Talk:Alura Coaches

Proposed move

I propose that the article be moved to the simpler name BusLink

• That is the full trading name of the company.
• No other article exists at that name.
• It is in keeping with other article names:

Hillsbus

Westbus

Shorelink

Sydney Buses

I'm all for pre-emptive disambiguation but the current name is longer than it needs to be Garrie 00:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Agree - Easier name to type in each time -- Whats new? 08:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Page has been moved.Garrie 22:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • But what about Buslink in Queensland which I don't think is related, and Buslink, a computer company? They don't have wiki articles yet but may soon. Quaidy 22:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • If the articles are created for the other organisations disamiguation will be needed then. Not now. At any rate BusLink is allied with a coach charter organisation and as such their operations are not constrained to Sydney, so Buslink Sydney was not correct. They use BusLink not Buslink.

Buslink Queensland, is clearly (on the website) Buslink Queensland Pty Ltd. As such an article for them would be created at Buslink Queensland, their trading name.

www.buslink.com indicates that BUSlink is "a Global Silicon Electronics, Inc. Company" - that is they are a subsiduary company. Once Global Silicon Electronics#BUSlink (gee, Global Silicon Electronics doesn't exist either) gets too big then someone can look into disambiguating them.

• • • • I would really like to know why any of these companies are notable, though. Until I started following AFD for the bus routes I hadn't heard of any of them. Garrie 23:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
        • They are no more or less notable than any of these....

or the pages for many other local bus companies around the world.Quaidy 01:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that should start a good AfD debate... LOL. "But being contracted to London Buses in itself makes them notable!"

It is regularly stated though, that the existence of other articles in itself is no arguement to not delete a specific article. All you have really done in my mind is highlight an interesting list of articles to closely examine for notabiliity.

My comment was aimed more at "Please add interesting information to this article which will preclude an AFD - NN", then it was at saying "please delete this article".

Having said all that, the overwhelming criterion is verifiabiliity rather than

notability. Garrie 03:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Don't have articles yet but may soon" - are you in the process?Garrie 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Quaidy 00:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Route information

In addition to the table - which some editors will view as directory style information - I have restored the descriptive information regarding the routes operated. The narrative puts the factual information into a social context answering the

• what

what the service is

• where

where the service operates

• who

who the service is provided to

• why

the service operates

• how

the services are different to other transport options in the area.

I see the need for the table, it provides a summary view of the range of services offered. But it provides no explanation of those services.

It is worth noting, no route tables are included in Sydney Buses. Including route information on the over 300 routes offered would overwhelm that article. In my opinion this article regarding an competing service operator should aim to offer similar information regarding BusLink as what is offered for Sydney Buses. Garrie 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Improvements beyond stub class

Sydney Buses is no longer listed as a stub. It incorporates the following sections which are missing from this article which should be targets for improvement:

• Depots - what the depot achieves, where it is located, who operates it and who is serviced by it, why that depot is there, how it is different to the others, do they insource or outsource fleet servicing?
• Bus fleet - how many buses, what range of models, what range of manufacturers

Garrie 23:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buslink sydney logo.jpg

Image:Buslink sydney logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)