Talk:List of buses

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

Name	Capacity	Power	Manufacturer	Countries	Year	Notes
Plaxton Centro	120	Diesel	Plaxton	England	2006	Shiny and safe! What more do you want in a bus?

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. --Redrose64 (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. --Redrose64 (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 {{main}}s. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buses has been formally closed. --Redrose64 (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 <!-- and --> 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 {{inuse}}!!!!!

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"? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Mabye.

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)

{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)

Shiny and safe! What more do you want from a bus?

Why did you remove Shiny and safe! What more do you want from a bus?, a comment under Plaxton Centro?--213.107.74.132 (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)