA report, I doubt it was worded to damn the operator.

You say that your edits provide a balance to "hurrah for Coventry buses". Well I couldn't find any evidence of this in the article, and the additions you made just add more unsourced text. As you rightly say, the article is already tagged as lacking in citation, so adding any more won't help.

On my talk page you've also said "If you can point to any points in my edits that are not factually correct, I will either justify or remove them". Well the whole point is is that I cannot tell whether any edits are factually correct, as there is no source for them. You can't just "justify" them either without evidence.

Now the fares section has gone, it looks less like an advert, and hopefully it can be more about fact than opinions, and you find sources for you additions. I would also add that council-related bus priority scheme are probably more relevant on their own articles. I know in this case there's a partnership, but after all the the bus company just runs the buses, bus lane or no bus lane, they can't put one in! Arriva436^talk 16:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Coventry Buses

I note your points, and that you are removing the fares information. There will therefore be no need for balancing information on that aspect. However, as to the implementation of PrimeLines, you do include a section on that. Moreover, the bus company has been heavily involved in driving the policy issue on this as it stands to be the only beneficiary. Some balance is needed, since the information currently on the page does not indicate that there are considerable perceived downsides. However, I am redrafting an addition to this, fully sourced, drawing on reports by Centro, Birmingham City Council and Coventry City Council, and including information about the public consultation and the petitions received by Coventry Council against aspects of the scheme. If PrimeLines is a relevant topic on National Express Coventry (and it surely is), then the difficulties, downsides and overwhelming public opposition to the scheme is surely relevant information too.Austenba (talk) 17:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What you have done now is much better!. You have given some sources and removed the silly wording. The article does include a section about "Primelines" (although it wasn't me who put it in), and it is of course relevant to Nat Ex Coventry. While it isn't perfect, there does seem to be more against than for (and there is nothing balancing the "reliability" section) I think that your text now does have a place in the article. I hope over time you can find more sources and make it a proper balanced argument. For now though, it is fine. Thank you also for your full co-operation, discussions are so important to reach a general consensus. Arriva436^talk 17:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

AG&WS

Hi Riva, just a note to say I edited guildford ans west surrey here [4]. As stated in the edit summary, under the drive I think that we don't need so many EL's and refs to the same official site, and the over linking of maps and timetables gets into NOT#TRAVEL territory. Also, I removed most of the route notes as still being quite trivia/service info-ish. So as not to appear a deletionist, I've added some history and livery content, and edited other parts for style. I hope the justification for the varios changes make sense, especially the removals. If not let me know. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I added the operator to the table yesterday just because I had made the basic edits required for the drive. I had intended to to some more major editing today once I had finished on the commons (you may want to check your talk page there!!!), but you've beaten me to it! I'd even brought the Arriva Bus Handbook down from upstairs to use as a reference to expand the history section lol! I might still do that for a reference but it's less important now. The external links were a bit extreme I agree, all down to Arriva's non-personal website meaning you can't link to one region. It's probably best they've gone, bots have been investigating us (well, www.arrivabus.co.uk) for spam: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/arrivabus.co.uk. Big Brother-ish or not! The problem with the article is is that it was born in controversy, and I fixed it when I was a younger editor so it wasn't at as high a standard as it probably would be now. It remains by far the article I have edited most! I do live in the area-ish, which is why, and also why it's the only operator I believe to have a corresponding operator category on the commons (You wait till I go on my park and ride bus mission!) I'm not complaining though, you've done my edits! (And I've corrected yours on the commons - swings and roundabouts!) Arriva436^talk 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I have the same issues, I just wanted to make sure we agreed on what the standard should be currently. The Arriva website is a pain, but I don't think there's much to be done about that without actualy looking like spam, but presumably they have pdf maps for each company, so we can at least do what I did in the operational area section. That spambot is just freaky, it's obviously got an issue with your username. Just a note though, I had intended that things like removing EL's and notes details from route tables would be part of the basic edits for the drive, as there seem to be a lot of articles with the same flaw that fits a catch all remedy. I realise it takes longer than some of the other edits, but at least we will then know what's what. I am now finding it hard though not to get sucked in and start doing other edits while I'm there, like on this one. I have to stop that, it's never ending. Just a note though, a lot of my editing where I don't add a ref comes from just consolidating info from other wiki articles, like dates and names and such, so I wouldn't take any of that as read if you have books to hand that you can check. I definitely don't add info I know can be ref'd without adding the ref inline. MickMacNee (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

← Hi Riva, couple of notes - to stop that smackbot coming round after every article, you need to add "|date=September 2008}}" to the end of any ref tags, and capitalise the first letter of the tag (although not all types of tag need a month parameter). The commonstcat { } link apparently goes under External links, whereas I've seen you put it under See also before (and I used to until being corrected). I usually make it the first entry under the section title. Some other bits I just assumed were oversights, you'll see them in the edit histories. MickMacNee (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've just realised that I need to add the date to the tags, whoops! I had been putting some commons cat links under external links, but in some cases the wouldn't fit there without leaving a gap. In future then I'll just bung it in that section!! I have also removed links to Traveline in many articles. I don't think they're necessary or relevant to the operators, do you agree? And if I were to be really pedantic, "commonscat is actually "Template:Commons cat". (Don't worry, I've only just noticed myself!!!!!). Arriva436^talk 19:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just realised you have rm I Traveline link I missed so you must agree! Arriva436^talk 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI on Cardiff Bus, I'm undecided (aka. not read the policy for a while) on removing EL's to preservation group (or decent quality enthusiast) sites where they aren't clearly selling something. MickMacNee (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

OK then, I'll wait for you to decide before I delete anymore/reinstate Cardiff Bus'. Just to left you know if you don't already, some IP has reverted your edits to OK Motor Services, obviously tagging articles so one day the article gets improved isn't something the editor agrees with!! Arriva436^talk 17:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Easily dealt with. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

September\October Metro

Simply south (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 13:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Simply south (talk) 13:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Safeguard Coaches

Hi there. Have just updated certain details about Safeguard Coaches. Such as correcting the date that Farnham Coaches was purchased as this was 1988 not 2004. 2004 is the year when the livery started to change over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.66.164 (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your edits to Safeguard Coaches. I do make mistakes sometimes, and your edits have fixed some of those I have made. It is much better if Wikipedia is accurate, so thanks for your edits. I have added back the text about Safeguard not willing to operate the Guildford Shuttle anymore, as surely it is relevant on the operator's article if they no longer wish to run the route?! Once again, thanks for your corrections. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A2Z Travel

Hi,

I am just looking for another opinion really with regards a section on the above page. A2Z Travel had their licence revoked a few weeks ago by the Traffic Commisionor, but have appealed and will continue to operate until then.

However, two users without accounts have deleted this section without reason on several occasions. The section is fully referenced via an article on the Express & Star website.

I was just looking really whether you believe they have any right to do this or not? I personally suspect that these people are representatives of the company.

Thanks in advance! Notepanel (talk) 20:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been so late in replying about this! If I'm honest I got sidetracked when I first read the message then completely forgot! So once again, apologies about that.

I have looked at the current situation. As you say, the section is referenced and I definitely think it's notable, after all, what's a bus company without its licence?! I think that in due course it may be an idea if you or someone else could find a couple more references to that section (indeed a few more for the whole article), to strengthen it a bit.

However, as it stands, there is no reason for the information to be deleted. The fact that two IP addresses have removed the content makes me suspicious, I really honestly wouldn't be surprised if those IPs come from people who work for or are related to the company, and are trying to not make themselves look bad.

I now have the page on my watchlist and will continue to look out for further vandalism. As I said, there is no reason why is should be deleted. Thanks for asking me about a second opinion, it's always good to have a couple of editors behind you!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Blazefield

The Template:BlazefieldGroup is redundant, because everything has been included in the Template:Transdev UK bus divisions. I have removed it from all the articles and think it should now be deleted. I don't want to tread all over a subject that you know better and thought I should consult the "bus doctor" first. UK bus operator quality drive/status table is on my watchlist and I see you are doing and excellent job of "healing" or "diagnosing" many articles. I will have to remember to update the table when I contribute to a listed article. Thanks again. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

. . . and sometimes I don't put Images in the correct Commons category either. Thanks for looking after me! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the Blazefield Group template is redundant, so probably is worth getting deleted or even redirecting. I only have vague recollections of the last time I deleted I template and I don't think it was as easy as an article lol!! But there is no longer as use for that template so it should go! No worries about the Commons cats - I only left a quick note there so you could put it in the main cat next time so someone (me probably!!!) can sort it out! I am slowly going through the status table (2 per day is my aim). Feel free to update it if you do any changes, your edits to Compass Bus for example were very helpful, getting all articles to be "good" with infoboxes etc helps them be to a standard format!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Made it a redirect for now. I have come upon several other similar situations and will nominate them all for deletion in time. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's is probably the most sensible option for now. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

NIBS

Thanks Arriva436 for the table. It seems easy to construct so I will try to use this if I can find any more fleet lists that can be put on Wikipedia. Thanks again and see you soon. --Dennisman (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! As I say, you can learn the basic formatting fairly easily, so I hope that you can go on to use it more often! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Please note that you seem to be using a wrong version of the Template:Infobox Bus transit which is what caused the problem in Diamond Bus with sizing of the second logo. The parameter should be image_size with an underscore, whereas the version you have been using does not have it.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I haven't been "using a wrong version". I noticed that the Diamond Bus logos weren't working, and if you look at this diff you'll see that it was actually me who fixed the problem, by adding the underscore in. I didn't put that infobox in the article. As for the National Express articles, I didn't even notice that, and just swapped the image in the existing infobox. Coventry was untouched.

Anyway, thanks for reminding me, I shall try and look out for any other anomalies. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. You do so much upgrade work on these bus articles that I assumed that only you would have added the infoboxes. I still cruise by and help whenever I can.-Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No need to apologise. Looking at it, my reply seems slightly aggressive, which was certainly not what was intended!!! You're the infobox expert... keep telling me about my mistakes or I'll mess everything up!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

---

2008 archive now completed. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)