Talk:List of buses/Archive 1

Table format
If editors want tables with fields, now's the time. I'm not a bus person, but here are some suggestions:


 * Capacity
 * Power something-or-other
 * Manufacturer
 * Countries serviced
 * Year entered service

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Sample table
Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion on the article.
I personally think that this list could be helpful, but care needs to be taken that the list remains helpful, but not cumbersome.

I'd recommend the following columns, and not much else.
 * Manufacturer
 * Model/Nickname (ex. Fishbowl or New Look)
 * Country of manufacture
 * First produced
 * Last produced
 * Dimensions (width/length)
 * Fuel types used
 * Notes (covers most else)

I think it'd be a healthy start, and with the exception of the notes column, it's easily sortable, and not apt to be overfilled with trivial entries.

A little input from others?

--Allamericanbear (talk) 20:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks for the suggestions. After input from others, I would be happy to do the table formatting work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There have been a huge number of different bus models over the last 100 years or so, and the article lists a very small number. It might be better to restrict the article to just the manufacturers, with the various models listed on the article about the manufacturer, as has been done at Bristol Commercial Vehicles. In this way the article could be made akin to List of car brands. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. There are also lists at List of Leyland buses, List of AEC buses, and possibly other places. The downside is that visitors won't get an overall sortable picture. But, as you say, there are too many buses to do that anyway. Also, to prevent the redundancy of a detailed expansion here and at the manufacturer's article, I agree with your suggestion.


 * If this list will thus only contain bus model (and year (per other such lists)), then the sortable table format would only serve to group years. We could forego that in favour of breaking the list into sections for each manufacturer so that we could include a main for each where applicable. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (I'm actually questioning the need for this article. What does this list do that categories and each manufacturer article does not?) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * So you can see ALL bus models in one page. You could sort the table to see the oldest, highest capacity, etc. --213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you any idea just how many there are? I linked Bristol Commercial Vehicles above. That is just one manufacturer, and I see 47 models of bus (and two models of lorry). The list would be huge. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How many are there that have articles? Maybe we could list only those? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good idea --213.107.74.132 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually looking at the article and thinking that the possibility of splitting the article into regions, something like "North American" and "European" buses. Assuming that split alone would at least halve the size of the article, AND as mentioned, allow the article to be a springboard for additional articles, since there are possible articles out there that have not been done.  Limiting the potential of the list will only decrease the value of the article, imho.   --Allamericanbear (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of that, because it gives is the opportunity for future mains. But then it will hurt the global sorting. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems
I've noticed that here are 2 Wrightbuses. There were also 2 Volvo B7R, I removed 1 of them.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Please remove! --213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the AFD tag cannot be removed until the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of buses has been formally closed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The lede
What do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What was that?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead section could use a bit of expansion. I just don't know what to write. I'm not a bus person. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Before getting too much further into the editing...some thoughts.
Although I don't mind the article, which I think could be a starting point for new articles, I see a few issues that may keep this eligible for a tag of Afd.

I propose cleaning up the table to that only important information is shown, and if there's smaller entries such as types of engine, transmission, and similar items, those get put in the main article for individual buses.

As mentioned in a previous section, I'm cautioning to offer the usage (in order), the manufacturer, the model, the production years (especially if not manaufactured as of present), and possibly a notes section. In addition, if users are able to sort a table, the length, width, and possibly height could be made into columns so to provide maybe the tallest, longest/shortest, and widest/narrowest models.

As for the introduction, a introductory sentence directing users to the article bus should be sufficient. The table can also have links to individual manufacturers and models, when available. Additionally, if a user would place a thumbnail of particular buses, I could see that as a way to avoid plugging a gallery into the article and deal with an ever-changing supply of pictures because on prefers one of model over anothers...

I'd get started on the article myself, but I've been a little busy as of lately and am unable to tackle such a change. Any thoughts?

--Allamericanbear (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we have almost all of what you've suggested already covered. The thumbnail idea is good. I like that. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I added the image column per your suggestion. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

.JPEG
Why not add more pictures?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi 213: Sorry to edit during your inuse. I didn't see it. Usually editors add it to the top. Also, consider using edit summaries. As you can see, I added an image column. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: You have to remove the either side of the image in order for it to appear. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI again: See how I did the first one, and copy that format. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * THERE IS AN !!!!!


 * Sorry. I didn't see you added it back. Go right ahead. I'm finished. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest keeping all the columned images the same size (at around 70px or so). Plus, I'm not sure the gallery at the bottom will last. I suspect it will eventually be removed by consensus. It might be best to discuss its presence here first, before committing a lot of time to it. Best wishes, and thanks for the edits. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Quote:

I suggest keeping all the columned images the same size (at around 70px or so).
 * If you do that, there will be a gap to the right of the image. I prefer 115-120px.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Each sized individually. However you like. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow! I really like the 120. Nice and clear. I hope others approve. This could turn out to be quite a nice article. I wonder if we can organize some bus enthusiasts to help fill in all the images. A picture says a thousand words. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Type
We have a column headed "Type", which is explained at the bottom as "Types: SD=single-decker, DD=double-decker, MB=minibus, C=coach". Things are more complicated than that. This is principally because of the division of construction which was normal in several countries (such as the UK): one manufacturer would build the chassis, fitting it with either their own engine or a proprietary engine. The complete chassis would then be sent to a different factory for the bodywork to be built. For instance, AEC built only chassis (most of which were fitted with AEC engines), so the row for the AEC Regent V should have something denoting that it was a chassis suitable for double-deck bodywork manufactured elsewhere. Similarly, Duple built only bodywork, this being fitted to a variety of chassis makes and types, so the row for the Duple Dominant should have something denoting that it was a single-deck coach body suitable for fitment to chassis manufactured elsewhere.

The integral-construction bus (chassis and body made as a single unit) was a relative latecomer, the earlier major British examples being the Routemaster (chassis and body built by Park Royal Vehicles, into which were fitted AEC running gear (engines, transmission, axles etc.)); the Leyland National (all-Leyland); and the MCW Metrobus (built by Metropolitan-Cammell Weymann, but with choice of Cummins, Gardner or Rolls-Royce engines). Integrals are quite common nowadays, but before about 1972, you wouldn't see many of them outside London.

So, should we note these as e.g. "SD chassis", "DD body", "DD integral"? -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Ordering on list.
I've noted that the model precedes the manufacturer in the table. Isn't it a bit better to place the manufacturer before the actual model? I refer to vehicles in that order...such as "Ford Fairlane", "GMC Jimmy" or "Toyota Camry", not the other way around.

Otherwise, the table is actually looking like it's a great start.

--Allamericanbear (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that. I quite like the bus name, then image, manufacturer...etc. After all, the name of the article is List of buses. Plus, it's a sortable table. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Same images
Scania OmniTown and Scania N94 are identical. What gives? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

--213.107.74.132 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Gallery
I'd like to remove it. Objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 *  No thank you! Keep it!!!!! You can see loads more bus photos in one place! --213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I really think it is redundant, and makes an already large article too large. Other editors are very welcome to give an opinion here. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There are two things you can do to make it more complete:
 * 1.Keep (or even add about 50-100 to) The Bus Gallery.
 * 2.Include even models with red links.
 * It will make it massive, but so what! --213.107.74.132 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I am thinking in the other direction (removing it all together.) Please get consensus here before modifying it. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * NO!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Removal agreed, see WP:IG. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO The Gallery is good, because you can see 20-200 pictures at once! If you delete it, make a seperate article with just the gallery.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 213., I recommend reading "What Wikipedia is Not", before adding or deleting content from pages, offering suggestions on new articles. This may answer a number of questions about basics regarding what belongs on Wikipedia, and does not belong on Wikipedia.  Cheers.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 213: Please. You are now adding to the gallery. Please leave it until we agree on whether or not it should exist. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The gallery is redundant if we have thumbnails of buses already in the table list. Not necessary, have my vote to remove.  --Allamericanbear (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe remove it, but make it a separate article.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Again WP:IG, & WP:NOTREPOSITORY. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove per lack of providing encyclopediac value beyond what's in the table (scope of this article) and don't put anywhere else (because I can't think of an article where it would be appropriate, per previous editors' comments). WP:IG is the general guideline here. But also, if there a bunch of other bus images on commons, it's a perfect place to use a Commons category portal-link. DMacks (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There are four editors who think the gallery should go. I doubt very much if several will come along and argue for it to remain. I will remove the gallery. 213: I'm sorry that you put work into it. It's just already such a long list, and this gallery is redundant. I hope you understand. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

{inuse}
Why did someone else add an inuse?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Images
I added all I could find. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

AfD
Can I remove the AfD yet?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You have been complaining about the deletion for days but haven't even bothered to comment in that discussion about whether it should be deleted. Wikipedia thrives on participation in discussions. DMacks (talk) 13:04, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the discussion page? Link please!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here: Articles for deletion/List of buses Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You actually found your way there before. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Total entries
Just for the record, I think there are 337 at this time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Work with column width.
I came up to a bit of a problem, testing out if I could could tweak the column percentages from one to give some to another. Fortunately, I previewed and didn't screw it up badly.

I'd like to propose merging two columns, "manufacturer" and "year" into one, so that models with different manufacturers over time aren't redundant, as in the case of the "Classic" series.

Any input? I'm looking at a HUGE table, and don't want to mess around with it too much if someone's going to change it back due to personal preferences.

Cheers.

--Allamericanbear (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to tweak column widths.


 * Merging columns: Interesting point. My first thought is that total sortability is enormously valuable, and should supersede other concerns. Let's see what others say. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

School buses
Looking at the categories, I see around 30 with articles. I will add them because of the relatively small increase in number of items it will produce, and because I cannot think of a good reason not to. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to remove the bus gallery, and you want to add more buses! Forget about these buses, keep the Bus Gallery instead, IMHO.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anna...we want to include useful and organized information, as one expects for an encyclopedia. WP:CONSENSUS is how things work here, and consensus appears to be that we do not want an indiscriminate pile of pictures in a gallery. If you cannot see the difference, and if you insist on edit-warring to get your idea in the article even after numerous others do not agree, you will not last long here. You've made your position clear, now it's time for you to back off and wait and see what others say.DMacks (talk) 07:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hydrogen/fuel cell bus.
How about we add a fuel cell bus. pictures below: File:HyFLEETCUTE-HydrogenBus-London1.JPG File:Fuel-cell_bus_London.jpg And add this to the Centro comment: Shiny and safe! What more do you want from a bus?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Bigger pictures
You said WOW! To 120px, so how about 170-200px?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Respectfully, I think 120px is about the largest they should be. Also, I think they should all be the same size (i.e. not some 120px and others 170px). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Again, need to remember that Wikipedia is NOT an image library. Agree with Anna Frodesiak that they should all be same size, as previously agreed. - David Biddulph (talk) 09:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For After widening the image section, I think they should be all 150, 170, or 200px. But all the same. Or 70px! Which is it?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Open-top buses
Add them please, pics are in the revived and restored Bus Gallery.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Guess what? The Bus Gallery has gone away yet again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.74.132 (talk) 07:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously, because the section a few above has consensus not to include it. One of the basic rules here is "discuss and realize you might not get your way." It happens to us all and it's frustrating sometimes. But in order to participate in wikipedia, you have to accept that. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Neoplan or NEOPLAN
I think Neoplan is actually spelled NEOPLAN. I could raise this at some project page, but I suspect the right editors are watching here. Do you think some page moves are in order? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

List of omnibuses
Now redirects here!--213.107.74.132 (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Old lede
Some people may not understand the old lede. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.74.132 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was fine. DMacks (talk) 18:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I also think it was fine. Plus, it's consistent with the style of countless other Wikipedia articles. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * What about people new to English? You need to cater for them, too.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The only way to cater to people new to English is to use proper grammar and spelling in English throughout the article. I would never go to a page in Polish or Japanese and expect it to be written to cater to me, since I don't know their language.  The only issue I really don't want to get into is proper British English, compared to American English.  (colour-color, favor-favour).  My rule of thumb is to edit according to which the page was first written.

--Allamericanbear (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is simple English wiki for?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rename

 * 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) Please move the talk page too!

This article may be renamed. To have a peep, press the home button.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are going to move it, I suugest that you don't move List of buses to Talk page for List of bus models, and the article itself, which is what you've requested at Requested moves. Always safest to give the template the correct parameters. :-( - David Biddulph (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I fixed it for him. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's no good just going to the destination page and fixing it there, Anna. The bot which writes that page will pick the data up from the template;  it has done so and over-written your change, because the template is still called with the wrong value for the parameter. - David Biddulph (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah. Ok. Thanks. I didn't know. In fact, this whole template business over this isn't necessary. A simple post here would have done fine. This is not really a controversial move. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Instead of pointing out the mistakes, could you fix it please? I just tried, and am not sure if it is changed as the template doesn't show it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to move the talk page, too.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If an editor moves an article, the default option in the "Move" dialogue is to move the associated talk page too. For future reference it is worth remembering that the requested move template should normally be followed by a reason and a signature, see the template's documentation. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will it keep it's revison history if you move it?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Will I lose anything if I move it?
 * Who's article is this? Anna, or mine?213.107.74.132 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC).
 * The article is a collaboration: the end result of many editors' work. But no wikipedia article is "owned" by anyone. We all contribute and discuss ideas for the single article we all work on. WP:OWN has some interesting thoughts. DMacks (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Neutral Either ways is fine with me. Other articles use "models". Here, it would make the article title longer, but it would be more accurate. As it is now, it's not really ambiguous because the article is not named List of bus types. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * AGREE with Anna on this part. --Allamericanbear (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I prefer List of motor bus types or List of autobus types / List of motor bus models or List of autobus models, since "bus" is not specific enough when you talk about bus types (ie. this could be a list of "motor bus, CPU bus, electical bus, buser, etc" (classes of things called bus) 76.65.129.5 (talk) 05:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think such disambiguation is necessary. Bus as the vehicle has the primary usage. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be great to settle this one way or the other, so we can remove that horrible template at the top of an otherwise fine list. Please get aboard the discussion and weigh in. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 17 September 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.

List of bus models
If you move this page to List of bus models, I'll put in the bus gallery and 175px photos.--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Don't do that. Both have been discussed, and neither were agreed. The change of title doesn't affect the consensus. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe everything will start all over again, and for once, I will get consensus. Hope so! Why does everyone else always win?213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Text only
Why don't you have a text-only (no pics) version for mobiles?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At the foot of the mobile page you will see the option "Disable images on mobile site". - David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But when you go into the mobile site, before you disable the images, it will still load them. Some people are on a megabyte imit, you know?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course, if a user goes to the mobile site to a page without images, they can disable images there and it will then continue to apply for other pages they visit, such as List of buses. - David Biddulph (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ratings
Why do my ratings keep expiring?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(Post made by blocked editor. Consider disregarding it.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Colour
Why don't you add a colour row?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(Post made by blocked editor. Consider disregarding it.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Importance scale
How can I increase this article's importance rating?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(Post made by blocked editor. Consider disregarding it.) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving
This could use an archive thingy to help clean up resolved posts, of which there are many. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Missed the bus
Could someone more knowledgeable add entries for the Gyrobus, and the new (2010/11) Mayor of London's humped design, whatever it's called? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Memethuzla (talk • contribs) 13:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Chassis and bodywork
The lede could use some content about chassis and bodywork. I have no idea about such things, but am confused when reading the list. Please help. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Column widths
Could someone who knows about monitors sizes and how things appear, please see if controlling col widths is necessary? I love the new alphasort, but the widths seem strange. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. Also, the column showing type should have first word first caps, I think, because that's how we format bulleted lists. That's not such a big deal, but what do you think? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Could we leave the column widths alone for a little while? I'm hoping that with the clean-up I'm trying to do will let them find a "natural" width on their own. (e.g. "Year" shouldn't go more than 12 characters, etc.) Thanks. Useddenim (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. And I am very grateful for your improvements to the list. Let me know if I can help. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Capacity
How about adding a place ro write capacity, instead of having to go to each article, any opinions?.Yutah Andrei Marzan Ogawa1 2 3&#124;UPage&#124;&#9786;&#9733; (talk) 16:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Buses of Germany
Why should there be a separate section for #Buses of Germany, as generated by an IP editor within the past day or two? The main table has a column for country and can be sorted by that. I can't see any logic for Germany being separated out. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. Go ahead and edit it out. Useddenim (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is there a special Asia section?
There are 2 main list sections: It seems strange to have a special Asia section (& right at the top of the page). Dr. British12 (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Asia
 * 2) Table


 * I agree that it is strange, and without a column for country too. The change was made by an IP editor a few weeks ago, and apparently without discussion, and it seems to fall into a similar situation as the one for Germany above, so I would suggest reverting. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is particularly illogical when many of the entries in the country column of the main table are from Asia. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Countries
Hi, I've been reverting the various changes to the article whereby editors are either creating entire section-tables on Asia, Or like today creating one on Malaysia and Japan,

The list is long there's no doubt about it however splitting everything up by country is just confusing on all forms,

If we were to go down that route then A) There needs to be an RFC and B) The entire layout would need changing entirely but until that time comes the article should stay as it is with buses here & there added on as when needed,

Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 02:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Also pinging &  as was unaware of the above till just now. – Davey 2010 Talk 02:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Well done, ! --David Biddulph (talk) 06:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you thank you, I'll give a few days before the IPs all return!. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikilinks
Hi, I've removed wikilinks where it taken you to different-language Wikipedias (Russian, Hungary, Belgian etc etc), We're an ENGLISH Encyclopedia and therefore the only links this article should have are ENGLISH links, There is 0 sense in sending an English reader to a Hungarian or Russian Wikipedia...., Further additions of these links will result in the entire article being locked (Pending changes could work but I'm not sifting throught edits everyday and neither is anyone else!), Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 15:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * KiaBus NewGranbird.jpg