Talk:Cherriots

Buses Low‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Salem Streetcar

Has anything happened with the streetcar since the feasibility study in February, 2005. --Psjoding 08:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Started a new section. After talking to other passengers today who complained of similar experiences, I'm fairly sure this section could be expanded quickly and accurately. BalooUrsidae (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Words to avoid, there really should not be a seperate criticisms section. As such the section has been removed, but the first sentence was moved to the main body. The second appeared more as WP:OR. The first sentence has had its source removed and tagged as needing a citation. Blogs do not pass the reliable source test, thus that is why the reference was removed. If this is a widespread problem, there is likely a newspaper article about the problem, and that would likely pass WP:RS. Aboutmovies (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request, 17 January 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting that the article be reverted to this edit, prior to the content dispute and reverts. The current version includes an original research violation, namely in the fleet section, that is at the source of the dispute. Sounder Bruce 06:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Content disputes section of the Protection policy, the article needs to be reverted to a version without policy-violating content. The current version includes an original research violation, which should not be allowed to stay up while the dispute is discussed. Sounder Bruce 03:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging MSGJ. ToThAc (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than pinging me, it would be helpful if you could confirm if you support the requested edit. Then you will be one step closer to establishing a consensus. The OR violation (if it exists) is not so blatant that I could consider taking unilateral action. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

update fleet.

fleet neends major update. the newest busses showing up are from 2012.