Talk:ACTION

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Wikipedia article called "Canberra bus routes"[edit]

As discussed, I have created a new Wikipedia article. This article now has all the details of the range of bus routes that ACTION currently operates in Canberra. This has meant that I have removed all the details about Canberra bus routes (other than the summary) from this article to avoid unnecessary duplication. --Chaleyer61 (talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chaleyer - the new article looks good. It provides the details for those who want it. Now what's needed is for the 'Canberra bus routes' article to include Deane's and Transborder services. Also a new category of Bus transport in Canberra would be useful to link these articles together. (Please don't delete the un-created category link again - it would be better to create the category.) I'm going to remove the weekday/weekend headings from the ACTION article since it is no longer required. --Martin 149.135.112.72 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, thank you again for the feedback. I agree with your suggestions. As far as I can tell, there is no Wikipedia reference to Deane's and the reference to Transborder Express is quite brief. For the purposes of the Canberra bus routes article, I will only cover those routes that actually offer journeys within the ACT. - Bob aka --Chaleyer61 (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City vs Civic Interchange[edit]

Bidgee, I've removed '(Civic)' from the info box because it is incorrect information - Civic is not a suburb of Canberra. Instead I've added a statement in the Infrastructure section stating that Signage calls it Civic Bus Interchange, however ACTION always refers to it as City Interchange.

I hope this is acceptable to you. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redex service[edit]

I notice that the section on REDEX in the article has been removed - presumably because it is not yet a current service, but only a proposed service.

IMO it is relevant to mention the Chief Minister's announcement in the ACTION article, but not to quote the entire press release. I plan to add a section on the REDEX announcement soon, with a reference to the press release, along with some updates concerning the Belconnen Interchange closure/relocation.

If anyone has strong views about the inclusion of REDEX in the article, please air those views here in the Talk section. MartinL-585 (talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed services can't be added as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball also was unsourced. Bidgee (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm proposing to mention the announcement of the service, not the service itself.MartinL-585 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tickets / Fares[edit]

I know that including ticket prices was discussed before and they were removed, but when I was creating a table of all the ticket information it made sense to include the ticket prices in the table rather than just a simple yes or no to denote whether the ticket was available. Since the ACTION ticket structure is fairly simple and only changes annually, this shouldn't be too much trouble to maintain.

I have also colour-coded the table to match the colour of the pre-purchased ticket.

MartinL-585 (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ACTION History - Euro V buses[edit]

User 210.10.129.122 added into the history section that ACTION was "the first operator in Australia to operate Euro V standard engines (2009)". I have removed this claim as I do not believe it is correct. While I will agree that ACTION operated the first Euro V MAN bus, I believe that other bus operators have operated Euro V standard Volvos (B12) prior to ACTION's MAN 18.320

I am happy to be proven wrong, but would like to see a citation for this claim before it is added back. (All the other claimed 'firsts' come from the Canberra's Engineering Heritage article, so no further citations are required for those.) MartinL-585 (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.actbus.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=16959 :D --Airship (whoops) (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point being what? The wording on 390 says World's First Euro V MAN bus. MartinL-585 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013 changes[edit]

Mo7838: before removing significant content from this page, you should have had the decency to discuss it first. Many other bus operator pages include fleet details, ACTION should not be an exception.

Therefore fleet information has been re-instated, pending such a discussion.

Question for other editors: is the fleet information valid? Is there a better way of providing such information? Perhaps the bus types can be listed without providing a fleet count?

MartinL-585 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) Many bus operators have fleet lists, unfortunately many of these are outdated. A list may be correct when added but unless maintained, will become obsolete. I have come across plenty where bus types are listed that have long been withdrawn. Upon drilling down the list had not been updated in years. With a fleet of 400, ACTION's is likely to change fairly regularly. An editor may place a list with the intention of maintaining, and may do so for some time, but the reality is we will all leave the wiki building at some stage.

2) IMO a better way is to say 'As at December 2013 the fleet consisted of 123 buses', or 'consisted of 123 Mercedes-Benz, Scania and Volvo buses' and link to a cite. Is easier to maintain as assuming the cite remains, just need to change the date and number.

3) A detailed list is not of interest to the audience at large, so better to maintain elsewhere, eg ACT Bus Wiki. Likewise there is little relevancy to a bus being built in Ireland, having a Euro V engine, air-conditioning, low-floor or a bike rack.

4) Not necessary to wikilink a Toyota Hiace with 2 wikilinks eg, Toyota & Hiace.

5) Not necessary to mention Qcity Transit etc in the intro and external links. The article is about ACTION, not public transport in the ACT in general. If needed an article like Public transport in Sydney can be created. Likewise no need for Custom Coaches and other suppliers in the external links. Mo7838 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(1) ACTION's fleet list is regularly maintained. Had the list been out of date, then such a change may be warranted.
(2) That is what the fleet list showed (before it was changed): but with detail about each bus model.
(3) Disagree. If a reader is not interested, then they don't have to read it. But in Canberra, there is an interest in whether buses are fitted with a bike rack, are wheelchair capable or are climate controlled. If such information exists, why not include it? Wikipedia contains articles on bus manufacturers and bus models, so why is it not relevant for such detail to be provided for a bus operator? The relevancy of a bus being built in Northern Ireland (not Ireland) is that it is unusual, since all other buses in the fleet were built in Australia.
Bear in mind that no other editors have had a problem with the way this information was presented. (Hence my call for a discussion.)
(4) It's a question of style. Either way works, so no argument.
(5) Understood, but it's a matter of context. An article on Public Transport in Canberra would be fairly small and may well end up being merged with the ACTION article (but feel free to start one). But with such a topic not existing, it is better to include it to enable it to be found than to not mention it at all.
External links to QCity etc were provided for the above reasons. External links to Parkeon and other companies were included where no Wikipedia entry existed.
Again, I would prefer the matter be discussed before long-standing content is removed. Which is why latest changes have once again been reverted (with a few minor alterations). MartinL-585 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) From the history, it appears you are the only editor who maintains the fleet list. So when you move on from wiki, unless another editor 'takes the baton', it will become outdated. Left for a few years it could become inaccurate enough to the point of irrelevancy. The simpler the format, the easier it is to maintain and in the proposed format, is dated. A detailed list will only appeal to a small, enthusiast community see WP:Fancruft. ACT Bus Wiki is a better place to maintain this level of detail, and is at the moment regularly updated.
2) In its current form, is cumbersome to read with dot points, dashes, symbols and quotation marks. If it is to stay, would be better in a table format with columns for number, chassis, axles, body & notes or something similar.
3) Details as to whether buses are air-conditioned or wheelchair accessible is not noteworthy, these features have been standard on new buses for over 15 years. While the issue of bike racks may be of interest, as to which buses have and which don't is a bit too much detail for the wider readership. Is better discussed at a higher level elsewhere in the article.
4) Agree .
5) There is no need to have external links to competitors or suppliers such as Qcity Transit and AdShel. It is drawing a long bow to suggest their relevance to the article. Mo7838 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) & (2) Still disagree. The format used IS simple, easy to maintain and is not aimed at enthusiasts. (How is it dated?) Plus I've added a date to show the currency of the information. (The only maintenance required is to update the numbers of vehicles and, as needed, add or delete models -- which would be needed in any alternative format.) If you want something simpler, or easier to read (but which keeps the existing information), then let's see it. A table sounds worth considering.
Since you're worried about the information not being regularly maintained, it sounds like you've volunteered to "take up the baton". Should you discover that the list is out of date in the future, then by all means remove it or update it yourself. But until that occurs, your concern is misplaced. (Bear in mind that there will be little, if any, fleet changes before May/June 2014.)
(3) If it is not noteworthy, then why do other bus operator pages show this information? This is an article about the bus operator, not about bus design trends. While it would be simple to say that all buses after x are wheelchair accessible and climate controlled, the way the information is presented achieves the same result. Until ALL buses are accessible or climate controlled, the information is noteworthy. As for bike racks, the easiest way to explain which buses have them, and which don't, is via the bus model list. As I said earlier, if readers aren't interested in that level of detail, it's their choice to not read it. But since such information exists it should be shown, otherwise what's the point of having an article on ACTION at all?
(5) Can you provide a Style guide entry which supports your opinion? MartinL-585 (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:3O sought. Mo7838 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Rescinded, will wait 14 days for any other editor responses per request below. Mo7838 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I don't think a 3O is warranted yet. Mo7838 seems to be the only editor who has a problem with the information as it was previously presented. (There has not been sufficient time for other watchers of this page to comment.) A table format has replaced the information (as suggested), yet Mo7838 has not commented on this change. MartinL-585 (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) & 2) As we are both firm in our opinions, will await further comment from other editors.
3) Most Australian operators are in the format I have suggested. And yes a good number were created by me.
5) See WP:EL. If the logic of listing Qcity Transit was applied to Transdev Melbourne then all other Melbourne bus operators, of which there are over 20, should be listed. Likewise if we are going to include suppliers like AdShel and Parkeon, then why not Custom Coaches, Dennis, Hino, MAN, Mitsubishi, Renault, Scania, Toyota, Wrightbus and any other supplier, it would be ridiculously long and pointless, see WP:ELPOINTS point 3. Looking at the external links for other government operators like Brisbane Transport, Metro Tasmania and State Transit Authority of New South Wales, they only comprise of the operator's website, the department's website and the timetable website. That is all that is required for this article. Mo7838 (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you firm in your opinion? The reasons against having fleet details keep changing. First it was the list was obsolete and had not been edited in years. Then it was the format is not simple, is difficult to read and would be hard to maintain (which is only half true) and that no-one would be interested in the level of detail provided (despite many other public transport articles having a similar level of detail). Lastly, you don't like it because it is not in the format that you have used elsewhere.
The format has been updated to a table (as suggested above). Yet there has been no mention as to whether the revised format is acceptable, or not and, if not, why not.
(5) The reasoning for providing external links has already been answered. But the addition of the Public transport in Canberra article changes things. New article should be included as "See also" or similar. Since the style guide has been provided (which was all I requested), agree to remove all other links. MartinL-585 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1-3} I have always been consistent in why I disliked the information as it was presented. I never said this list was obsolete, just that without maintenance lists do become out of date. I stand by my point that the way it was laid out was cumbersome. It is for these reasons and not me 'not liking the format' as you have asserted.

As stated at the beginning the problem when a detailed list is added, unless maintained it can become out of date and meaningless. Having edited a few hundred of similar articles, often I have found a list that upon drilling down has not been edited for years. Even if the list was old but stated the "fleet consisted of 123 buses as at April 2007" at least the reader would be in a better position to assess its relevance. Unfortunately, as this article did until 23 December, many simply state "fleet consists of 123 buses" with no reference to a date. Yes the reader can play around with the history and work out when last changed, but a bit cumbersome.

Per WP:Fancruft, a detailed list of bus types only appeals to a small audience. With a clickable cite, any reader who is interested is going to able to find the detail there. There is a place for that level of detail, its just not Wikipedia, ACT Bus Wiki is the perfect place. By keeping it as simple as possible it is easier to update for an editor without a detailed knowledge. With only one cite it is a quick job to update.

While you are here and maintaining this page it will be fine, but there will come a time when you decide to move on and within a few years may bare little resemblance to the real picture. And without your detailed knowledge, it will be harder for someone else to pick up and less likely be done, particularly when a new bus type needs to be added.

The table is certainly is a much cleaner way of presenting, but the problem of being harder to maintain remains with 13 types.

5) Agree - all fixed Mo7838 (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013 - part two[edit]

So why have I removed "Registrations"? Because (A) it is a level of detail which is not of interest to the audience at large. Bus registration details (or fleet numbers) are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, but can be found on other reference websites; and (B) the information that is shown is incomplete - so it is better to not include it at all.

Why have I removed the mention of Kingston depot? Again, because the information is incomplete/incorrect. If you are going to mention a "maintenance workshop" at Kingston, you need to mention ALL other former ACTION depots and workshops. Better to leave it out and just mention the current locations.

MartinL-585 (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you could always try add to rather than delete. Is the level of detail you have added to the fleet history of appeal to the audience at large? Thought the 'high level' approach without getting bogged down in detail was better, ie British buses until 1972, Europeans thereafter. Mo7838 (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the place to continue the discussion but I was thinking about your debate about the fleet lists and I think it is a bit cluttered and should have an table for the buses instead and you can just put ticks for bike rack etc. There's your Third Opinion. Airship (whoops) (talk) 02:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014 changes[edit]

When the article’s temporary editing block expires, the following changes are proposed to be made:

  • 1) Infobox: replaced with Template:Infobox bus company as used for most other bus operators, same info, but in a standard format.
  • 2) Lead – bus and minister do not need to be wikilnked
  • 3) Lead – TAMS organisation chart wikilink to be updated
  • 4) Lead – list of other bus operators not required, discussed at Public transport in Canberra
  • 5) Image capition Mercedes O305 – delete cite, not required for images, amend description to show bus type, location and date
  • 6) History – Correct Woden bus interchange opening date to 3 December 1972
  • 7) History – move 2008 livery change to Livery section
  • 8) History – add info on ACTION passing from Federal government to ACT government in 1989
  • 9) Routes Blue Rapid – amend City wikilink to City Bus Station, decap Routes to routes
  • 10) Routes Red Rapid – decap Routes to routes, replace Direct Factory Outlets wikilink with Canberra Outlet Centre to reflect change of trading name
  • 11) Routes Centenary Loop – delete as will finish on 5 January 2014
  • 12) Routes Gold Line – change time format to hh:mm for consistency
  • 13) Routes Green Line – change time format to hh:mm for consistency
  • 14) Ticketing and fares – delete 2013 and replace with 2014 table, change time format to hh:mm for consistency
  • 15) Fleet - listing change to table format, easier to read
  • 16) Fleet – correct wikiinks eg Toyota Hiace to Toyota HiAce etc
  • 17) Fleet – History: add section giving high level overview of buses previously operated
  • 18) Fleet – Livery: add section giving history of liveries used
  • 19) Infrastructure – add cites for bus station opening dates
  • 20) References – change to 3 column format
  • 21) External links – ACTION and MyWay to be retained, remainder to be deleted as have no relevancy to the article per WP:EL
  • 22) Images – relevant images to be added
  • 23) Wikilinks - various to be added / amended / removed as required

Comments and suggestions welcome. Mo7838 (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Agree as long as service type is transit bus
  • (2) no Disagree where is the need? - they are valid links which are relevant to the content
  • (3) no argument
  • (4) Agree provided link to page is included
  • (5) no Disagree citation is not for photo, but for the content of the history section. Propose remove photo as it will no longer be relevant within history. (Also history needs more work.)
  • (6) needs further research to confirm - 3 December was a Sunday. Opening date more likely to be 4 December.
  • (7) no Disagree This was not a livery change, but a corporate colours and logo change. Livery change occurred in 2004. Retain in current section.
  • (8) Agree but - should be 1988. Cannot find any source which confirms 1989.
  • (9) not convinced about City Bus Station, since the route services "City" itself. City Bus Station is appropriate link at Infrastructure. OK to change capitalization.
  • (10) Agree
  • (11) Agree
  • (12) & (13) no Disagree why? what is the need? MOS:TIME allows 12-hour time format.
  • (14) yes to update fares, no Disagree with time format
  • (15) Agree with tabular fleet format
  • (16) don't see the need, but won't dispute this (re HiAce)
  • (17) needs further work. Will discuss later.
  • (18) needs further work or not relevant. Will discuss later.
  • (19) Agree
  • (20) see no need to do this
  • (22) such as?
  • (23) OK where wikilinks have subsequently been moved; also where there is repetition - only provide one link once. But dispute other valid, relevant links being deleted, such as bus garage

Also, where new citations are provided, they MUST use the cite web (or other) template. There are to be no exceptions to this. MartinL-585 (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 2) no Disagree is a bit over the top wikilinking basic 1000 words. Minister isn't included, but both these words are both in the vocabulary of a 10-year old so not really needed.
  • 5) no Disagree is a good image from the past, particularly in light of the available images on Wiki Commons being heavily weighted to the present, Agree my error in not realising cite was related to prose, obviously needs to be moved from the beginning to the end of the sentence, as to the rest of the history section will leave you to it as I previously only made minimal grammar etc changes
  • 7) no Disagree changes in logo and livery are better pooled together, noteworthy yes but wouldn't consider historic
  • 8) no Disagree Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 cite states the Act received the Royal Assent on 6 December 1988, with first parliament elected on 4 March 1989,[1] believe it to be 1989 as unless there was a caretaker government, the ACT government wouldn't have existed until after the election
  • 9) Agree
  • 12 - 14) format needs to be consistent throughout, currently article has 7am and 4.30pm, needs to be either 07:00 and 16:30 or 7:00am and 4:30pm
  • 20) makes article neater by cites taking up less space, is common practice for articles with large amounts of cites, can't find source but from memory is applicable to articles with > 10 cites, imagine how the Canberra article with 290 cites would look without, ok exaggeration to make a point, but that's the reasoning
  • 22) more or less the images I previously added, so not much adding, more shuffling to correct section and beefing up and dating captions
  • 23) don't think it productive to get into a case by case analysis, but will apply the logic suggested Mo7838 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No going to go into details, changes have been made based on my previous statements. Where content has not been removed or edited does not necessarily imply that I agree with the content as written.

(7) Suggest that Mo7838 needs to learn the difference between livery, logo and corporate colours.

However, main change has been to remove all citations which did not utilize the cite web template. As mentioned above, there are no reasons for not using this template. Refer WP:Citing sources - "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it".
MartinL-585 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing cites from 59 to 31 is not constructive, consensual editing. If User:MartinL-585 is aggrieved by the format of the cites, he/she should make the effort to correct rather than deleting. If the issue is the content, then should be discussed to try and reach WP:CONSENSUS rather than just declaring "No (sic) going to go into details"
User:MartinL-585 has also in recent months added cites which have the article name as "[No heading]" per edit [2]. Either template is not fit for purpose or user error, either way editor should perhaps get his/her own house in order before delivering condescending lectures to other editors making WP:GOODFAITH posts.
If Mo7838 is not happy with the content of the citation, I suggest he/she make the effort to correct them to his/her satisfaction. The issue is the format of citations, not the content. Given that Mo7838 has been told, repeatedly, to use the correct format of citation, a condescending lecture was warranted. Nothing else has managed to get the message across. MartinL-585 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone could enlighten as to the difference between livery, logo and corporate colours? Can't think of an example where an organisation's livery bears no relation to their corporate brand, from my interpretation livery seems to confirm. I am of the belief that they are all related and best discussed in one section in an article. Happy to be proven wrong.
You are wrong. A logo can be said to be an element of a livery, but is also an element of a corporate brand. However they are all distinct items. (Maybe this is why "basic words" need to be defined.)
User:MartinL-585 can I ask that the issues be discussed as you originally requested per your post on 24 December 2013:[3]
"Before removing significant content from this page, you (Mo7838) should have had the decency to discuss it first". Mo7838 (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you're happy to throw up style rules when you think others have strayed from them, but are not willing to follow them yourself, Mo7838? It's not that hard to use cite web properly, yet you seem incapable of doing so. Edits reverted again until you are able to comply with quite simple style rules.

Should the citations not be re-instated using the correct format (cite web), then the next step is to remove all information that the citation refers to. Alternatively, the previous version of the article where citations were correctly used will be reinstated. It's NOT my responsibility to make corrections to the citations - it is the responsibility of the editor to make the citations correctly in the first place.

Yes, this is not constructive consensual editing, but I'm not the one who made wholesale changes without consent, nor am I the one who used an incorrect citation method. I'm fairly sure whose house needs to be put in order first! MartinL-585 (talk) 02:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversed for reasons as previously stated on 11 January 2014. MartinL-585 please do not reverse again without gaining consensus as a third reversal may violate 3RR and result in the article being locked again.
For the record consent was sought for the changes,[4] MartinL-585 posting a response on 30 December 2013,[5] which was responded to by User:Mo7838 within 24 hours.[6] No further correspondence being entered into, proposed changes were implemented 7 days later.Mo7838 (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, consent was sought for the changes, but on the condition that "where new citations are provided, they MUST use the cite web (or other) template." However, this was not complied with and is the matter which is (currently) at issue. As a result, consent for the changes can be said to NOT have been obtained.
As also mentioned previously, WP:Citing sources states "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it [the citation method]".
There has never been any consensus sought about changing the citation method and there would never be any consent given by myself to have differing methods in the same article. So, once more and for the last time, Mo7838 is requested to update all edits made to comply with the REQUIREMENT that citations utilise the cite web template. Is that really asking too much? Failure to do so will result in consent for ALL changes to be withdrawn and the article will be regarded as being in dispute.
However, if the citations are updated correctly, further discussion regarding content may be resumed. MartinL-585 (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014 - (1) Current status of ACTION only[edit]

To address the question about content of the article: I have given it much thought and my concerns always come back to history: what to include, what not to include, what is relevant, what is trivial. My conclusion is that it is too hard to strike the right balance between history and current day. There is too much history to cover and to do it properly - (A) may not be possible to find sources and (B) will overwhelm the article.

So, the best solution is to remove all history from the article (except where it is relevant to current day - such as opening dates of depots), and also remove any mention of unconfirmed future events. The same method should be applied to the Qcity transit and Transborder articles. A brief history section should still remain in Public transport in Canberra.

This also overcomes the problem of duplicated content between the articles and the word-for-word use of history from the Engineers Australia website.

Agreed? Good. I will make a start then.

As always: DO NOT REVERT these changes without discussing them.

MartinL-585 (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have also taken the opportunity to clean up references: removed double references - no need to have two citations both saying the exact same thing; also deleted all references which did not adhere to the correct style (as mentioned above).

A bit more work still needs to be done to fix references and tidy up the writing style. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again massive changes have been made without seeking consensus, taking cites from 59 to 33. To quote from MartinL-585 post of 24 December 2013: "Mo7838: before removing significant content from this page, you should have had the decency to discuss it first" MartinL-585 (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Childish statements like: "Agreed? Good, I will make a start then" does not qualify as an attempt to gain consensus.[7]
So you're pissed off that an attempt to have 'sanctions' applied against Mo7838 was rejected.[8] I get that, but doesn't mean the normal rules don't apply. The post is in breach of WP:3RR. As a sign of good faith, a window of 72 hours will be opened to allow the editor to reconsider their position, before any reporting process commences. Mo7838 (talk) 05:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have enough time to trawl through the various Wikipedia policies to find exactly which ones have been breached, but somehow I think the above constitutes, at the very least, uncivil behavior (ref: WP:CIVIL) and possibly WP:WikiBullying.

If Mo7838 does not agree with the changes made, then he/she needs to say so and outline the reasons. Consensus will not be achieved by continual threats to revert or to implement an article lock-out. By all means, seek a third opinion or request for comments. I have stated my reasons (above) for making the changes and stand by them: no threats will convince me to change my mind; if anything they have strengthened my opinion that the article will be improved and disputes will be lessened by removing history from the article and just concentrating on ACTION as it currently exists.

And as before, I would also ask that other editors who have contributed to the page in the past (such as Airship (whoops), Bidgee, Nick-D, Vulpini9, Busser, Chaleyer61, Somebody in the WWW and Kommissar todd06) be given an opportunity to express their opinions. MartinL-585 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Long time watcher of this page here. I agree that history should be removed. There is far too much to sum up in a paragraph or two and each person will have a different opinion on what parts should be covered. The opportunity remains to refer to historical events in context in the rest of the article but I would suggest to keep it to a passing mention with a citation to further detail. --Ry305 (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As this is an encyclopaedia article (and not ACTION's website or some kind of bus spotters' resource) it should cover the history of its subject as well as its current status and future plans. If the history is so detailed that a separate article on the topic is warranted, then a summary should be provided in the main article. That's standard for all Wikipedia articles on organisations. The coverage of the history of ACTION which has been stripped out for unclear reasons and with an aggressive edit summary doesn't look to be of an excessive length, so I'd suggest that it be re-added in some form. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that only a brief history needs to be provided as in line with other bus operator's pages, eg in line with pages for Torrens Transit or Brisbane Transport. There are specialised enthusiast sites that provide more detailed information for those who need it. Wiki articles should provide information more useful to say a kid doing a school project about ACTION, not to an extreme enthusiast wanting to know if a different transmission was trialled in a Merc O305 in 1989. Somebody in the WWW (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors are now contributing, suggest the 2 warring editors bury the hatchet and move on. The increased level of participation should allow ideas to be bounced around more, something that has been difficult to achieve with only 2 active editors. I think both have been guilty of digging heels into the ground on certain issues, and this only compounded the ill feeling.
Agree with suggestions that the article probably had become a bit too "fancrufty". I think ACTION's history, albeit perhaps a little bit less detailed, should still be carried here, rather than at Public transport in Canberra as that article is more of a 'high level' overall view. Would be like not placing the history of Melbourne in that article, but instead in the Victoria article. Mo7838 (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, a few more insights. In the context of ACTION having a near 90 year history, and comparing to other government bus operators Brisbane Transport, Metro Tasmania and Transperth (which in the interests of transparency, this editor has previously contributed to), the length of the history section in the pre-edited version [9] and level of detail was on par, although paragraphs 3 & 4 could probably be tightened up.
We are fortunate to have the Engineering Heritage Australia cite, as it does provide a concise history of the history of ACTION and its predecessors, something often all too hard to find. If I recall correctly, the cite's editor, Ian Cooper, is well versed in the history of ACT bus operations having worked in management roles at both ACTION and Deane's. While there is a fair bit of detail in the aforementioned cite, some of which maybe able to be reflected in this article, don't think there is enough to justify a separate 'History of ACTION' article.
The fleet history probably had become a bit to enthusiast focused and bogged down with detail. But probably worthy of a higher level review as portrayed in the Busways and Forest Coach Lines articles (again which this editor has been involved in). ACTION is rare in having both the ACT Bus[10] and ACT Bus Wiki[11] sites available for those interested in details. Mo7838 (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Despite probably inserting the pre-edited version of the History section myself, I have more recently had concerns with it. Firstly it was lifted word-for-word from the Engineering Heritage/ACTION history webpages. Secondly, because of this, it addressed history up to 1977 and then nothing until 2008. As I said above, and possibly elsewhere, if you are going to tackle ACTION history, either do it well and comprehensively or don't do it at all.
Which means that I would have no objections if a History of ACTION article were started: even if it started out basic - with time and effort there is plenty to cover, but obtaining source material could be tricky. (This ACTION article took quite a few years to get to its current state.) But I would advise caution about plagiarism - article should not repeat the cut-and-paste method previously used.
With that said, for this article ACTION's history can be covered in 3 paragraphs which (hopefully) will be satisfactory to all. I have inserted such into the introduction. Constructive comments welcomed.
Thanks to all editors above who have expressed their thoughts. MartinL-585 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February/March 2014 - (2) new/expanded sections[edit]

Some further changes which are needed for the article (and will be commenced at a later time) -

(1) Infrastructure needs to mention Major Bus Stops - bus stops with extended platforms and (usually) larger shelters. Some of these may be referred to as Bus Stations, but as they do not have more than two platforms, they don't qualify (IMO). Examples of these major stops include: City West, ANU (Rimmer St/Marcus Clarke St), Gungahlin (two locations), Westfield Belconnen, Barton (National Circuit).

Suggestions welcomed about an alternative name for these types of stops.

(2) Would like article to discuss NXTBUS, the real time passenger information system. Not sure how or where to start, but it is/will be a significant aspect of ACTION's operations.

(3) Would like to include a Gallery section featuring some of the photos from Wikimedia.

MartinL-585 (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Canberra Times [12] and Transport for Canberra [13] call the facility on National Circuit a bus station. Ditto the facility at the ANU [14]. ACTION calls the facility at Westfield Belconnen a bus station as well [15]. The names used to refer to these facilities should be what it is used in reliable sources, and not your personal interpretation. Large image galleries are generally a bad idea: WP:Gallery (setting up a page on Commons for this generally works better). Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why they need to be included in the article. Just listing Tugg, Woden & City leaves the article incomplete. Yes, they are all referred to as Bus Stations but some are just elongated stops. Perhaps "Major" and "Minor" bus station nomenclature? Thoughts MartinL-585 (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What alternative names are used in reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was just meaning they could be categorized as Major and Minor. Also is there a need to cater for stops (such as Kippax, Erindale and Gungahlin) which do not carry a "bus station" name which are of similar size/importance. Or do you not list any? Where is the line? Needs some more thought/discussion.MartinL-585 (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) What we need to agree on is a benchmark. Obviously the three interchanges are in, and key places ANU etc should also be included, but do we want to go down the path of listing a bus stop that merely consists of an elongated shelter either side of the road, even if it at a landmark, eg Westfield. Our civic leaders can sometimes be a bit keen on giving simple things fancy names. I would think the list need to be kept to a reasonable length, greater than 20 would be an overkill IMO.
2) Agree
3)no Disagree Think Nick-D's comment re commons is correct. The article as it stands should be able to accommodate 10 images around the prose. Given that the images available on Commons are slanted to the present or recent past, 10 is probably the limit of the number of bus types represented. Of course it would be nice if we had some older images, but we only have what we have. Mo7838 (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the bus stations, the list on ACTION's website [16] might be a good starting point on what to include. The article could discuss the "hierarchy" of ACTION bus stops if sources are available (eg, the major interchanges in the town centres -> major stops serviced by multiple routes -> suburban stops serviced by a small number or a single route), but I agree that it shouldn't get into too much detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2) Presume that NXTBUS is going to be a GPS based passenger information system that will communicate information to passengers via LED displays at bus stops as illustrated at SmartBus and via a mobile app. Can't find any reference to it on articles such as London Buses or Public Transport Victoria where such systems have been in operation for some time, although still may be worthy of inclusion.
The validity would depend on what stage the process is at. If it is just a bit of blue sky thinking, or on a wish list, probably best left out. But if it has progressed to the stage of tenders being called for or a contract entered into and a secondary cite can be sourced, then worthy of inclusion. Mo7838 (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ACTION has been developing NXTBUS over the last few years (goodness knows why it's taken so long given that it's hardly cutting-edge technology...), and it's in the process of going live at the moment. The system is meant to be fully operational sometime in the next few months. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no longer any Bus Interchanges. ACTION website states there are four main bus stations [17] - but it does not nominate which four! Have had a look at other Public Transport / bus articles, but they give little inspiration. Anyway, thinking of changing Infrastructure outline to

  • Bus Depots
  • Bus Stations
  • Major Bus Stops
  • Bus shelters

Under the Bus Stations topic, there can be expanded mention of the City + Town Centre stations/stops which operate as transport hubs. Upon reflection, Gunghalin does qualify as a hub since Route 55 departs from there.

Re: NXTBUS. Full implementation may be around April 2014, so article changes should be prepared for release then. Interesting to note that latest media release [18] refers to ANU, Barton, City West and Kippax as "bus stop" with the rest as "bus station". MartinL-585 (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for WP:RECENTISM here: the large facilities were called 'bus interchanges' for decades, and this may remain the current common usage. There's no need to draft material in advance: Wikipedia is a work in progress and text can be added and changed at any time. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image request[edit]

Hi, can somebody upload a picture of a bus running on Route 56 for a project of mine? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on ACTION. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article[edit]

Is the name ACTION still used? I can only see references to Transport Canberra (which includes light rail). Maybe the article should be called Buses In Canberra.--Grahame (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:ACTION&oldid=1197140482"