Talk:97 B-Line

Vancouver Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area 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.VancouverWikipedia:WikiProject VancouverTemplate:WikiProject VancouverVancouver articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is primarily related to the Tri-Cities area of the GVRD

Is this really a bus rapid transit line?

The lead sentences describes this bus route as a bus rapid transit line.

Is this really a bus rapid transit line? Isn't the term bus rapid transit usually reserved for bus routes that run, at least partially, in a dedicated right of way? Geo Swan (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding semi protection

Lately, a lot of unregistered editors have been changing the end of service date a lot and Joeyconnick (talk) seems to be reverting it a lot, and it likely getting very annoyed. I think a semi protection template is in order, at least until this bus route is out of service. Cganuelas (talk) 07:54, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually asked Joeyconnick about this already (on his talk page) and he thinks it can be tolerated as long as it doesn't keep happening after the new sheets come into effect on the 19th. If it continues after that, we'll then add a protection template.

With regard to your comment (in the article history) about banning that person, I'm not sure that will be effective since they seem to be editing anonymously (as evidenced by the three IPv6 addresses used to identify him/her). Sweetnhappy (talk) 08:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I kinda figured that banning that individual or individuals wouldn't be effective at all, which is why I suggested semi-protection. We seems to have some IPv4 addresses editing as well. Cganuelas (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also the 18th today. (02:40 to be exact), so it's only a matter of time. Cganuelas (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]