Talk:Coach (bus)

Coach (disambiguation) proposal
Should "Coach" really go here instead of Coach (disambiguation), given all the other uses? Bayerischermann 00:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm with you on this; Coach (vehicle) redirects here, it should be the article title with Coach being a disambiguation page. There is a ton of articles that incorrectly link to this page as it stands now.--Lordkinbote 17:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up
The grammar in this article is really starting to slip!--Lordkinbote 19:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. --  tariq abjotu  (joturner) 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)
Coach to Coach (vehicle)
 * Coach (disambiguation) to Coach
 * When I think of "coach", I think more of the athletic variety. Existing discussion on Talk:Coach seems to confirm that the vehicle is not the most appropriate article to reside at just plain Coach.  Since there are so many different usages, the existing disambiguation page ought to reside on the "main" title.  Thus my proposal is to give Coach a parenthetical title of Coach (vehicle) (a redirect already exists to Coach from this location), and to move Coach (disambiguation) into the "main" position.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support the proposal to move the disambig to Coach and move the current article to Coach (vehicle). Slambo (Speak) 02:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Reaffirm my Support originally indicated above.--Lord Kinbote 04:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Vegaswikian 17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Usgnus 20:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes perfect sense. Kafziel 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coach (vehicle) is the principal meaning of the word. Athletic "Coaches" are a specialization of Coach; "A private tutor who prepares a candidate for an examination. (Septentrionalis 16:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody here is saying that sports coaches are the only kind of coach; we're just talking about moving the disambiguation page here so people can find the meaning they're looking for. Kafziel 16:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely my point. I'm not saying that sports coaches are the only kind of coach.  I'm just saying that for me, that's the first definition that comes to mind, rather than this one.  I'm just saying with so many different uses of the term, that the "main" title should carry the dab page rather than any one of the various uses.  Basically just a little organizational change.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scope of article
Should this article not primarily be about the vehicle not about scheduled services that use this sort of vehicle. There is surely enough content to populate an article about the history of the vehicle, details of manufacturers of the vehicle, typels of vehicle, also their environmental performance etc etc. I would propose to pull out the information about scheduled coach services into a separate article. PeterEastern (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I am now starting to rework the article to focus it on the vehicle itelf. I have also proposed a split for the section discussing scheduled transport (see section below). There is still a lot more history and content still to add to the article and it needs work to ensure that a global perspective is reached. It should include details of the distinctive vehicles used in countries such as India and the Philippines to name but two.PeterEastern (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Split 'Coach (Scheduled transport)'
I am proposing a new article to discuss the various forms of scheduled transport using motorcoaches over time and currently to allow this article to focus on the vehicle itself (see above).PeterEastern (talk) 09:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would support it as long as it is going to be a global (World Wide view) article (Coach (scheduled transport)) rather then the current Americanised section that currently exists in this article. Bidgee (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Very much so. It may be hard to achieve but will not be of much value if it isn't. We should however accept that initially it will contain details of only a few countries and will need to tagged as being 'non-representative' or whatever. The details of coach travel for each country can be covered by suitable articles for that country as we have done with Coach transport in the United Kingdom (which I have been working on in the past week of two). My main motivation currently is to create a focused world-wide article for the vehicle itself, however I am also happy to put some effort into the proposed 'Coach (scheduled transport)' article to get it off in the right direction. This is on the assumption that we agree on the move and the title and scope of the new article. Possibly we create a stub article for 'Coach transport in the United States' with the bulk of the existing content put into that article. PeterEastern (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The split has now been completed. The new article still doesn't provide a world view and I will tag it appropriately. PeterEastern (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Name?
Now looking the pictures in the article, isn't this 'coach' essentially a bus? I would definitely say yes. But, if this has/will have an own article, there should be a clear explanation of the difference of bus and coach. Maybe a part of dictionary entry could be here. 85.217.42.69 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added further clarification to the lead with a wlink to the bus article. I believe the different design elements and purpose makes it a valid subject for a separate article. PeterEastern (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * More appropriately termed "Motor Coach", as in "Motor Vehicle". It comes out of the category of buses, and so is a type of bus. - KitchM (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Move. The only opposition is based on questioning the fact that a coach is a type of bus; but of course it is. Born2cycle (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Coach (vehicle) → Coach (bus) – There are at least two other types of vehicles called a coach: Coach (carriage) and Coach (rail). (A hearse can also be called a coach.) I don't think this type, the bus, is overwhelmingly more likely than the others to be associated with the word "coach." Using the disambiguator "(bus)" instead of "(vehicle)" seems to me to be a much clearer title to allow users to distinguish between the multiple articles/meanings. Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Support a move from the current title per nom. If another disambiguator were to be posited, I would consider it as well.  —  AjaxSmack   15:42, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose That would be fine if a coach was a sort of bus, but I don't think it is. I am about to attend a exhibition called 'coach and bus' which implies that they are different types of vehicle rather than one being a type of the other. The Scottish government has statistics for 'buses and coaches' which again implies that they are different. Eurobus, another major EU exhibition describes itself as covering 'every aspect of bus and coach operation'. Can we think of a different disambiguation word? PeterEastern (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Perhaps Coach (motorbus) or Coach (motorcoach). But Coach (bus) is more succint. There are definitely other types of coaches that are not this but still vehicles. 65.94.77.207 (talk) 04:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support move to Coach (bus). Bottom line, it is a type of bus.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Support While not all buses are coaches, coaches in this context are buses.-- Club Oranje T 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Is a coach a type of bus?
Is a coach a type of bus? My view (see above) is that it is not but am happy to be convinced otherwise. The lead has just been adjusted to indicate that it is a type of bus and the proposed move also implies that it is. PeterEastern (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I first looked at this article while working on the Coach disambiguation page. I saw the statement "Unlike buses which are designed for shorter journeys, coaches often have..." and read it to mean that a coach and a bus are different things. Then I noticed that:


 * The article is in Category:Types of buses;
 * The article is listed in Template:Buses in the "bus configuration" category;
 * The Bus article says: "The most common type of bus is the single-decker bus, with larger loads carried by double-decker buses and articulated buses, and smaller loads carried by midibuses and minibuses; coaches are used for longer distance services" which I read as indicating that a coach is a type of bus;
 * The Bus article also says: "Buses may be used for scheduled bus transport, scheduled coach transport, school transport, private hire, tourism." If buses are used for scheduled coach transport, that would seem to indicate that coaches are buses.
 * In short, there seemed to be lots of indications that a coach is a bus, and upon rereading that first sentence I mentioned, I took the actual intent of the sentence to be not "Unlike buses, coaches have..." but instead "Unlike [this type of bus], [this other type of bus] often have..." Hence my editing to clarify.
 * I can say that, as far as my personal experience goes, I expect that anywhere in the United States, this vehicle would absolutely be referred to as a bus. It might also be called a coach, but I'd be shocked if anyone blinked at calling it a bus.
 * --Theoldsparkle (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Powers T 23:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's an ENGVAR issue here too as User:Theoldsparkle notes. Many English speakers use the term "bus" instead of "coach" so the proposed title should be fine for them.  The question is how incongruous it is for those speakers who do use "coach" to consider it a type bus (also note WP:COMMONALITY).  —  AjaxSmack   03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that within Wikipedia there are indications that a coach is considered to be a type of bus, but we should be looking to reliable 3rd party references for evidence not to Wikipedia itself. I do also agree that in common language some people do refer to a coach as a bus, but lets check the entomology and official uses as well. Dictionaries might be useful. It will be useful to see how the term is used in countries other than the UK, in particular USA official transport resources. This isn't personal, and I will be happy to go with the evidence, but lets check and document the evidence first and then make the move. The fact that it is 'Greyhound bus' not 'Greyhound coach' and 'Megabus' not 'Megacoach' supports the proposed move btw. PeterEastern (talk) 05:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I understand your concern for accuracy, my priority (as someone who concerns herself with disambiguation) is generally to make things less ambiguous for actual users. That is to say, if there are a thousand users who would look at the title Coach (bus) and say "Ah, that's the article I'm looking for!", and ten users who would look at that title and say, "But a coach isn't the same thing as a bus according to The Official Government Transportation Glossary!", I'm inclined to side with the thousand users over the ten wonks (no offense to wonks), especially if the wonks would still be able to tell, from the possibly inaccurate title, what the article was about. Of course, the optimum title would be both easily understood and completely technically accurate. But my biggest concern is whether there is a significant English-speaking population who would be looking for the article about this topic and wouldn't be able to tell, from the title Coach (bus), whether it was the right article. (FWIW, dictionary.com, m-w.com and Wiktionary all seem to define a coach as being a bus.) Theoldsparkle (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am happy with your justification for moving that article to coach(bus) for identification purposes. Within the article I hope we can maintain the clarification that they are different vehicle coming under different regulations. Coaches in the EU need to pass roll-over safety tests, buses do not etc. PeterEastern (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There may be a confusion between 2 meanings for "bus": "bus-type vehicle" and "vehicle used as a regular routine bus service". Ref in 3rd-world countries lorries (USA: trucks) used as buses, often with an ornamental native-made cover on the back. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is currently scoped as being about vehicles used for "for conveying passengers on excursions and on longer distance express coach scheduled transport between cities - or even between countries". Are we happy with this scope? if so then we only need to agree the title and disambiguation. If not then lets discuss scope. I would suggest that the ornamental converted trucks are indeed in scope if they are used for conveying passengers longer distances using the current scope. PeterEastern (talk)

Drive Train
There needs to be some explanation of the drive train used in motor coaches. - KitchM (talk) 04:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge tag
Strongly oppose I'm saying no for a couple of reasons. The main bus article effectively serves as a disambiguation article, listing all types of buses; this is one of them. Going off of a couple of sections of the talk page here, there has been a movement over the years clearly focusing on the direction of what the page title means, largely eliminating any confusion.

Merging this into the main bus article proves no bus article proves no real purpose, only eliminating content more effectively explained here. (granted, this article is in need of attention) --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * because the merge proposal template points people to Talk:Bus, I've started a discussion section there. Mortee (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus - many disagreements here on the ambiguity side, etc.  Red   Slash  07:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Coach (bus) → Motorcoach – WP:NATURAL Needforspeed888 (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Support as reasonably common unambiguous term for the subject. Dicklyon (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Coach is way more popular than Motorcoach, anyways I'm pretty sure motorcoach is two words (motor coach). – Brandon XLF  (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Besides which motorcoach is also ambiguous per Motor coach. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, Coach (bus) does not meet all the criteria for a proper article title; Motorcoach (WP:NATURAL) does a better job of doing so. While this article will always be left with an ambiguous title, moving the page is an improvement upon that (and leaves the existing disambiguation page alone).  --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:49, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

 Rema goxer  (talk) 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)