User talk:Alzarian16/Archive 2

Edit

On the same page could you changed the name clint hill so it directs to his page not another clint hill. Cheers,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Mistagged BLP cleanup

Replied on my talk page.  --Joshua Scott (formerly LiberalFascist) 18:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Lazkao Txiki

I have restored Lazkao Txiki, as you say there are plenty of ghits, even some news, but the article itself seems to make no importance claims, perhaps you can put some in! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Admin

Hello, and thank you for the kind words. Someone offered to nominate me once before, and I told them something to the effect that I didn't consider myself temperamentally suited to the role, possibly because of real-life problems at the time, but if my perception changed, I'd get back to them. And I didn't get back to them. When calm and rational, I might make a decent admin, but unfortunately it doesn't happen often enough..... So thanks, but no thanks. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Shenley Training Centre

The expansion you've done on that looks great. It's just a shame that others can't be bothered to do such a good job when creating the articles. Keep up the good work! BigDom 09:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

your stats project

First, very cool. I look forward to seeing what comes of the rest.

I've already noted, btw, that I'm curious about the specifics of the three that did get deleted. Probably too late to deal with that, but if there's a way of caching (private to yourself, so as not to much with the process) the remaining 20 or so articles for later perusal, that might (or might not be of assistance in assessing whether the deletions were problematic. Just a suggestion, no worries if you don't wanna, just a suggestion. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^talk 22:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and suggestion. It's an interesting one, although I'm not entirely sure how useful (or indeed practical) it would be in practice. As to the practicalities of it, I can think of two possible solutions: copy and paste the text into a private word document, or - if I can figure out how it works - use WebCite. Neither is ideal, as the first would be accessible only to me and the second would require a link from somewhere before deletion, which could corrupt the sample as it would mean I'd have to make the other 20 articles public. So far every deletion has been performed by User:Fences and windows, who has also sourced most of the deprodded ones, so it's a fair bet that none of them were problematic.

What I'm interested in is how you found my project in the first place. No pages link to it, and I haven't publicly mentioned it anywhere, so I'm very impressed at your detective work. My only guess would be that it appeared on a "What links here" from one of the rescued articles... Alzarian16 (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

First, your page is listed under [Category:BLP_articles_proposed_for_deletion], (redact that if you want) and it didn't look like a BLP so I took a glance. You are probably right to wonder if it'd be helpful--for the most part I did take the three deleted article names and sniff what I could find on sources, and I guess that was really the question I was getting at -- how much were we losing in terms of potentially notable, potentially sourcable articles through the process. And yeah, I doubt F&W would let anything particularly notable/sourcable past the gate.  :) Anyway, thanks for the answer, have a great weekend!--j⚛e decker^talk 01:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that was an error. I was trying to link to the category, but forgot to put the colon in. Corrected now, thanks for telling me. Alzarian16 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure!--j⚛e decker^talk 01:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

MK Coachway

There may be some reliable info buried in the www.MiltonKeynes.gov.uk or the www.miltonkeynespartnership.info sites. A cursory search didn't turn up anything but I haven't had time to try harder. Feel free if you have time. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ACE Cougar

The article ACE Cougar has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article does not meet the general notability guideline.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bigvernie (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of ACE Cougar

I have nominated ACE Cougar, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ACE Cougar. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bigvernie (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Waterspaces

Hi, please can you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Waterspaces and add any comments you might have. Thanks :) Raywil (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I missed this thanks to that two-week break. I'll keep an eye on it for the future though, thanks for the note. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we all need a break sometimes! You didn't miss it by much if you take a look at the case archive though. Raywil (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Stagecoach Midlands

Sorry, you are of course right, I was correcting myself when you did it for me. I suppose someone needs to rejig the templates, etc now.--Mhockey (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. We do indeed need to sort out the Stagecoach template, and I wonder if an article on Stagecoach Midlands might be a good idea too. It should take the place of Stagecoach Warwickshire on the template at any rate. Possibly most important of all is to mention it on Stagecoach in Northants, which nobody's done yet. I'm thinking we should source it all to Buses Magazine instead of the press release as independent sources are generally preferred. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy to leave that to you, although I would suggest leaving the source as the company press release (which has to be reliable as the source of the company announcement). It's presumably where Buses Magazine got its initial info from. --Mhockey (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. I was thinking in terms of establishing notability, which none of the Stagecoach articles do especially well, but this probably isn't the right issue to start with. I've done the template and the Northants article; a new divisional article might prove harder as there isn't that much material. I'm tempted to suggest merging Stagecoach in Warwickshire and Stagecoach in Northants, but that would need much more discussion. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Neil Renilson

The article Neil Renilson has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I'm not seeing anything to explain what makes this person notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've reverted your PROD of Neil Renilson because he's received significant coverage in at least eight reliable sources and won an award. I can sort of see a delete argument, but I think it needs further discussion. Feel free to try an AfD if you want. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I noted those things, however they don't in themselves make him notable. The article also needs a lot of editing for tone, and removal of some irrelevant information (like his salary). Exploding Boy (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't they? Then I've been misinterpreting WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO for a long time. I've removed the salary information though, as I think you're right about that. I only included it because all the sources seemed to. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Lots of people get written about in newspapers, win awards and earn large salaries; they don't necessarily merit an encyclopedia entry. Anyway, I could be completely off base on this one, but I'm going to list the article for deletion and we can see what others think. Cheers. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not be too hard on Exploding Boy, although he's an admin, he's busy in real life and might not be quite up to date with the very latest developments on BLP. I've pointed out some of his own creations that have been tagged for a long time, and if I get time I might just help if I can, although they are not really in my subject line, except perhaps for translating some of his German sources for him. BTW, if you ever need any German or French sources checking out or translating, don't hesitate to ask.--Kudpung (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kudpung

Thank you for the kind words. If you continue to contribute in the same manner, it might be me who will be supporting your RfA in a few months time ;) --Kudpung (talk) 06:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Very nice of you to say so! And BTW, 49 is not too old to become and admin. There is no "too old" - or at least not one that any self-respecting 'crat would take any notice of. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Edgehead

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martial Bedi Esmel

See the comment I added to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martial Bedi Esmel. Looks like clear evidence he played in a CAF Champions League game. Nfitz (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed my comment in accordance. I'd love to know how you found it though - it doesn't even use the same form of his name! Alzarian16 (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't have much luck at first, but I figured there must be some media coverage of the other 3 games ... so I searched Google for barolle sewe bedi and out it popped. Nfitz (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your Flackwell Heath edit summary "I should use preview more..."

What was that you were saying?!? -- role^player 16:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice one! 35 edits to add 3000 bytes is probably a record of some kind... :) The difference is, of course, that you totally rewrote a poorly sourced biography and turned it into a fairly strong article in the space of two hours. I added one sentence and a link with a typo... Alzarian16 (talk) 16:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Hello Alzarian16, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 65/4/3.
I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations, do my best for Wikipedia, and take to heart the constructive criticism. Always feel free to message me if I'm around.

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

Hi mate..

I just had to give you this, for giving me a good laugh!
The Userbox you made is simply pure genius!

This user has been awarded a barnstar for their contributions to WikiProject Userboxes.

Skibden (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad someone's noticed it - it had no transclusions for quite a long time. I should probably do some more, except that one wouldn't apply to me any more :) Alzarian16 (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If you keep making the same quality userbox's you can't fail! ;-) Skibden (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fleet line

Heya, hate to be a pain but I noticed you have changed this artical to a redirect. I can fully see why what with the text being duplicated, but the idea was to seperate a quite complex and fairly seperate part of the lines history from the main page where it would be less appropriate. Not too sure how the text on the Jubilee page came to be identical though, could have sworn I edited that down. There seemed to be some agreement that keeping the articals seperate and thus simpler would be slightly preferential; and it also allows the railway schematic to be displayed for the Fleet line. I'm actually currently working on graphics for its page aswell. Its not going to be a problem if I revert and do something to the Jubilee line to show this is it?

Thanks!

OutrageousBenedict (talk) 07:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I only really redirected it because it was totally redundant, so I wouldn't mind if you split it back out so long as you cut down the Jubilee's paragraph a bit. The Jubilee line's article's too long anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange question

A bit of a bizarre question I know, but when you were in Milton Keynes and took those photos (some of which you have uploaded), you didn't happen to photograph purple Optare Solo YN03 NCF did you?! I ask because the bus has recently moved to Arriva Guildford & West Surrey, and I thought that it would be nice (if you happen to have photographed it) if we had before and after photos. File:MK Metro bus 58.jpg also came down here last year, and I have a photo of that in Guildford, so I thought it would be good if we could do the same with the Solo.

Obviously, if you don't have a photo of that bus, then don't worry, I just thought it would be worth asking. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Nah, no luck there I'm afraid. I saw a couple of Solos, and caught one from Buckingham into MK, but they were all green and I didn't picture any of them. It might be worth looking on Flickr though - I'm sure someone will have it! Alzarian16 (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. The majority of Flickr images are copyrighted so I'd never thought of looking there yet. Lo and behold, of the two image of that bus I found, one was freely licensed! Of only five photos they have in their photostream from MK, it just happens that the Solo was one of them. Lucky or what! Thanks for the suggestion. It turns out that the Flickr user is User:Hassocks5489/Voice of Hassocks on commons, hence the images are freely licensed. I've now uploaded the image File:MK Metro 2446 YN03 NCF.jpg, would yo agree with the name and putting in the the MK Metro category, rather than the Arriva Shires one, as 2010 is the major turning point in the MK Metro -> Arriva transition I'd say? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good picture. How strange that it should be available when so little else is! I'm inclined to agree that MK Metro is probably the right category, since that was still the trading name at the time (I catted File:MK Metro 3621 YN55 PZY.jpg under it for the same reason). Based on how few pre-rebranding images we have, I'm going to add that to MK Metro as well. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FA Premier League satellite decoder case

A merge proposal has been put forward here. Thanks. —Half Price 11:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've supported it. Thanks for the note. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Lindisfarne template

Good job on producing this, its about time.--SabreBD (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Nice that someone's noticed it... Alzarian16 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Alzarian (or Stephen, which seems to be your real name (?)). Thank you for "pushing me" to a really interesting experience :) Now I'm back at work. Let me know if I can be of any help. Happy editing :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No trouble. It was a pretty easy nomination to write, your contribs pretty much spoke for themselves. Good luck! Alzarian16 (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Tillingbourne.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Tillingbourne.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I've fixed this now. If anyone knows better, tell me! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Alzarian16. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--The Utahraptor^{Talk to me}/_{Contributions} 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've replied by email, so you'd better check yours as well :) Thanks for the message. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tillingbourne Bus Company

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purbeck Breezer

Purbeck Breezer‎: PROD or Speedy? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Or merge or expand?! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 11:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Can't think of a speedy that would apply. A7 would be the closest, but it doesn't cover bus routes. Sources are proving hard to come by, nothing in Google News or Google Books and only the company's site on a basic search. Maybe enough content to justify a few lines at Services of Wilts & Dorset? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

On a similar topic, take a look at Category:Bus routes in Strathclyde. It consists entirely of poorly formatted articles about non-notable Glasgow Citybus routes sourced only to the company's website. They've existed for almost two years now. Redirect or PROD? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best we can do is a few lines in Services of Wilts & Dorset, as you say. That's what I had in mind. It is a significant sub brand, and if Activ8 (which uses buses in normal livery with route branding) is there, then Purbeck Breezer should be as well I suppose.

As for bus routes in Strathcylde, they definitely needed to go. None of the articles have been touched since December 2009, so there is little chance of anyone trying to reinstate the articles if they are redirected. Therefore, I have redirected all three to Glasgow Citybus. If we both have them on our watchlists we should spot any trouble. All three articles were non-notable as you say, and apart from linking to each other, there were no links to any of the pages (not even from Glasgow Citybus itself!) The cat can be Speedied per CSD#C1 after four days of it being empty, so it's probably best to just leave it for four days and then tag it. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Ipswitch Buses

I thought I'd ask on the offchance, you don't have any current photos of Ipswich Buses vehicles do you, that could answer this photo request? I've checked Flickr but to no avail sadly. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I can't help there. Although I have been to Ipswich on a few occassions, I've never bothered with Ipswich Buses as there fleet is so modern. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, worth a try! Re the above about the Scottish bus routes, the category is now gone. Problem solved! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea I should have thought of earlier. A few weeks ago I came across the recently-created List of bus routes in Cambridge (which could do with some work itself...). That led me to User:Adam mugliston and User:Wilbysuffolk , both of whom live in the area and have a history of editing pages related to local buses. I don't know if they have any photos of the company, but it might be worth asking. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirects without discussion

• I guess it depends on the circumstances; redirects are usually the best of both worlds, since the article gets preserved in the history, while at the same time it's made clear to not start more such articles, and someone can always undo a redirect if there's something significant about the subject. If there is some suggestion of significance (arguably, an episode that would introduce a major fictional character would be more notable than a run of the mill show), then it probably should be put to a vote.

One of the reasons that I brought it up at all was to respond to Ultra's statement of "You'll note that this was redirected", by pointing out that no precedent had been set by the redirect of another episode. I hate to refer to someone else's statement as "irrelevant", simply because I think it's rude, almost another way of telling someone to shut up; I think it's a useful suggestion, but not relevant to the question of whether the subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Mandsford 16:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good answer. The nature of redirecting means that it does tend to be undone if someone cares about the topic enough. Plus Bus route 812 was one case where I decided to improve the article instead of redirecting on the basis of a revert - I wasn't really convinced by the case for notability, but there were enough sources to make it a lower priority than many others. But in the case of Category:National Express Coach routes, where an single-purpose account who admits to working for the company involved changed nineteen existing redirects into unreferenced stubs, redirecting the non-notable majority was never going to be controversial. On the other hand, sometimes trying to redirect first can make it harder to delete later, such as here. And all that from one samll topic area... Alzarian16 (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Blue Bus of Bolton

Hi there - just so you know, the reason for the original text on the Blue Bus page being similar to the http://www.freewebs.com/blue-bus/history.htm text is because it is the same article. I wrote the article on the Freewebs site - it is a slightly enhanced version of the text I wrote for the official Blue Bus website when I worked for the company (I was responsible for that site from its launch to the Arriva takeover) and it was myself that input the text onto this page.

Therefore, there is no issue with Copyright violation, as I technically own the Copyright to the text. I put the Wikipedia page together from scratch, and have had difficulty with other users over this page, which nearly ended up with me deleting the page. Please do revert the text back to the original, as it took a lot of time to put it together! --Nicholas Lawley (njlawley) 16 November 2010 22:08

That would explain it! There's still one slight problem: to prevent misuse we have a policy regarding use of copyrighted material by the copyright holder, Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Basically, you'll have to add a note to the Freewebs page to say that it can be reused, or alternatively email the site's owners to tell us that we can use the text. Would you be able to do either of those? Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Done! I've stuck a GNU agreement on the page footer, so hopefully that will cover it! --Nicholas Lawley (njlawley) 17 November 2010 19:33 —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC).

Excellent, thanks for that. That should sort out any residual copyright concerns. Now we just have to decide which version we like better... and I'm guessing both of us prefer the one we wrote, so we should probably ask someone uninvolved. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 204

Hi there. In the article London Buses route 204, you reverted my changes because of no sources. But why are sources needed for THIS article? I mean, we all know that it is a London Bus and that it exists, because, where did all the information and images come from then?

Also, with no sources, I would rather not revert it, because the article does contain a lot of information in the 'History' section, and if someone reverts it, all the information would be gone. Remember, this is Wikipedia. We have to add as much information and detail as we can to articles, so we better just keep the article, even though it has no sources, rather than just removing all the info.

P.S., please reply me in my talk page. Thank you. --TransportJone (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Hybrid buses in London

Gatoclass (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 71

Why isn't [[1]] or [[2]] considerred unreliable? C.bonnick (talk) 18:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that they fall under WP:SELFPUB. There was some discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#London bus route articles, and pretty much everyone seemed to agree that we should avoid them where possible. Normally I wouldn't mind too much, but given what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 71 we need to be extra careful with that one (and the first of those links was in the article when it was deleted and did it no good then). What we really need are news or book sources about the route, but I can't find anything for the 71. I'm thinking of asking whether or not Eplates would be OK since it cites its sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, those two sites look reliable to me. So if you can't use them what can you use? There is not much sites that focus on London Buses is their. C.bonnick (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have thought they would be OK, but apparently they aren't quite good enough. That said, it should be acceptable to use them to verify the history when other aspects of the route are notable. The best case scenario would be to source everything to one of the books about the topic, but they're pretty hard to get hold of and I don't think any of us has a copy. For now we're best off redirecting the ones that don't have the required level of coverage, and recreating them if we find it. That should at least preserve the obviously notable ones without risking mass deletions. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess so. Thanks for the reply and the info.

By the way I've used [[3]] and [[4]] as references for:

• London Buses route 79
• London Buses route 82
• London Buses route 169
• London Buses route 204
• London Buses route 226

Should they be redirects. C.bonnick (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends what other sources are available. (Those are much less bad than some I could name by the way.) 169 and 226 should definitely redirect, and 204 looks pretty clear cut too. 82 is borderline as it does have some other sources, but I couldn't find much that was directly about the route so I would support a redirect there. I haven't looked at 79 before but there doesn't seem to be much around (this was the best I could find). Alzarian16 (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)