Talk:Reolian

File:The bigger bus.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The bigger bus.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:The smaller bus.jpeg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The smaller bus.jpeg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Fleet Section - Low Entry

The opposite of "low entry" is clearly not "high entry" . This is a technical characteristic similar too:

• "Low floor"
• "Low Entry"
• "Two Step Entry"

Please refer to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Low-floor_bus

"High Entry" does not exist and the usage of this term is clearly non neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titours (talk • contribs) 03:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Accidents section irrelevant

I am quite surprised here to see so many accidents. However, after reviewing them, most of them seems to be irrelevant in term of information

• "Running out of fuel"
• "Side mirror Broken"
• "Lamp Pole broken"

In addition, nothing is mentioning here about the responsibility of Reolian in any of this accident. Is Reolian at least responsible of these accident?

Third, accident with other bus operators are listed here (Transportas_Companhia_de_Macau) which I do not even see mentioned on their Wikipedia page - very neutral approach here.

Last but not least I do not see any accident described on Wikipedia in any other public transport company. I am taking here the example the following major public transport companies which accidents can be easily found on local newspaper or government statistics.

• KMB: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Kowloon_Motor_Bus
• National Express: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/National_Express

There is clearly a problem of neutrality here. This has been done very probably in order to affect the image of the company. Therefore I do not see any interest in creating this section here. It looks more like a forum type of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titours (talk • contribs) 04:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This section is not relevant at all on a wilkipedia page. if road collisions are to be a topic they have to be compared with the yearly 15000 accidents registered by traffic police. In addition, the fact of mentioning an accident, does not help to clarify responsibilities and liabilities, so i wonder the aim of publishing such information that does not serve the purpose of describing a company. Reading at different wilkipedia pages related to transport private operator, accident descriptions are not mentioned neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busbusfan (talk • contribs) 03:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the information that is comparing the number of accident between the 3 bus operators in Macao: Some figures given by Macao Government in January 2012 mentioned that Reolian had a higher number of accident compared to the other 2 operators (Transmac and T.C.M.). However given that these figures have not been given using any ratio (Accident/km) and it has not been taken into account any operating environment of the line (Urban lines / less urban lines - Daily operated lines / Nightly operated Lines), these figures have to be taken with caution - as a reminder Reolian operates 44% of the lines, and all of them are operated during the day. In addition to this, it does not reflect the type of accidents that were considered in the figures presented nor its sources (from the police or directly from the 3 operators). [15][16]. Last but not least, such figures should be compared to other bus network, located in other cities, in order for everyone to understand what this number means.

A closer look

article version referenced

Some of these incidents are so small that they don't deserve a place in this article. Two very important pages that explain why are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The events must contain notability that lasts over time and that have far-reaching and/or major implications. I also see some redundancy that needs to be taken care of. Taking a look at each one separately:

• 29 July 2011, 100 drivers gather at the Macau Tower Reolian depot to protest the case.
  • This one is notable, but it may be more suited for the "history" section of this article. Also, what case is this incident referring to?
• 11 August 2011, a Reolian route 21A had an accident at Cheoc Van.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 1 September 2011, a Reolian route 28A bus run out of fuel.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 16 September 2011, MASTV reported that a Reolian route 50 bus which carrying passengers drive inside the petrol station to add oil.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 4 October 2011, a Reolian route 1 bus hit a 70-year-old Man at Fai Chi Kei.
  • Possibly notable. Is there any additional context?
• 10 October 2011, Macao Daily News report that a Reolian bus stop the bus in the middle of the road.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 28 October 2011, a Reolian route 8 bumbed into a lamp pole at Rua Manuel Arriaga.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 22 January 2012, on Reolian route 28BX - fatality accident between a Reolian bus and a motorcycle.
  • Barely notable. Probably remove.
• 12 Februray 2012, an elderly passenger get off at the MGM bus stop very slow, but the Reolian driver close the door quickly and use abusive language.
  • Possibly notable. Were there any after-effects due to the abusive language?
• 19 February 2012, A Reolian route 10B bus was still running, but the driver open the door to let the passengers alight.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 20 February 2012, a Reolian route 10 bus was involved in an accident with a motorcycle at Vencelau das Morais.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 23 February 2012, a Reolian route 30's handle inside the bus broke.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 24 February 2012, on Reolian route 23 - accident between a Reolian bus and a pedestrian who passed away few days after at the hospital.
  • Barely notable. Most likely remove. Again, were there any after-effects due to the accident?
• 25 January 2012, a Reolian route 27 was involved in an accident with a gas truck at Areia Preta. The truck driver did not respect a red light.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 2 February 2012, Macao Daily News reported that a Reolian route 10 driver talk mobile while driving.
  • Possibly notable. Remove. Again, were there any after-effects due to the incident?
• 11 February 2012, a Reolian route 18 bus was broken down at Rua da Barca.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 12 Februray 2012, an elderly passenger get off at the MGM bus stop very slow, but the Reolian driver close the door quickly and use abusive language.
  • Repeat. Possibly notable. Were there any after-effects due to the abusive language?
• 16 February 2012, a Reolian route 3 bus drivers clip a passenger's bag when closing the doors.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 20 February 2012, a Reolian route 10 bus was involved in an accident with a motorcycle at Vencelau das Morais.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 5 March 2012, on Reolian route 3 - a 82-year-old woman fell down from the exit door of the bus, The woman was seriously injured in this accident.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 26 February 2012, a Reolian route 8 bus, when the driver close the door, it clip a 91-year-old woman, she was hurt and send to the Hospital.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 5 March 2012, a Reolian route 3 bus clip a 82-year-old woman, her leg need to cut due to this accident.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 14 March 2012, a Reolian bus hit the railings at Tamagnini Barbosa.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 22 March 2012, a Reolian route 30 was involved in an accident with a taxi at NAPE.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 24 March 2012, a Reolian route 35 crashed at Estrada Lou Lim Ieoc.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 31 March 2012, a Reolian route 10B bus had an accident near the Forum of Macau.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 5 April 2012, a Reolian route 50 was involved in an accident with a police car at Cotai Frontier Post.
  • Not notable. Remove.
• 12 April 2012, a Reolian route 3 bus, when leaving the bus stop beside Escola Portuguese de Macau, the driver make a emergency stop and hurt a 4-years old child.
  • Not notable. Remove.

Airplaneman ✈ 06:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Source Reliability

Facebook sources that are being used here are questionable in many ways as the page used to rely some sources are clearly politicaly oriented. This source should be used including other sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titours (talk • contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reolian Public Transport Co. - Page locked (copied from my talk page)

Hello Drmies, the wiki page Reolian Public Transport Co. has been locked on July 20. In the objective of neutrality and transparency, I would like first to tell you that I am part of this company. I have tried to remain as neutral as possible on this page, and I have seek advice on the content from other Wikipedia editors, to remain in that way.

I would like first to ask you if you have any information on how long is the page going to be locked for.

On a second aspect, some current contents of the page are redundant or remain non neutral:

1. 30% of Reolian bus are low entry, that's mean 70% of Reolian bus are not low entry bus, especially the minibus operate on route H1, from the floor and compartment, there are three steps, 80 cm height, it is so hard for the elderly or patients to get onto the bus.[12]. The configuration of the bus is already explained in the tables, which includes also which bus model is used on which line. Additional specification could be added if required - this could be discussed on the talk page. This sentence should be deleted as it is redundant.

2. The first picture displayed on the page: "In the begining of Reolian start service, it always broke down, policeman need to push the bus" This picture and its content has been inserted in order to damage this company. I have never seen any other Wikipedia page talking about public transport with editors inserting a bus engine breakdown as a content. The reasons of such breakdown that was affecting 7 buses (or 2.8% of our fleet) during 20 days last August have been detailed on Reolian's website FAQ - http://www.reolian.com.mo/en/faq - Point I. This picture should be deleted.

3. "Due to poor services and several bus routes' frequency delay, on the first month since Reolian start operate, the government need to order the other two operater - Transmac and TCM to help Reolian to operate the route 1, 3, 3A, MT1, MT2 of Reolian.[15][16]" On one hand the style is not very appropriate, on the other hand this is already included within the historical part:

Previous to the operation, Reolian declared that it was facing some difficulties in recruiting the 400 drivers that were necessary to operate properly the 26 bus lines awarded. On August 1, 2011, Reolian started its public transport service officially with 250 drivers instead of the planned 400. The Transport Department therefore asked the other two selected operators, Transmac and Transportas Companhia de Macau to support Reolian with some additional services on four lines until additional drivers could be hired.

This part seems redundant and should be deleted.

I regret that this page has been locked, as Wikipedia should be used, under some rules, openly.

Many thanks in advance for your feedback on this, Sincerely Titours (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• The page is fully protected until 3 August for a very good reason: edit warring. I understand you have problems with the article and I have to say, after looking it over, that I agree that there are serious issues here. Since I protected the article and blocked your opponent I should not go in to edit it myself, but I have asked {{user}Airplaneman}}, who has worked on it before, to step in. I'm going to copy all of this to the article talk page, where this discussion should continue. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Concerning neutrality

I saw these from a couple months ago, in October of last year. I hadn't been very active in the past 18 months, so I missed that until now. I think there should be some compromise here. It is true that in these instances, the wording was too negative; it was, however, not at all necessary to remove the sourced information outright (they seem like ok third party news sources). What could happen here is to mention the incidents, but not in such a poor light. That way, we get more content into the article without skewing its neutrality. Airplaneman ✈ 13:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)