Talk:Articulated buses in London

Neutrality
this article is not neutral, much of it reads like campaign material from boris johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.44.170 (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, and have added a tag concerning the issue. Many of the arguments shown have no counter argument. Some of the content - link the fires section - is good, but others (like the safety) is in my view biased. Arriva436talk 20:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My substantive original version was quite NPOV in my opinion, but during the election there were many minor POV additions and a little edit war, and I always intended to bring it back to a proper version, but it was put on my back burner. I might get round to fixing it, but in the mean time, I suggest the version corresponding to my last major contrib here was quite neutral, if anyone is looking to fix it right now. I neither like them or hate them, to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 23:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could do that one day it would be great - I would but I have no real knowledge. I have had a look at past versions of the page and they seem to be much less POV. I don't see anything wrong with them, Boris campaign supported by the unsupported hatred by the Evening Standard seems to have let a couple of POV edits creep in... In the meantime, I will leave the tag up to warn people. Arriva436talk 09:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral? look at the bloody thing! how could anybody justify such an insane design? it'd be like the article on wheels giving equal weight to the idea of square ones 82.153.230.146 (talk) 16:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Even so, Wikipedia has to have the article neutral, as per policy otherwise it wouldn't be an encyclopedia, more a soap box. Opinions need to stay out of it. Arriva436talk 19:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this is not a nuetral article. It reads like a campaign against Boris because it minimises the negatives of the bendy buses whilst emphasising things like the cost of replacement while not mentioning the cost of implementing them in the first place. £12 to replace with new route masters. What was the cost to install them in the first place? This article has a more balanaced coverage of the cost issues - http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100122783/100122783/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.77.152 (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way does this read like a campaign against Boris? It covers both the positive and negative aspects of the buses, and presents the withdrawal just about as neutrally as it's possible to given how divisive the issue is. The source you linked to is an opinion piece by Andrew Gilligan, a noted critic of Ken Livingstone, so while it would be good for verifying a few sentences about the positions of supporters of the withdrawal, I don't think it would be considered particularly reliable as a source of hard facts like the cost issue. There's a bit more info at WP:NEWSORG that explains it better than I can. Alzarian16 (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

PVR
Can someone in the know please explain or link to "PVR" and remove my "jargon" tag? This is in the "planned withdrawal" bit. Our disambiguation page PVR was not entirely helpful here, though interesting ... Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * PVR = Peak Vehicle requirement, the most amount of vehicles on that day User:Dudleybus User talk:Dudleybus 12:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks, sorted. Cheers DBaK (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization of "bus" in gallery
Hi. Is there a reason why the word "bus" is capitalized so much in the gallery? I feel that Too Many Capitals Make Wikipedia Look Like a Victorian Concert Programme, and that it probably breaks the WP:MOS. I don't want to go off on a wild campaign against them without the opportunity for discussing it, but I'm honestly having difficulty understanding why the caps are there. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Articulated buses in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8165471.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304043549/http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk:80/document/3526/get to http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/document/3526/get

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Articulated buses in London. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.standard.co.uk/news/scrap-the-bendy-bus-and-bring-back-routemasters-says-boris-6642674.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/projectsandschemes/technologyandequipment/anewbusforlondon/next-steps.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203010927/http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2011/12/final-bendy-buses-banished-from-the-streets-of-london to http://www.london.gov.uk/media/mayor-press-releases/2011/12/final-bendy-buses-banished-from-the-streets-of-london

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)