Talk:List of bus routes in London/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

It wasn't "To do". It was "Done"

Operators now not linked, even for articleless routes and not easily relinkable with so many valid edits interwoven.--SilasW (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Today WP protests the article's size. The article is hardly divisible except perhaps, inconveniently, by route numbers. I suspect the performance links are the cause. Isn't their place in each route's article? No figures appear in this article only a link to a display of the statistics so no comparison or rating is possible without a deal of clicking and flipping.--SilasW (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As soon as this article gets cut up each new section will be deleted, one by one. -- Thanks, Arriva436^shout! 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why "Thanks"? You seem to have the local authority symdrome "We are right and are always right" - there are several "against my views and any sense"s on your userpage. Beware! Repent! The Great Reverter may be nigh. My reason for leaving links is valid. Try using the Ry companies, which are randomly linked or not, in the WP "List of closed railway stations in Britain" (which has been clobbered together by many editors) to hunt for a little information about stations with no articles and you'll see the benefit of link flooding.
WP advises selective not total archiving.--SilasW (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me! Please don't accuse me of being like that. The thank you in my signature is to be polite to people that have taken time to read my views. Obviously, if people are taking it the wrong way then I'll have to remove it. And if you look at my contritbutions you will see that I very rarely revert anything (apart from vandalism obviously), and I have never been in an edit war. The things on my user page were after I spent a lot of time decribing on talk pages why I had done what I had, only for it to be ignored and changed. I'll remove that if it makes you happy.

And when did ever say anything about the links? All I said about was about the article size. I also think that removing the links is stupid; I don't think having to scroll up from route 690 to route 2 to find any information on the link to Arriva London is a good idea. I also don't think the performance links are needed, especially when they are left with no name. Please next time think before you say anything. -- Arriva436^shout! 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It happened that you said your piece at the wrong moment after, as far as I could see, the links had been removed with no time for opposing thoughts. Your auto "Thanks" and a blue shout (and your forceful comment about some editing you disliked) misled me. Would that there were time to read everyone's edits and talks. Sorry, sorry, sorry. But leaving that wickedness of mine, most seem to agree that co. & place links should be here and that route details should not be.--SilasW (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine!! But I too agree that the co. links should be here. -- Arriva436^talk 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re overlinking in lists

In lists which, unlike most other WP articles, are often not read through from the top, overlinking can be useful. If you look at a particular bus route then it would be a pain to have to scroll to find the linked first occurrence of a place or operator. Sure when the route does have its own linked article the overlinking might be (or should be) redundant except that it saves one layer of pages, but it is not uncommon for a few entries in lists to have no link. It is proposed to flag routes by service frequency, that may be good but, in the context of finding information by following a link, frequency is already there. As far as travel goes, are there low-frequency route fans? At any moment how good a bus route is for travel depends on the instantaneous position of the vehicles now, not on whether it's an alternate Wednesday.--SilasW (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this list has had some time to develop and should be aiming for Wikipedia:Featured lists status. I'm concerned that having 50+ links to articles from the list will be a problem in getting that status. This is the sort of thing people pick up on. Perhaps we could hold off removing duplicate start/end points, which are nowhere near as bad as the operators were. Perhaps adding {{Bus companies in Greater London}} to the bottom of the page would provide additional linkage to the articles, all in one place.

WP "Featured Lists criteria" seems not to count links. If people incline to see "too many" links then the benefit in Lists needs proclaiming.--SilasW (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if adding the frequency (Low/High) is good or bad. We should try to keep the information as encyclopedic as possible, so its inclusion should be to give a clearer impression of what London transport policy is providing. MRSC • Talk 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Would Hi/Lo frequency really reveal any policy? For me #, from, to, by are the four essentials to tabulate for this list with everything else in linked and "See also" articles

such as "Tyre sizes used on London buses"

School bus routes

I do feel that some listers have an idea of "purity" as stamp collectors reject stamps used non-postally on receipts. The article was Bus routes in London, it's become TfL-ish bus routes. Fair enough, but if I see 699 on a London bus I'd like this article to tell me about it. Are there any 6XXs that follow route YXX exactly without deviation? 681 is mainly part of 281, but extra "school" buses on R70 were still R70 though worked by a different operator. Any excision requires care --SilasW (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably worth going through these on a case by case basis on this talk page to decide what to do. There probably isn't a "redirect all" / "include all" answer. We can pull a copy of the table on to the talk page to flesh it out. MRSC • Talk 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever is decided, I just thought any action taken should include the new 633 bus route, which follows along a subsection of the 463 route exactly (not quite a 6XX <-> YXX relationship as the 663 already exists). Was introduced in April 2016 as in this report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.208.17.71 (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Transport for London (TfL) contracted London Bus routes"

How do you find out which bus services are contracted? I mean, is there a source? Simply south (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly they get a lot of talk about buses at Mayor's Questions. So you can search here: [1] Also they only produce performance data for their own routes: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/businessandpartners/buses/boroughreports/routes/performance-route-1.pdf ...just substitute the number before ".pdf" for the route you need to check. MRSC • Talk 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very useful. Simply south (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

Seeing as this does not cover all London bus routes, maybe it should be changed to what it particularly deals with. Simply south (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't need to say "It does not include commercially operated services that enter Greater London." is good! The article name and that quote contradicts itself a bit. Arriva436^talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for this, as we had someting similar happen a while ago when "Category:London bus routes" was moved to "Category:Bus routes in London". --sonicKAI (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rename to Transport for London bus routes and expand to outside of London if needed. This way it matches the operators name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not need renaming, but the Commercial routes within the London area/ LSA service section needs to be removed and should go in the lists of adjacent counties, based on which county the route is predominantly in. MRSC • Talk 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an article for an encyclopedia? I doubt. It's a plain list of bus routes. --82.34.206.78 (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Current classification -> Other letter prefixed routes

Could somebody explain the description given to this:

Day routes and routes that only run part-time, including 24-hour services.

Seems to me that this could be rewritten as 'Any bus route'. Have I missed something?. -- Starbois (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Colours

I've just seen that Jenuk1985 removed all the colours, because it should not be done. How are we gonna show which routes are 24-hours now without colours? Anybody has an idea how to show which routes are 24-hours?

--AimalCool (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not relevant to this article anyway, nor is it encyclopaedic. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not a bus timetable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The colours are back! --80.41.89.165 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleting

Some one has deleted routes 356 & 358 which I made last year.Likelife (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a few months ago, User:Jenuk1985 reverted LOADS of good work people had done citing non-notability - [2]. I don't agree with this butchering. Perhaps a discussion is needed. Prylon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article merges

I think some of these articles should be merged to create articles such as:

• London Buses routes 5, 15, 115 and N15
• London Buses routes 36, 136, 436 and N136
• London Buses routes 53 and 453
• London Buses routes 68, 468, X68 and N68

This would cut down on duplication and make these articles more viable. MRSC (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Route 205

Didn't this route used to have an individual article? Why doesn't it anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.215.78 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See above. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the route any less notable than any other? Who is the other editor to decide on his own the route isn't notable? Especially considering it's a 24-hour route that serves numerous major rail termini. 86.143.215.78 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you can demonstrate how this route meets WP:N (a core Wikipedia guideline), then I have no issues recreating it! Jeni ^(talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't really demonstrate how it is notable, I am just confused as to why a 24 hour route which serves six major railway stations is seen as not notable enough to have its own article, while, to pluck an example from thin air, London Buses route 39 is. It just seems very inconsistent to me. 86.143.215.78 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any comments to add to this, Jeni? 86.143.215.78 (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing that hasn't already been mentioned. As you said "I can't really demonstrate how it is notable". Picking out other crap articles as a reason to keep one isn't really a valid argument. Jeni ^(talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

←I think it would be fair to say that when Jeni went through all of the articles, she based their notability on how much was written about them. Many articles have a lot of information reworded from their page on the London Bus routes.net site, whereas route 205 didn't, so it went. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

433

Needs to be added to the list. I standardised the title of this new stub to London Buses route 433 while stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus route co-ordinates

As Open Street Map now has bus routes in London covered. Would it not make sense to ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates if they could create a template so that you can link to the route?--Aspro (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling problem

There were three routes on this page (two in the 600-699 section and one in the lettered section) which were marked "to be discounted on...". But "discounted" means "made cheaper", so I presume that all three were typos for "discontinued", and have altered them accordingly. — 188.29.134.5 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

London Wikia

If anyone wishes to transport this page to the London wiki - www.london.wikia.com - I would be grateful (and any other contributions are welcome). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Historic classification

In the section, Historic classification, it is stated that routes 1–199 were "Central Area" red double-decker services and routes 200–289 "Central Area" were red single-decker services. I don'ot believe this, or at least, it was never the case within my experience going back to the early 1950s. The most common bus I used was the 225 (Eastcote Arms to Northwood) which was a double decker. This route was extended and renumbere 232 in the late 60s (single decker) and later as 282 (double decker). I believe there was also a 208 (double decker) from Rayners Lane.

I note that the reference given is The Guardian's Notes & Queries column, in which readers ask questions which are answered by other readers, i.e., it is totally unreliable as a source. Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move

I am proposing to rename this article "List of bus routes in Greater London" to better represent the articles geographical cover. Mark999 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical information

Since this is an encyclopaedia and not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), should the former operators and former start and end points of each route be included? Coyets (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

linking

I think routes without their own articles should not be linked, since that is just a self-redirect. This will make it easier for users to know if a route has its own article or not, otherwise we have to click every single route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.150.228 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Mass deletion of information on former routes

User:CourtneyBonnick zapped 8,617 chars of information on former routes which, to me, represents a loss of information not recorded elsewhere. There may be a case of making this a separate article (see 'size of page' above) but wholesale deletion? nope, imho. If they are uncited then find evidence (I recognise many of these routes so there will be print evidence somewhere), don't just zap it because it is easy. --AlisonW (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I got rid of the former routes due to the sources, if you or someone else can provide some sources for these routes then provide them. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The thing to do with unsourced material is to flag it as such so that editors are aware research is needed to *confirm* the information. --AlisonW (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What's the best way flag it? CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to TfL's bus route info?

In the 'List of Routes' section we have a lnk to performance data. How about a link to TfL's own route listing and map — for example, this for route 38? I find those info pages clarfy the route details so much better.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Redirects

Redirects to this page for routes not mentioned in the article:

• C12, originally a redirect to the C11 article, which mentioned it, but that article was redirected here
• H7, originally an article, blanked with the summary "This route does not exist" then redirected
• 370D, only ever a redirect to this page; nothing mentioned in 370 which has never had a separate article
• 560, only a redirect with no history

Are these current or former routes? If they exist, or formerly existed they should be mentioned, if not then they can be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Peter James (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If route 560 has been discontinued[3], it should be moved to the former routes section. TfL seems confused about it: the 560 is still on its bus maps site, and for route 60 the line and stops highlighted are for different versions of the route. Route 370D appears to have existed[4] but I can't find much; there's no evidence of a H7 or C12 on the TfL site. Peter James (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Route C12 was a former route that run from King's Cross to Finchley Central Station it run before TFL existed that's why the C12 is not on TFL site, route H7 has never existed, route 370D was a school service for the route 370 and route 560 was Temporary route introduced during diversions in the Streatham Common area, between Pollards Hill and Streatham Common Station via route 60. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the article

Possible ways we could shorten this article:

• Remove Classification of route numbers from this article and let it have its own article.
• Remove Former Routes from this article and let it have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentinator (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Legend fixed

The legend colour coding has been broken now for over two years. It was broken in this revision (line 79). I now fixed it and made it clearer to read (one item per row). But the colour coding on the individual lines has long been gone, and now somebody should readd them. 91.154.157.131 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivybridge

Is the H20 Ivybridge here the one in Devon? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't want to correct it to the 'wrong' place. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I've noticed that it was going to the 'wrong' place. I have now corrected it to the right place. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My areas of interest and development are elsewhere. :) 09:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Other buses

I take the view that the other buses should require a reference to one of the London bus maps like these two. That way, they've been "recognised" by TfL and if nothing else it ensures they're sourced.--Launchballer 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no opposition, so I've gone ahead and done it.--Launchballer 12:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Individual route pages

I've noticed several pages for bus routes instead redirect straight to this page instead of retaining their own separate article, and the reason being a lack of significance. But what makes one bus route objectively more significant than another when compared to several hundred routes? If people are working to compile a bunch of useful information that warrants its own article (and the history of London's transport system is no easy feat to navigate!), just to be redirected because one person believes it holds no significance when compared to X, why have any individual articles for routes at all? TheIntrepidTraveller (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A few routes are considered to have enough special interest to warant an article. Most are not and get redirected to the list. Wikipedia chooses not to do travel in detail or any subject in excessive detail that belongs in specialist publications.Charles (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree with TheIntrepidTraveller I created one for the 434, i put a lot of time and effort into it, and then it got reverted for being "non-notable" And what does make one route "notable" enough to deserve a stand-alone article? I think all routes should have a page in my opinion! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

A lot of routes which previously had a page have all been reverted due to "not being notable" What makes a route notable and not notable????? This is just stupid now. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 13:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:N will tell you everything that you need to know about notability. Jeni ^(talk) 14:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I've started going through all the individual route articles tagging their issues. I'm working backwards through the list (I'm taking the fuzzy logic that the higher numbered routes are less likely to need work). The state of many of these articles is appalling! 5 or 6 years ago I did a very similar task and very little has changed.

• Most articles are massively under-sourced
• A large number of articles don't establish any sort of notability and merely list a history of route changes. I've tagged most of these articles with the notability template, and redirected the "Lost Causes".
• Many of the references that do exist, are sourced to self published "fan" type sites, which are not reliable sources.

Things going forward:

• Unless notability is established on those that I've tagged with the notability template, I'm going to look to redirect them. If anyone needs help on establishing notability, take a read of Wikipedia:Notability.
• I'll start removing unsourced material after a reasonable amount of time.

I'd estimate that 80% of the individual route articles that I've come across so far don't warrant a Wikipedia article, however I'm playing it safe for most of them and giving people a chance to bring them up to scratch and establish reasons why they are notable. Jeni ^(talk) 14:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that if there are any disagreements with any of the specific route articles that I redirect here, feel free to revert that specific route under WP:BRD and I'll start an AfD discussion similar to what was recently done for 403 (though it's probably worth bearing mind that closed as redirect, backing up my original edit to redirect it). I'd ask that you only revert if you can show reliable sources establishing notability beyond a simple list of route and operator changes. Jeni ^(talk) 12:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

'LOTS' as a source

What evidence is there that LOTS is a reliable source with fact checking? It says it is a 'bus enthusiasts' organization.[5] More seriously their newsletter says 'it is not permissible to copy information from TLB or any LOTS publications for any further use or sale, including via the Internet, without having first received prior permission'.[6] Should we remove all material referenced to it? SovalValtos (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The tender results are displayed on the LOTS website, not in TLB or in any of their publications (as far as i know because i haven't bought any of their books for a while). I think it should be fine. Its been on the reflist for six years too! Class455fan1 (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of rubbish has been on Wikipedia for six years. LOTS is a fansite, not a professional news organisation. Unless they cite where they get their information from it may only be hearsay and industry gossip. The source cannot be regarded as reliable.Charles (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Tenders are announced on the LOTS site as and when they come out. I get notified of these via a forum I'm on from someone who works for TfL, but i can't link that, as forums are classed as "unreliable sources". Its not industry gossip as these tender results have all been correct. Class455fan1 (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

LOTS website is presumably published by LOTS and subject to copyright as is the magazine. In addition it seems to be self published. LOTS is therefore ruled out as a source. Given that there is a problem finding sources without LOTS, the material could be not sufficiently notable and should be omitted? The copyright issue is serious. SovalValtos (talk) 10:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Then what can we use to prove tender results?? I get the info from LOTS and a forum, which is classed as non reliable. Perhaps londonbusroutes.net can be used as an alternative source? And why now is this being discussed, when this could've been done years ago! The tenders are displayed on the news area of the website, and is not part of any publication, so i don't see how this is copyright. And plus, were not copying exactly what they write, which would be plagiarism/copyright. Its just a source of information. Also, reading the newsletter. it only covers TLB or any other publication by LOTS. A website is NOT a publication. And if they didnt want us to look at the News page, they would restrict it so that only members can see it. Class455fan1 (talk) 11:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a news source so this kind of recentist information is not needed here anyway. What a bus route is doing this week is no more significant than what it was fifty years ago to an encyclopedia. Londonbusroutes.net is self-published and certainly not a reliable source.Charles (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you evaluate LOTS by using WP:TOP100 and see if it meets this criteria. I think it does, but thats just my opinion. Class455fan1 (talk) 01:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Two editors User:Charlesdrakew and User:SovalValtos consider LOTS as not being a reliable, published source, and the third User:Class455fan1 states 'A website is NOT a publication' which implies the 'source' is not even published. On that basis, and with the lack of any other editor coming forward with evidence that it is a reliable published source, I suggest it should now be removed from the page as a source after a short wait for replies. SovalValtos (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got the wrong end of the stick mate, What i said counts as any website in general, not just LOTS. A publication is a book from what i know, not a website! Class455fan1 (talk) 13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I checked WP:VERIFY just now, and I'd class LOTS as a news organisation as well as an enthusiast group and as i quote "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution" The person/people who writes the news i think works for TfL because everything that is mentioned on the source has all been correct. So i really don't see what the fuss is here. There is no copyright issue because copyright is classed as copy/pasting the info, which if it happened, it would be reverted more or less straight away. We don't do that, so there's no issue. Not sure for certain but I think they may get the info from Leon Daniels, who is one of the chief officers at TfL and is an enthusiast himself. He also writes in several publications for not only LOTS but for Visions International too. Regarding fact checking as i said before, everything they have said on the site has become a reality. So this source should be kept. Class455fan1 (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got the wrong end of the stick mate. You are just confirming that the source is hearsay. You think. You do not know. You are also failing to understand that Wikipedia is not a travel guide and not the news.Charles (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have again removed the 'source' User:Class455fan1 The reason being, as given in my edit summary, that no case has been made for keeping it. Please do not attempt to replace it, unless there is agreement.SovalValtos (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment My brother was a member of LOTS, and I would imagine, knowing my brother, he would have a lot of hardcopy of LOTS publications from the late eighties and early nineties. I am not sure if you consider a hard copy of a publication with an editor RS or not. Si Trew (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Redirects from "London Buses route xxx" and so on

Hi,

I've been changing the hundreds of redirect links of the form London Buses route 123 so that they

1. Use {{R from London bus route|xxx}} where xxx is the route number, e.g. 123 or K7 – my intention here is so that the Category:Redirects_from_London_bus_routes will be sorted a bit better.
2. Redirect to the sections of the table with anchors I put in quite a long time ago.

I have been changing all of these manually, I have not been using any tools. A few have been reverted by User:Charlesdrakew but if you look at User_talk:SimonTrew#London_bus_routes it seems I am not the only one who thinks this is a good idea, although Charlesdrakew has called it a "total cock-up", perhaps a little uncivilly. I've asked Charlesdrakew to stop reverting,and I think Charlesdrakew kindly has, so that we can discuss it. This is the usual BRD but I see little point in Charles reverting them all, or my continuing with the others, until we have consensus on whether my changes are A Good Thing or A Bad Thing. I've suggested a compromise in that we keep the section links but just "null" them out by adding anchors to the top of the target article. Si Trew (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I stopped reverting because I have to work for a living. Even if the redirects work I do not see any advantage in being taken to a number in a list rather than to the lead section. Let people decide for themselves what part of the article they want to read. This is an encyclopedia rather than a directory, which is why we do not have articles on every route in the first place. It is hardly difficult to click down to any particular sub list of routes.Charles (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with SimonTrew Although i do hate redirects in general on London Bus Pages, I think it makes the redirects better rather than redirecting to the top of the page. And because he spent a lot of time and effort on this, I awarded a barnstar to him. Class455fan1 (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Also {{R from London bus route}} has very little point of existence unless it is used on redirects to sections/anchors (otherwise, just use the category directly.) So I had kinda assumed the fact it was created and maintained meant it should be used in this way. Indeed I had thought to have it also add Category:Redirects from list topics (which {{R from list topic}} does), but since that can't be enforced, and is not always true, I decided against it.

Similarly, MOS:LINK2SECT and Template:R to section/doc suggest (though do not state explicitly) that section links are appropriate when the only mention of a given topic is in a section.

As I went through these (going from "what links here" of this article) I found some that weren't categorized, and others that were "hard categorized", and have changed them. A few, I think some of the Harrow (H) routes, are blue linked in the list. My adding the template is simply a categorisation cleanup exercise and orthogonal to whether the redirects should be linked to sections; perhaps I should not have attempted both at once, but to trog through the whole lot twice would be pointless.

I have other things to do too. It's a question of prioritisation, which is why it has taken me so long to finish a job I started, I think, over a year ago. Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

PS. If this needs to be brought to a wider audience, e.g. at WP:London Transport, I'd be pleased if someone added that, as I am not intimately connected with this project (despite my brother owning an old London Country bus.) Also, consensus over at WP:RFD, where I am a regular, seems to be that a very large (e.g. >20) redirects to one article often becomes harmful and that they should be deleted in favour of the search engine; each bloc is taken case-by-case but I can see that happening. That's not a threat or anything, I can just see it as a possible outcome, and tagging them and redirecting the sections I think makes that less likely. If it is desired to delete them, most can probably go CSD WP:G8 as redirect loops. Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Split proposed

I propose that the table of former routes be split into a new article titled List of former bus routes in London to focus the main article on what it really is. As such, I feel it doesn't add anything to the current article, while adding significant length. Jeni ^(talk) 15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The route numbers are quite simple. As we are an encyclopedia, not a bus timetable, we have a historical perspective and so it makes sense to present the numbers in their natural order with corresponding details of the dates that these numbers were used. This should make the list easier to maintain as we won't then have to switch entries between sections/pages as their status changes. Andrew D. (talk) 16:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We should avoid WP:Recentism. Former routes are just as encyclopedic as current ones.Charles (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose After reading what the others have said, i have moved to oppose, just keep it the same Class455fan1 (talk to me) 19:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons above. 11Expo (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Arriva London's expansion

The latest issue of Buses Magazine mentions that all of Arriva Kent Thameside and Arriva the Shires TfL ops were absorbed into Arriva London as part of a recent shake up of operations. The 229's new Enviro 400's at DT also have legal addresses for Wood Green. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Night routes section blanked

Someone blanked the night routes section! What do I now do? Helmutviamortlake (talk) 10:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks as though this table was somehow missed when the page was vandalised a few weeks ago. Perhaps find the most recent edition that has this table on it and paste it back in?? Ajf773(talk) 10:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Class455fan1:

I've put it back in. It got lost in among all the vandalism to the article on the 23/24 January. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Good. Helmutviamortlake (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

move or improve

This article should be renamed to List of TfL bus routes or actually be a list of bus routes in London. I prefer the latter. I would like to see all the 700-899s added here, but nt coaches to Edinburgh or Barcelona. What do others think please? Nankai (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Route distances in tables

Should these be kept or deleted? Most routes are lacking this information and many others are possibly inaccurate. Seems to be no real drive to add this information and attempts to do so are withdrawn due to lack of reliable references. (Ajf773 (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC))

DO NOT CHANGE BACK- SERVICE CHANGES TO ROUTES 110, E5, E7, E8 AND E9

THESE CHANGES ARE GENUINE. ROUTE 110 NOW OPERATES FROM HOUNSLOW BUS STATION TO WEST MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL VIA TWICKENHAM. ROUTES E5, E7 AND E9 ARE NOW OPERATED BY ABELLIO LONDON. ROUTE E8 HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM BRENTFORD TO HOUNSLOW, BELL CORNER

• I believe you but the sources need to be reliable and content written so it does not pertain to be a travel guide. Some editors are very particular about this, from experience. (Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC))
  • Note, just looking at your further edits I'm afraid they are most likely to be edited again. It's not required to excessively detail in the routes such as exact location of the termini of routes. However the sources appear reliable: Official bus operator websites and TFL are okay. But bus fan sites (such as londonbusroutes.com are not considered reliable (they are self published). I find the amount of inconsistent content to be far too much on this particular article and the editors don't seem to be particularly interested in moderating the content to the Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines unless they are recent edits. This is partially one reason why am avoiding edits on London bus routes related articles from now on. (Ajf773 (talk) 05:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC))

Proposed addition to the table of garages

I propose that, since most London bus routes don't have an individual page, we add the route's garages within the table. These can be easily verifiable with sources available from the bus operator's website, and passes WP:NOTGUIDE, as all the remaining bus route articles have them too. Your opinions on this please. Class455 (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

London Wiki

I know I have mentioned London Wiki [7] above - but some material too marginal for WP will be sufficiently relevant there - and possibly even at [8]. These are 'public wikis with presently limited participation' rather than private wikis. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

colour codes

I believe colour coded row will be easier to understand following the introduction of 24 hour weekend only bus routes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawsj123 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Negative. _Muffled ^Pocketed 16:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Weak Support - Whilst I don't think it's seriously necessary, I do think it may be slightly easier to understand. Class455 (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose No. This is not a guide. Not needed.Charles (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesdrakew: I swear it used to be on the article though? Class455 (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

All manner of crap is or was on Wikipedia. That does not mean it should come back.Charles (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Already mentioned in notes column. We don't need an overemphasis of content related to individual services as Wikipedia is not a guide. Ajf773 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The London Wiki version [9] is colour coded for comparison. Jackiespeel (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

What of it? Nothing to do with with Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The list is based on the WP equivalent - and to show what the suggested change would look like. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

But this is Wikipedia. Different standards apply to what Wikipedia is and what is not. Ajf773 (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no particular preference either way - just providing the illustration (as such things can be useful). Jackiespeel (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose as as far as I know it is easier to search for a text string than a colour and text is more easily identified for citing than a colour.SovalValtos (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per accessibility concerns. Jeni ^(talk) 09:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jeni: Do you mean for people who are for example colour blind when you say accessibility concerns? Class455 (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

See WP:COLOURSovalValtos (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the list of bus routes in London be colour coded to show which routes are 24 hours or weekend only? Comments made above were before the RfC was opened; but I feel that this requires further input from more editors. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

• If you do this, be very mindful of WP:COLOUR. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose because we're Not a travel guide and I don't see any problem with the current layout. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The generic background is the best here. Wikipedia is not a bus route guide. I also have concerns about the accessibility. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Davey and WP:NOT.Charles (talk) 08:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support. Although I agree that darker colours would be in contempt of accessibility, a very light background would liven up the template and aid comprehension. I am autistic, and due to the tables being forced to take the whole page up (due to 'width="100%"') it takes me a while to read across because I keep losing my line. Having a splash of weak colour (like that on It's Not Me, It's You (game show)#Episodes) would be better in my opinion, but only a splash - perhaps it is the yellow page background but the London Wiki table, which I'm pretty sure was garnished from a previous edition of ours, is too bright.--Launchballer 14:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
• Question Does the bus service publish its own color coding? For Wikipedia articles about New York City buses, Wikipedia matches the buses' own colors. See MTA_Regional_Bus_Operations#Sign_colors for the colors and see any bus article, like Woodhaven and Cross Bay Boulevards buses for example, to see the colors used in different places in the article. I do not support inventing new colors but if the city already is using colors to identify the buses then I think Wikipedia might copy that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Only night routes have colour on their bus stop flag. Others don't. The 24 hour routes only have a "24hr Daily/Weekends" sign above their route number. Class455 (talk) 20:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Class455: Perhaps it would be easier for anyone to comment on a proposed change if someone actually marked up a demo of what the proposed change would be, whether it is a color change or some other symbol to indicate the different buses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if memory serves me correctly, the colour on the banner for "24 hour daily" and "24 hour weekend" on the tiles on the bus stop is slightly different. I'll have to take a picture of a bus stop the next time I'm out.--Launchballer 05:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Original research is not allowed. You will need a reliable published source.Charles (talk) 13:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope these sources/links are helpful, the first two of which are the most reliable: Standards for TfL Products Accessible bus stop design guidance [10] [11] [12]. Also, I find London's bus system very cool and perhaps better maintained than the New York/MTA system. In addition, while the TFL seems more upfront about their bus system, there is much more documentation on the New York City system's color codes. Tdorante10 (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

One more: London Transport - A Guide Tdorante10 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The colour is light blue for daily night bus routes and yellow for weekend night bus routes.--Launchballer 18:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but don't color the text directly. Color the text cells or use {{colorbox}}. Be mindful of colour contrast, though. epicgenius (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.