Jump to content

Talk:Night buses in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split

[edit]

This article is useless. It's just a transcription from all the other N buses page. There is nothing unique in it. All it needs to be is a simple heading with a list of N buses.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are to be redirected to here as per a recent AfD discussion. Jenuk1985 | Talk 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It that case I can see why it has been created.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs a lot of work, especially on the infoboxes. It may be a good idea to design a new one specifically for these articles, I'll see what I can do over the next few days. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring MOS to improve article

[edit]

I have made an edit to the N2 section, to demonstrate how I feel the separate sections of the article should be structured. Not using the = syntax for the subheadings has the benefit of not showing in the table of contents (which is already too long). But this goes against WP:MOS, but I feel this can be justified under WP:IAR. I thought given the circumstances I should put this up for discussion before rolling it out on the entire article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete

[edit]

Where's the N44? Alexs (talk) 20:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]

Reason: This article is over 200 kilobytes long. Make an article for each Night Bus, with images.

Then you end up with a whole bus-load of pages that are WP:not notable. Useddenim (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

Several of the refs seem to lead to a self published page 'Alan Gryfe', or nowhere. SovalValtos (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of cleaning up to be done here, which is why I would have liked to be rid of this article altogether. I have just made a start.Charles (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

So it seems that I can't do sources for updating the frequencies of the buses. I used londonbusroutes.net, but apparently that's not a good enough source, so put down tfl.gov.uk if you want even though it is a lot harder to use. Where should I put the sources when I edit them? The frequencies are not currently referenced so I assume that's not what I should do, so what do you want me to do?!?Higthomas (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WE do not need frequencies as Wikipedia is not a travel guideCharles (talk) 18:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, you'd rather we just leave the page with incorrect frequencies? As was discussed here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Buses/UK_bus_route_quality_drive#Don.27t_Mention_the_Frequency.3F frequency is a major difference between bus routes. The N29 is very different from let's say the N551 because it has crazy frequencies. So given that the general consensus for the whole topic is that frequency is an important part of a bus route might someone please answer my question rather than just allowing wikipedia to be incorrect because I can't quite format my sources iun the right wayHigthomas (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So remove the wrong frequencies. The page you linked to is just a local project page and has no legal force on Wikipedia. WP:NOT is policy which must be followed. There are other websites such as on Wikia where you can do stuff about buses.Charles (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gather it has no legel force on Wikipedia, but given that WP:NOT doesn't really describe in great detail what not being a travel guide actually means, you saying it's not a travel guide so we shouldn't include frequencies is just your interpretation and so holds as much weight as mine, which is that including frequencies doesn't make us a travel guide. So, given it's currently just a me vs you debate I think going back to the last consensus on the topic makes sense. And that sides with me. Higthomas (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with User:Charlesdrakew on this one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we all need to ensure article content does not divert from its purpose, WP:NOT has an extensive list of policies of what we don't include as they are not encyclopedic. Bus frequencies, timetables, bus stop locations or general user info would fail WP:NOTTRAVEL or WP:NOTGUIDE, and generally WP:NOTEVERYTHING. There are plenty of other channels to include London bus route fancruft or trivia (as mentioned Wikia).Ajf773 (talk) 20:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In removing the frequencies you cite WP:NOTTIMETABLE, but I read it says that the number of trains per hour from a station is useful information, but the times are not. Surely this is a similar situation here. Citing the frequencies is surely just like citing the number of train per hour calling at a station, except in a more specific bus context. Please explain to me quite how they do fail all these notability criteria you're citing because when I read them none of them are really that clear and the way I read them including the frequencies is very much including information about the significance of a route. (As opposed to a station taking from WP:NOTTIMETABLE.Higthomas (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of night buses in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another missing bus

[edit]

Hi, I dont see the N13 194.202.213.12 (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of night buses in London. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion relating to sourcing content

[edit]

User:Charlesdrakew removed a recent edit involving addition of the N65 bus which recently split from the 65. While this edit isn't directly sourced, it can be found directly on the TFL website [1]. I don't believe it's practical to tag every single route with a primary source from TFL, this ends up turning the article into a giant bus guide. The least we can do is provide an external link to the buses portal [2] in the appropriate section.
In my honest opinion, this entire article is surplus to requirements and should be redirected back to List of bus routes in London. Ajf773 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to get it redirected in 2015 but no consensus was reached. I will support any attempt to do so now.Charles (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Development after AFD

[edit]

Hey, there was sentiment in the latest AFD for removal of some bus-route specific information in this list-article and for other editing, and also sentiment for moving it back to the title "Night buses in London" (from which it was moved in 2009). Perhaps some progress could be made here by editors actually interested in coverage of the topic "night buses in London". I myself believe that such topic is interesting and important, and that the article should be developed particularly about its cultural importance and coverage in art, discussed somewhat in the AFD. --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the article is a bit more in depth than just a list, the proposed title is more reflective of the content. Toweplus (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It's not the purpose of this article to provide lists of bus stops and what other services they interchange to. Ajf773 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 months; 2 for, 1 against renaming; but probably too small a quorum to initiate. Have started a formal rename request which hopefully will attract more opinions. Have closed this discussion down to avoid having both running simultaneously. Toweplus (talk) 11:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 August 2019

[edit]
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: page moved. There's enough agreement here about changing the title of the article, but some disagreement about what that article should contain. This close should not be taken as an endorsement of any particular course of action regarding the contents of the article, which should be discussed separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


List of night buses in London → Night buses in London – The article is more than just a list like List of London bus routes, at least in its fully cited form [3], the latter having only has 4 columns of information; number, start, end, operator with no historical content. These was some recent discussion on renaming the article at an AfD and a follow up discussion on the article's talk page, but probably not enough opinions expressed for a quorum. Pinging @Doncram and @Ajf773 who previously expressed an opinion on the latter. Toweplus (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as list of... Or Split into article and list of routes, although there is a good introduction to night buses, the vast majority of the article is still a list of routes, which I wouldn't say is suitable for a non list article, per WP:NOTDIR. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Remove all the lists of routes (including bus stop and interchanges per WP:NOTTRAVEL) as they are already mentioned in List of bus routes in London and focus on just documenting the history. Ajf773 (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The list of routes in the "Operation" section can be deleted as it is a duplication of List of bus routes in London#Night only routes (N-prefixed). Otherwise rename the article and retain text. A listing of the key calling points is fine, but we don't need every stop. 11Expo (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Give or take it's still a list. –Davey2010Talk 13:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Lost of" is redundant, plus an excuse to note improve on the terrible look of the article. It is more than a list. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Ajf773. Remove the redundant and unencyclopedic list and expand prose content.Charles (talk) 07:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is a requested move to possibly change the name of this article, not a consensus decision to remove the list of bus routes. There are perfectly good reasons for changing the name, without changing the contents. So, anyone, please do NOT proceed after this to claim that a name change means whatever the hell you want about editing the contents. In fact, please do not attempt, anyone, to remove any list from this article without a proper RFC, and please provide notice to me and other "Keep" voters in previous AFD about this article if any RFC is opened. This is de facto a battleground, a controversial topic. --Doncram (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change of title, because "List of" is not needed in the title, and is generally not helpful in titles. "Night buses in London" can and should continue to provide a list, and is also more welcoming of non-list material about the phenomenon and culture of night buses in London. Oppose splitting. This is NOT "per Ajf773" who was the previous deletion nominator if i recall correctly, and may simply want to remove content. --Doncram (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Infoboxes

[edit]

The infoboxes were removed in 2017. Recently there was an attempt to recreate full infoboxes for every single bus route, although those edits have since been reverted. I wish to reaffirm my opinion that the infoboxes should be kept off the article. They are not for list articles. Furthermore Wikipedia is not a travel guide and I cannot stress this enough. Ajf773 (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes that had stood for many years were removed in 2017 by 2 editors, Charlesdrakew and Ajf773. Both dislike the article's existence, having made that point on this talkpage numerous times. Both on separate occasions have initiated AfDs, on both occasions these were not successful.[4][5]
Ajf773, that the article is a travel guide is a myth. For that to be the case there would need to be far more detail than is contained in the article such as times of operation, frequencies, fares etc. Anybody trying to plan a journey based on the information in this article won't get very far. Yes there is some basic travel information, but to not list where a route runs from and to would be omitting a key part of the article, much like the start and end points are for New Zealand State Highway 32, although at least in this article, they are cited. This article is not a list article, that was the consensus reached in the section immediately above, hence the article had "List of" removed from its title.
I support the infoboxes being reinstated, they add value, all other London bus route articles (as opposed to list articles) have them. Toweplus (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD discussion was intended to remove what was essentially a content fork of the article List of bus routes in London. Since it has been renamed to its current title, the topic has merit (as you can see I supported this name change). However it should be an article on night buses utilising secondary sources, not a list of details about every single route of which can be found on the Transport for London website. The only places such detail can be found is on those bus routes that have individual articles (as those have met the notability requirements). Ajf773 (talk) 01:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having infoboes would be pointless as everything would be directly on the left anyway, There's not 10 paragraphs of text on one service (if there was I'd support an infobox) .... there's one to two paragraphs per each route and all follow the same style so as I said in this specific case they'd be pointless. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:39, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support having infoboxes. This article is the same as the day time routes that alll have infoboxes, but all rolled into one article. Morteinmeil (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing ref

[edit]

@Pedroperezhumberto: you've created a ref named ":6", but haven't supplied a definition for that ref. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know that I haven't supplied a definition for that ref. I'll have a look into it.
Thanks -- Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand what reference it was. I didn't create that specific reference called ":6", someone else must've done that. It wasn't me though.
Thanks -- Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I have removed the undefined references and I will add a different ref to replace them.
Thanks -- Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the undefined references with other references. Is that fine?
Thanks -- Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Night_buses_in_London&oldid=1209376603"