Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/UK bus route quality drive

I strongly suggest we have a period of discussion to iron out exactly what needs to be done before we start editing articles en masse. jenuk1985 (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

West Midlands Bus Routes

I have moved the below section from my talk page, it may be more appropriate here jenuk1985 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying about the bus routes, many are non-encyclopaedic and non-notable.

Out of the Walsall routes, the most notable and major are the following:

• 51/X51 (Walsall - Birmingham) - Important key bus route, running every 6 minutes.
• 377 (Walsall - Sutton Coldfield) - Important CENTRO partnership bus route. (One of six to offer refunds if bus is late)
• 311/313 (Walsall - Dudley/Stourbridge) - Regular Important Service.
• 301 (Walsall - Mossley) - First showcase bus route
• 302 (Walsall - Lower Farm) - Important frequency. Very similar to 301 (Possible Merger).
• 997 (Birmingham - Walsall) - Important CENTRO partnership bus route. (One of six to offer refuunds if bus is late)
• 394/A/B/5 (Walsall - Brownhills/Burntwood) - Important regular service, replaced approx 10 services in 2007.
• 366 (Walsall - Sutton Coldfield) - Route formed from shortening of major route.
• 370/A (Walsall - Beechdale) - High frequency (7 Minutes)
• 529 (Walsall - Wolverhampton) - High frequency route, linking to major towns.
• 331 (Walsall - Willenhall) - MacAvity the cat from this service made international news.
• 337/8 (Walsall - Darlaston) - Key corridor. Could merge with 9/333/334/339 articles. Over 25 buses an hour.
• 404 (Walsall - West Bromwich/Blackheath/Cradley Heath) - Major regular service.
• 401E/05/05E (Walsall - Yew Tree Estate) - Major regular service.

• 28/A/B Great Barr/Perry Barr - Dyas Road - Erdington - Ward End - Heartlands Hospital, should have a page created as this route has undergone a number of very interesting changes over the years.

If it is ok with you, shall I delete the other articles and then go through the Quality Drive with the above services.

These are only buses in the Walsall area above. Of course, if you feel the list is wrong and needs adjusting please let me know, or if you want me to follow a different course of action.

Thanks Notepanel (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge of Walsall routes is very low, so I'm not really in a position to comment. But yes, 301 and 302 should probably be merged. 366 may not be notable enough for a page on its own, possibly a short section on the page it was formed from. Again going on limited knowlege, could the 404 and 401E/05/05E reasonably be merged into a single page? jenuk1985 (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The 404 and 401E/05/05E could probably be merged as well, as could the 366/966/996 pages.

Right, my initial proposals are below, feel free to comment.

List now transferred to Status table.

All things considered, I should put this into a table! jenuk1985 (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: NXWM route X96 - this has been in the News 3 times, surely this is notable, and so has the former ashwood park routes., 934/993 - this has had several news articals, plus it is part of the NXWM/NWM partnership routes. Me^{Myself and I}with the UK Transport Wiki 12:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But what makes those articles notable? Just being in the news doesn't make a subject notable. Why were they in the news? If they were in the news just because a bus driver was rude to a passenger (for example), then that doesn't make the route itself notable. So far I have not seen any proven notability in any of the articles listed to be removed, and I suspect that many of the articles marked as keep may still need to be removed. Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: X96 - http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/01/30/bus-route-shake-up-planned/ Express and Star 31/01/08 , plus 2 other aticles

To me that doesn't establish notability, that is a news article basically describing route changes. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There is other articles, local residents fighting against this, etc, and you say this is non-notable, I would like this to be independantly ajudicated. Me^{Myself and I}with the UK Transport Wiki 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I will send 451, National Express West Midlands Premier 934 and 993 to AfD to let the wider community discuss. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't Mention the Frequency?

Hi, I just took a quick look at the project page. I think the basic idea and most of the points made are sound. However, one thing that stood out to me as seeming a bit absurd, was "Frequency information" under the heading "What should not be included in an article".

Surely the frequency is one of the most essential facts about a bus route, from a general interest standpoint, not just that of a traveller? There is no need for it to be detailed, but just mentioning that a route typically runs every X minutes during the daytime, and maybe peak time (if different), evening and Sunday frequencies, can only add to the article.

My suggestion would be to change this item under "What not to include" to read either "timetable information", or perhaps "detailed frequency information".

Cheers, Quackdave (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of the route just isn't encyclopaedic, especially going into the detail you are suggesting. Take a look at WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already read that policy, and IMO the subsection you refer to isn't really pertinent here.

You say it's not encyclopedic, but consider what encyclopedic means - basically, "general knowledge" (or more literally "rounded learning"). The way I interpret the concept, it should not preclude mention of what is, as I said, one of the most fundamental basic characteristics of a bus service.

Many bus routes probably aren't notable enough to have an article in the first place; but that's a separate consideration from what can be said about them when they do.

I'll maybe concede the "too much detail" point, and I'm not necessarily saying that any such info should routinely be included; I just don't think it's right to have a guideline saying that it should not. Quackdave (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

First of all, apologies, I didn't see your reply sooner. Frequencies of bus routes can change fairly regularly, and potentially this can cause issues with keeping the article current if editors do not update the article (which is a fairly big problem with what can be seen as these "less important" articles. As for the general knowledge aspect, while I do agree with you in some parts, it is on the verge of turning the article into a travel guide, as I mentioned above.

Articles of this type will always be at risk of deletion, its up to us to bring the most notable articles to a standard where they show their worth to be included in WP, and I feel that frequencies "bring down" an article in that respect. I can see no harm in including an external link to a relevant timetable, that way the frequency information will never be more than a single click away (in theory).

I don't want this to turn into a "Jen says this so do it" project, I'd really like other people to get involved and comment so we can get these articles up to scratch! jenuk1985 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Frequency a hard one, because as Quackdave says, the basic daytime frequency is just about notable. But then there's all the peak, Sunday and evening variations which get out of hand. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly including a single general daytime frequency would be acceptable, I we could include a frequency field in the infobox template, with a note to say that this is the daytime frequency, which may vary at other times. We don't want to get into the situation where we are listing all the different frequencies for different times, then the article is at risk of turning into a travel guide. jenuk1985 (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

← I think that at least the main frequency should be mentioned in the infoxbox, but only a simple mention. Maybe we could add the secondary frequency (evenings and suns) in brackets or something, like this: "Frequency: 6 (15)" Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed now, I'll add a frequency field into the infobox tomorrow, unless you want to have a go at it yourself. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - use the frequency and alternative_frequency paramaters. Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Routes without articles that may warrant them.

Currently no articles exist for the routes I have listed below, but I feel their history may warrant them, how do people feel about this in the long term? (These are only routes in my home county, I don't know enough about other areas to comment as such).

• 143 Redditch - Birmingham

I feel this is notable because of the way the route has evolved, originally starting out as a Birmingham - Bromsgrove - Charford route, eventually being changed to run Birmingham - Bromsgrove - Redditch, Being cut back to Bromsgrove - Redditch as part of the evolution of the 144 route, until recently being changed again to run Birmingham - Redditch again, though to a lesser extent as its "glory days".

• 144 Worcester - Birmingham

The 144 is one of the older Midland Red routes, which for a period also ran Malvern - Worcester - Birmingham, with various express services running alongside it (information of which could also be included in the article. Maybe there is a case for the 143 and 144 routes to be combined into a single article, but I don't feel the routes are "similar" enough to warrant this.

• 57 and 58 Redditch - Matchborough

High frequency Redditch town routes, again with an interesting history, originating from the expansion of Redditch into a new town.

• 318 Bromsgrove - Stourbridge

In its current form its a non-notable route, but the history of this route sways this in my opinion. For a period this ran Redditch - Bromsgrove - Stourbridge, I suspect the Redditch end of the route was curtailed when the 143 was extended to Redditch, but this may need more research

Comments and suggestions for other notable routes in the UK that don't have articles, but may warrant them? I feel that with any suggestion it may be suitable to "justify" them as an article. jenuk1985 (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Article Deletion/Redirection

I have proposed that this article be redirected or deleted as part of the UK Bus Route Quality Drive as being non notable, along with a list of other routes, you can see a list of the proposed routes at the drive's page, and I encourage you to discuss the list on the drive's talk page. External input would be greatly appreciated! jenuk1985 (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not see anything about this page in the area of discussion that you refer to. Please use the formal method of deleting pages that is standard on the wiki, if you wish to nominate this and other pages for deletion. This is the "hospital bus" and so it is an important bus route. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They are not nominated formally yet as this is still a discussion. The talk page is here as originally linked to in the above message. The question is not about how important the route is, its about how notable the route is. jenuk1985 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As a rough and ready rule of thumb, I think that things that are important are also notable. Snowman (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Important doesn't always imply notability. Many routes would be deleted if sent to afd on WP:N and WP:NOT, the aim of this project is to select out a few of the most important routes to establish that notability. jenuk1985 (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Where have you proposed that these files are deleted? Perhaps you should notify people that have contributed to the pages that you are discussing. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a read of the thread at the top for proposals. As for notifications I have put messages on the talk page of each page that I have been proposed to be removed (most likely a redirect if we can reach consensus rather than going to afd). I take your comments on board that I should possibly contact each person who has contributed to said articles, it will be good to have some more opinions on here. jenuk1985 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

At the present time, I do not see any consensus for the possible deletions that you have started discussing on this talk page. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is why we are discussing it here! jenuk1985 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Walsall Removals

With regards to the deletions you have proposed in Walsall I agree with them all. I am, however, going to add the information about the 951A back onto the 51/X51 page if that is OK as this is basically an extended X51! (It is kind of already mentioned about this on the X51/51 page already, but it is more so mentioned on the 351/951 page because the other way, it is an extended version of this route!)

Also, the 331 route I think is missing from both the proposed keep and proposed deletion tables. Although not too notable now, it once was a 10 minute frequency service & has a bit of an unusual tale with the Cat, which made it into National newspapers and worldwide weird stuff websites!

Finally, apologies for not being able to do much to the pages recently, I have had lots of work to do, but should have some spare time the end of this week/next weekend to get stuff done.

Thanks Notepanel (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Be BOLD :) This is not *my* quality drive, I created it to enable us to work together, you don't need to "ask" me to do things, uncontroversial things done for the greater good, should just be done. For example feel free to edit the status table and move or add things to the tables as you see appropriate. It may be worth adding the 331 to the keep table. I may have favoured keeping more articles than may be notable, see the notes col for examples where I wasn't too sure. If you agree that they may be better to be deleted, it may be worth moving them down to the remove table. jenuk1985 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

merge or delete?

As reviewing administrator, I see all of the prods for these routes. I m a little puzzled that you actually want to delete instead of simply merging, and I wonder if you could explain. It would normally have been simpler to determine consensus on this before the prods were placed, rather than afterwards. DGG (talk) 19:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't see your note here, must have slipped through on my watchlist! I added the prod template to the routes I felt were not controversial deletions, I feel its safe to assume that as they have not been removed they remain uncontroversial. I have left the remaining routes that I have "suggested for deletion" without a prod template, pending further discussion (which does not seem to be forthcoming!). As for delete/merge, deletion is the best option rather than redirect I feel, in general the articles are only linked to from 3 pages List of bus routes in the West Midlands county, List of National Express West Midlands bus routes and the bus route template, all of which can easily be edited to remove dead links. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I refrained from removing the tags in order to give you chance to respond, for otherwise I would have done so. I see no reason why they cannot be merged, and I was hoping that you would go do that. You can probably format such a merged article better than I-this is hardly my subject, though I've rewritten a few for US cities.DGG (talk) 04:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see you've started redirecting--I had put on some merge tags, but I stopped when I saw what you were doing. Eitherway, it leaves the material accessible for further discussion.DGG (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have no redirected all of the articles which had prod templates to List of bus routes in the West Midlands county, there is still a list of routes pending further discussion in the status table. Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

A better format and organisation?

Take a look at West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor, I have created a new corridor routebox and added the 64, 143 and 144 services to the page, each getting their own section. Could this be a better way of handling bus route articles, rather than individual articles as is the case now? The page still needs a lot more work, there is much more information available out there to add to the page.

I propose that we have corridor pages for all the major corridors, detailing all appropriate services. We only keep individual articles if that particular route is suitable for its own article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 06:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Routes Added

I have added the following routes to the status table. Currently I have put them in unsorted, but I feel most of these would warrant keeping. We could also learn a few things from the Southern Vectris articles, possibly route maps?

• Essex bus routes 542 and 543
• Essex bus routes 521, 522 and 523
• Essex bus routes 240 and 250
• Essex bus routes 1 and 1A
• Essex bus route H1
• Essex bus route 541
• Essex bus route 505
• Eden Branchline
• Former Midland Red route X91
• FreeCityBus
• Guildford Shuttle
• Ipswich Buses Service 13
• Island Breezers

• Metroshuttle
• New Forest Tour
• Oxford to London coach route
• QuayLink
• Southern Vectis route 1
• Southern Vectis route 10
• Southern Vectis route 11
• Southern Vectis route 15
• Southern Vectis route 2
• Southern Vectis route 3
• Southern Vectis route 4
• Southern Vectis route 5
• Southern Vectis route 6

• Southern Vectis route 7
• Southern Vectis route 8
• Southern Vectis route 9
• Stansted Aircoach
• Transdev Harrogate & District route 36
• Truronian route T5
• Uno buses route S4
• Uno buses route S5
• Victoria Line (Isle of Wight)
• Wightbus route 16
• Wightbus route 33

Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Route Maps

I have tried the map concept on West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor and it seems to work fine and look good. Shall we roll out to other pages? Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The SV ones are very good in my opinion and are well maintained and referenced. Route maps are good but are best not too complicated. I would agree that the articles above are mostly notable. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You might like to see {{Bus route legend}} and then replace the {{BS-table}}s with {{BUS-table}} (see what I did there?). I hope they both prove useful. --Peeky44 (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I just tried BUS-table on the above "guinea pig" article, it messed up the infobox. I'm guessing you based BUS-table on BS-table rather than BS-table3? BS-table3 is needed for inclusion in the infoboxes. I haven't got too much time to look in detail right now, I'll have a proper look later. Also I'm not sure its a good idea to use the same line style for former and peak only routes, as they are very different really. On West Midlands bus route 7 I have used the dashed line for a limited service, its unlikely we'll ever need to show tunnels in the context of a bus route article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I did use BS-table rather than BS-table3. Agreed, tunnels probably won't be needed as we're not talking about physical structures. Looking at West Midlands bus route 7 I'd say that looks good, although if we're being non-standard by having dotted meaning limited rather than tunnel, the legend is probably even more important! I'll change the legend as necessary now. --Peeky44 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found the solution - but it doesn't look pretty if you view the template on its own. All you have to do is add an extra |} in the end of the route diagram and it works (see User:Peeky44/Template:Southern Vectis route 1). Can't help feeling there must be a better way though. --Peeky44 (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Isle of Wight

I propose that the following articles be renamed so that they aren't operator specific, as per other routes:

• Southern Vectis route 1 --> Isle of Wight bus route 1
• Southern Vectis route 2 --> Isle of Wight bus route 2
• Southern Vectis route 3 --> Isle of Wight bus route 3
• Southern Vectis route 4 --> Isle of Wight bus route 4
• Southern Vectis route 5 --> Isle of Wight bus route 5
• Southern Vectis route 6 --> Isle of Wight bus route 6
• Southern Vectis route 7 --> Isle of Wight bus route 7
• Southern Vectis route 8 --> Isle of Wight bus route 8
• Southern Vectis route 9 --> Isle of Wight bus route 9
• Southern Vectis route 10 --> Isle of Wight bus route 10
• Southern Vectis route 11 --> Isle of Wight bus route 11
• Southern Vectis route 15 --> Former Isle of Wight bus route 15
• Wightbus route 16 --> Isle of Wight bus route 16
• Wightbus route 33 --> Isle of Wight bus route 33

I am about to put notes on the talk pages of these routes to let people know about the proposal. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Slight problem here! While I agree that in general it would make sense to have the articles named by area rather than operator, the 'Isle of Wight bus route 16' article will cause problems as there are 2 buses numbered '16' on the island, in different areas. Also, as noted on the article, the number 15 may be resurrected from April, so maybe changing it to 'former' would be premature. --Peeky44 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Up here in the West Midlands, we have got around this (quite common) problem by naming West Midlands bus route 1 (Birmingham) and West Midlands bus route 1 (Coventry). But if the "other route 1" is not notable enough for an article, it may be worth just keeping the single "Isle of Wight bus route 1" article, with a note at the top explaining which route it refers to. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that should work. At the moment only the Wightbus route 16 has an article, SV's 16 hasn't been high enough priority and AFIK its notability hasn't been looked at either.--Peeky44 (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If I'm honest, I think the Southern Vectis name is much stronger than the Isle of Wight one. SV is the only 'proper' bus operator on the island so I'm not sure the regional name is so much of a problem. Anyway, it all depends on article standardisation. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

I have made some more changes to the infobox on Southern Vectis route 1:

• I have moved the logo up into the number bar, to avoid the duplication of having essentially the same thing underneath one another.
• I have added a better image and moved the other down so there's no prominence on either the P&R of RH variation.
• I have removed the Southern Vectis logo. I am not sure it is entirely necessary; the logo is all over the other SV articles, and putting it on every route article seems a bit excessive. Most bus pictures will have the logo on them somewhere anyway. For now I have just commented it out.

I have also put the infobox onto route 2 at the same standard. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have now also done routes 3, 4, 5 and 7. I have had to upload new versions of most logos as they were off centre and so I've made them equal either side. The route diagrams on the 2, 3, 4 and 5 have broken up a bit as writing has been forced onto the next line as a result of it being squashed. Unfortunately, I've no idea how to fix this.

I did manage to botch the "Start" parameter of the infobox though, and aligned it where it should have been. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The existing routemaps will need some minor editing to make them compatible with the infobox. I'll take a look in a few mins Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I have edited all the route maps where you have added an infobox, check the diff's if you want to see what I have done so that you can get a feel for it yourself :) For that reason I haven't carried on for the route maps with no infobox, as you may like the experience. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now finished all of the articles. I think they are OK, but you may want to check and have a look. I have also revamped the List of Southern Vectis bus routes to the same style I did Reading Transport to, which looks far better and clearer than the previous version. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep they all seem to be working fine :) Can I suggest adopting the From / To / Via format for the list, its much clearer than the Dest1 - Dest2 - Dest3 - Dest4 - Dest5 - Dest299 format. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I was intending to anyway, I just wanted to clear the mess first (and it was getting late!) I shall now do it! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For routes not notable enough to warrant their own article...

See User:Jenuk1985/Bus routes in Bromsgrove, I am working on this as 99% of the routes travelling through Bromsgrove are not notable enough for their own article, yet collectively they form an interesting article. The format could be rolled out to other areas where individual notability is questionable, yet a whole network may be notable. For a city the size of Birmingham, it wouldn't feasible for such an article, but if it was to be split down into the suburbs, such as Bus routes in Northfield, Birmingham, it may be workable. A benefit of this system is that historical routes no longer running can be shown, to give a bigger picture. If a route does have its own article, a short summary with the {{main}} template can be provided. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Status table

While at first they look nice, the yes ticks and no crosses are in my opinions are beginning to look a bit 'busy' and are starting to clash a bit. May I suggest considering changing it to a simple 'Yes' or 'No'? Also, then we wouldn't have to have the ones with e.g. "needs better" and a tick, we could just have the words. Ideas? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the colouring at least helps to see easier at a glance what is what etc. Though I will bow to any general opinion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

OK then. Hopefully it will look better when it is all ticks! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Time to be ruthless

It may now be an appropriate time to get a bit ruthless with these articles. Over the next month or so I'm going to do all I can to source the articles we have listed to "keep". After I've made a reasonable effort to source an article, if I can't reasonably establish notability I will redirect or nominate for deletion. I'd appreciate any help with this, I have several "projects" going on (hence you'll notice I dip in and out of this) that limit the amount of time I spend on this. I should think the majority of articles will be safe. I'd also make an appeal now to try to get a lot more ticks in that status table! I am currently cameraless so I can't manage pictures myself but I am going to try asking a few people I know if they would upload a few of their own images as appropriate. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

If you can get people to get pics it would be fantastic. Please remind them to upload at commons though! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

UK Buses Wikiproject

I have asked on a smaller scale in the past, but do we feel there is interest in creating a UK Buses WikiProject? Essentially combining this quality drive and the operator quality drive. There seem to be various editors dotted around the country editing their little corners, it would be good to get everyone involved in a single place? Jenuk1985 | Talk 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well to be honest, we have operators, we have routes, that only leaves bus types in any real quanitiy. Everyone who wants to join each quality drive has. If other editors are happy updating "their corner" then that's fine by me! I wouldn't want to put them off. Bearing in mind the death of WikiProject Buses, I would finish operators and routes before doing anything else, otherwise it could get a bit confusing. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages for non-existent bus routes

I've just deleted a large number of talk pages for non-existent bus articles created earlier today. I'm not sure if they were created as a part of this or if it's just coincidence, but if someone is operating a bot or script, please make sure the article exists before you create a talkpage for it! Not all bus routes (by a long way) have their own article. – iridescent 22:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence I think, appeared to be an IP editor! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, I'm adding the templates manually, not via a bot, in batches of whatever Firefox can handle! Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all – I just didn't want someone creating pages for every single bus route in the country, if there was a bot involved. – iridescent 22:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Bots are useless heaps of junk anyway, if you want a job doing properly, do it manually :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, bots are really bad. I tend to do anything manually. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Route lists

We have a de facto standard on route lists based on existing articles:

• List of bus routes in the West Midlands county
• List of bus routes in Warwickshire
• List of bus routes in Worcestershire
• List of bus routes in Bristol

I created a new article, List of bus routes in Cardiff, splitting off the route lists from Bus transport in Cardiff and standardising the route list to what we generally use. A user has started insisting that the colour of the operator should be shown, which makes the table harder to read, inaccessible and goes against standard.

• original version, without colour
• edited version, colouring the operator col
• current version, colouring the branding col

I've created this discussion for advice on where to go from here, I don't want to get into an edit war, but equally, I'm sure we all agree that having loads of "List of bus routes in X" in different formats isn't helpful either. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want an edit war either. I can understand the need for consistency but I feel that the table is dull, hard to read and it is hard form an understanding of bus routes in Cardiff, which, after all, is the aim of the article. What if the colours were moved to a far left column, including a colour for Cardiff Bus. It clarifies who operates what without making any information inaccessible. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I definitely don't think that the operator column should be branded as it didn't look very good. I don't think having random blocks of colour in the branding column looks particularly great either. I have to agree that, while some individual difference should be fine, we'd be better off having a standardised table for route lists. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we at least have seperate tables catagorised by operator? I just don't like a long monotonous list that's hard to read. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not! That's what the route lists for individual operators are for! If it is done that way then we are just repeating information already found in other articles and we'd be better off just deleting it! Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But we are already repeating the information, it's all repeated on Stagecoach, Cardiff Bus etc. I'm trying to progress to some sort of compromise but no-one's being very helpful. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right...how about broken down into inter-Cardiff services and services to other urban areas? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it now needs to be broken down into sections (0-99, 100-199 etc..) as in the above lists (which I forgot to do when I initially standardised it. Infact, I'll do that now. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I think doing central and urban services seperatley is a good idea. The problem we have here is that yes, the infomation is elsewhere, but we can't have in in the same format here as it is elsewhere. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Right okay then. Jenuk, you might as well not break it down in that case. I'll seperate them under those headings as I know Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done before I read this, in which case I'd suggest renaming the Coach Services section to "Coach and Interurban services", and moving whichever rows are applicable into that section, at least then its not too different to the system we already use. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

By inter-urban services, I meant to nearby towns and villages in South Wales. Coach services would remain an independent section. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

← Yeah, basically any route that leaves the city boundaries... show common sense though, if it only strays out by a few miles, include it in the main section. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course. The Hereford service is under Valleys as all major stops are pretty much in South Wales until Hereford and it's operated by Stagecoach. Vale of Glamorgan services under own heading as well. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wilmslow Road Manchester / Bus Corridor

This article gets a lot of attention and the "Busiest in Europe Claim" is a problem. Vaut le détour.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in detail on Talk:Wilmslow Road bus corridor. Jeni ^(talk) 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Henly's Corner

All instances of "Henley's Corner" should be changed to "Henly's Corner" (with or without apostrophe). It's in London, on the A1 and the North Circular. 82.163.24.100 (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree about the "e" but is there - without wishing to end up in WP:LAME - an "official line" about the apostrophe? TfL seem to like it without, these days ... DBaK (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)