Talk:Richards Brothers

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales 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.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The list of bus routes

There is no grounds for the removal of this list. WP:NOTDIR does not actually cover this and it is not attempting to be a travel guide - simply it lists the routes they operate. Surely this is plenty relevant to a bus operator article. Nobody is using it as a directory, so why claim as such? Please produce consensus to the contrary or I have the right to revert you [Davey2010] once more; if you revert that I will report you to administrators for sanctioning for edit warring. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (natter) @ 19:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It is a directory/travel guide ,
- ALL routes can be found on the operators website
- Routes are no longer unencyclopedic as I've been told many times by Charles & others
- I have the right to revert you [Davey2010] once more; Lets correct you there - YOU DO NOT have any right!, You're edit warring as much as me here so spare the threats.

Thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the list had a source and might even be accurate and up-to-date, that makes it better than most bus-route listcruft on wikipedia, but it's still listcruft. We're here to build an encyclopædia, not a mission to generate as many pages of text as possible. Rcsprinter123, in what way do you have "the right" to revert? bobrayner (talk) 14:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Davey2010 told me to "get a life", which I considered a bit rude, I went to an administrator for advice and they told me I had the right to revert. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (lecture) @ 14:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and this isn't rude?, The "get a life" was a reply as I've said here!

→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the article for 'Wikipedia:Listcruft' and I'm not sure there's a problem with having the list of routes. An example given there is that: it is appropriate "for the article on the fictional series character Rick Brant to include a list of the Rick Brant books." An article on Richards Bros having a list of their routes seems appropriate to me. Also, there are similar lists for some train operating companies etc. The arguments only arguments I can see against including the list are notability (the list is of interest to a very limited number of people) and volatility. As far as notabilitiy is concerned, I would guess that the list would be of interest to almost as many people as the article as a whole is of interest to. Therefore, volatility would be the only valid ground for removal in my view and in the case of Richards Bros they haven't gained/lost routes for a while, the only notable change I can think of recently being extension of service 550 from Synod Inn to Aberaeron Rhydgaled (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]