Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/UK bus operator quality drive

Initial discussions
These discussions were originally made on User talk:Arriva436, but were moved here when it became more relevant here than there.

Two questions, one is that do you think that all article need infoboxes. I've recorded TT as needing solely for the fact it currently doesn't have one, but do all articles need them?

Also, in the status table, where you put "yes" in signifies a "bad" thing, i.e. no refs would be "yes". However, the column "COMCAT" has "yes" if a category exists. Should this perhaps be changed to avoid confusion? Arriva436talk


 * Good spot, I have changed it so that every 'bad' thing (not that they are all seriously bad) is a 'yes'. Infoboxes, well, I don't know - personaly, I absolutely hate them and think they ruin all but the largest articles, but they exist, so let's just record if it doesn't have one, whether we then add one comes later. Remember, this isn't a policy or anything. So, good to go? MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I realise they are not all "seriously bad", I was just using it a a general term. I agree with you about infoboxes. I don't really like them on smaller articles as frankly, they just get in the way. Also, in smaller articles they just duplicate all the info that is in the article, just in smaller writing!! I don't see why we can't go and start now? Arriva436talk 12:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've kicked it off. MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a minor point, but can you add a link to List of bus operators of the United Kingdom in the See also sections for the drive? I have removed the UK buses template from the regional operator boxes, I was never happy about having it in them when I first did it as overloading articles, but the list has a link to it at the top, so hopefully with that as a see also they aren't too far away from the 'main' article, and the op. articles aren't overloaded with templates. MickMacNee (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

← Excuse me butting in here. Since I have cooperated with you before, I thought I should comment about this on your talk page. I will not officially join this project, but must congratulate you both for taking on this on. Good luck! My participation will be to clean up anything that is obviously incorrect or draw your attention to things that look out of sync. Sometimes when we are knowledgable about a subject we make assumptions and do not fully describe for an outsider. I will continue my quest for good logos that illustrate the corporate image of the bus company. I agree that Infoboxes can be ugly if filled with lists and prose instead of a single entry per parameter - so don't do that. (Bad/Good). The default size for images in an infobox is 250 (I know you like 300), which keeps all of them the same width without stretching. An infobox can also be used just to match up the logo and a bus portrait, instead of having two floating images. (Check out Anglian Bus using default widths for both images). Do you prefer lists or tables for bus routes? Again, thank you for the good work. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Feel free to join in, it realy isn't that complex. MickMacNee (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments Secondarywaltz. I know your contributions and the logos are especially helpful! I think 300px helps show up an image if it isn't particually good, although smaller sizes are fine if it's a good image. I will now fill in the infobox on Anglian Bus, thanks for that. I generally prefer tables for routes when there's a long list, and lists if there are only a small amount of services. Anglian bus is border line. Some route tables have too much information though. Arriva436talk 16:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've worked in Southampton, Sutherland and points between. Currently I live in Ontario and am working on a Canada project similar to yours for England. That is why I appreciate what you are doing and that is why I can't fully commit, but I will contribute some housekeeping. My idea for Anglian Bus was to demonstrate how an infobox need not be intrusive and can be used to keep things tidy without much entry, but not to require anyone to complete it. Here a note is included, although personally I don't like a note for the image to clutter up a full infobox, which should simply be a current "bus portrait". A good photograph speaks for itself and if it is there to explain something like the "Fleet" or a "Route" in a longer article, it should be in the relevant section of the article, not the infobox. As for size; I think that when the logo is a banner style it looks best the same width as the bus image and 250 is a nice compromise so as not to enlarge the infobox. What I don't get is the user who turns templates into picture galleries with tiny images. Arriva436, when you started to edit your images, you upgraded them from snapshots to art, and I notice that you continue to improve articles by replacing poorer images uploaded previously. MickMacNee, I hope I have convinced you that an infobox does not need to overload an article, and in fact it should not be allowed to. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the infobox issue is secondary to be honest guys. I don't see how it comes under any guideline presently, so, in true wiki style, live and let live. Lets just hammer this drive. MickMacNee (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - I agree. An infobox is secondary to good article creation. I think that for articles on subjects like this, people too often rely on lists, tables and statistics, rather than crafting a couple of paragraphs of fully researched well written prose about the company. Users were often just copying fares and route lists from a bus company website and calling it an article - and I think that is when you probably said "We can do better than that!" My reponse here was simply to the chat above. I am supportive of what you are doing and will watch for progress and follow your lead (on infoboxes and everything else). Drive on! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

← The infobox issue in an interesting one, and has made me think about it a bit, I think keeping images in them does make it look neater. Thanks Secondarywaltz for your comments about my images. Behind the scenes, I have been moving the images I originally uploaded on here to the commons, a project which is now complete. (Although if you see one that's left tell me). During this, I tried to improve images which weren't up to scratch (taken with a really cheap camera I didn't even have to pay for!) I have visited some of the places again to get better shots, as I think good images are important to an article, as it shows the opertors "image". For now though I can constrate on the drive, as no text no article, whereas an image or infobox don't matter!! Arriva436talk 19:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For the recent articles you just did, I would have removed the links to modelbuszone.co.uk as commercial links, contrary to WP:EL. MickMacNee (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, for AMK Group, I noticed you filled in the table, but didn't add things like the ref and see also sections. MickMacNee (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah sorry about AMK Group, I have now made the additions! It had already been tagged as possibly not being notable and I sort of forgot that I still had to add the other things! As for the link, I did look at it and thought it was just some photos of Aldershot & District buses, but on closer reflection I realised it was a big site which someone had obvious linked to to get views. I have now removed this. Shall we start to make comments about the drive on its talk page from now on, as this section is getting a bit crowded?!! Arriva436talk 15:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest moving this whole section over there. MickMacNee (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see, I have done this, starting from the point I asked about infoboxes and all the "yes"s being bad except one. I have not copied over the beginning conversation between MickMackNee and I which isn't relevant here. Arriva436</b><sup style="color:#800080;">talk 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes col in route lists
I strongly object to the entire removal of notes columns in route lists. I feel inappropriate use of it should be removed, but not the entire col itself. The notes col is intended for notes of encyclopaedic value related to the route. Remembering that most routes will not be notable enough to have their own article, its important there is space for relevant information on an appropriate route list. Jenuk1985 |  Talk  20:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed it as it looked as if it had been included only to note the sort of info we don't want noted, if you see what I mean. No objections to reinsertion without the offending material. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

service tables
Hi everyone, I'm just wondering should service/route tables be included into transport articles? I know at one stage they were included but one user Charlesdrakew seems to think they should be removed under WP:DIR, I have pointed this page out to him many times but he continually removes the route tables under WP:DIR and has been very rude about it. I believe they should be included as long as they have a source from the bus company and not traveline (which is very unreliable). Fatty2k10 (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Service lists have been deleted at Articles for Deletion by overwhelming consensus and that is a bigger consensus than anything that may be said here. They are not coming back.--Charles (talk) 13:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)