Talk:Bus transport in Cardiff

Cardiff High‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cardiff, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cardiff-related articles 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.CardiffWikipedia:WikiProject CardiffTemplate:WikiProject CardiffCardiff articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport 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.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport 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 route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Cardiff Bus Box RDT.

Cleanup

My cleanup may seem a bit brutal, but its for the benefit of the article! I have done the following:

Switched the list of bus stops into a tabular format, for ease of reading
Set all the images to the default image size, there isn't really any need for different sized images here.
Moved the route lists into List of bus routes in Cardiff (more on this on that articles talk page)
Condensed the Cardiff Bus section, ideally this should only be a summary, with the bulk of the detail going into the Cardiff Bus article.

What still needs to be done:

Expand the remaining operators, to give a summary of their role in Cardiff, preferably long enough to avoid any white space caused by the images! (I have used {{clear}} template to space things out for now)
Possibly a copyedit of the text for clarity, my prose isn't amazing, so I haven't touched any of that!

Maybe we could attempt to get this article to the good article standard? Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of bus stop and information board

I have just taken an image File:Cardiff bus stop, Ty Glas Road.jpg, which maybe of use in this article, but cannot see where to put it without the article getting too cluttered. Seth Whales (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea to have it there. Perhaps replace one of the pictures of Central Stn? Welshleprechaun (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hi,

I have assumed good faith in the recent two reverts. When there are too many (useful) images, it is always best to put them into a Gallary of images, which is what I have done. Please do not revert for a third time...Discuss. SethWhales^talk 22:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for a gallery here, If the article contained too many images then I'd agree but as it stands there's not enough to justify a gallery, Also there doesn't need to be an image for every section of the article or bus operator either –Davey2010^Talk 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly....SethWhales ^talk 22:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have WP:BRD for a reason - You were Bold in changing the layout, You were Reverted and now we need to Discuss it which we now have, If anyone's edit warring here it's you my friend!. –Davey2010^Talk 22:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Which is unfortunately what you have done...I have reverted once. SethWhales^talk 22:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Doesn't count as the edits were different - It wasn't the same edit being reverted back & fourth,~~ To be fair I did add the NAT bus back so I did in some respects self revert anyway, Anyway there isn't a problem with the current layout - All images are evenly spaced and not too squashed so I don't see a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have a look at Only reverting when necessary....SethWhales ^talk 22:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah I'm well aware[1], As I said the previous layout is absolutely fine. –Davey2010^Talk 22:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        If you had read it, you would have read this section below....I have copied the FULL section on Unacceptable reverts. Your 3 reverts are clearly unacceptable by this policy. Please revert your reverts back ASAP.

Unacceptable reversions

Shortcut

WP:DONTREVERT

There are a number of things that sometimes motivate an editor to revert, but shouldn't.

Don't revert an edit because it is unnecessary — because it does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation.

Even if you find an article was slightly better before an edit, in an area where opinions could differ, you should not revert that edit, especially if you are the author of the prior text. The reason for this is that authors and others with past involvement in an article have a natural prejudice in favor of the status quo, so your finding that the article was better before might just be a result of that. Also, Wikipedia likes to encourage editing.

Reversion is not a proper tool for punishing an editor or retaliating or exacting vengeance. No edit, reversion or not, should be made for the purpose of teaching another editor a lesson or keeping an editor from enjoying the fruits of his crimes. SethWhales^talk 06:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's an essay not a policy!, As I said your additions wasn't improvements (If they were I wouldn't of reverted you!), but if you have an issue with it go to WP:30 or better still if you wanna waste everyones time go to WP:3RRNO!, –Davey2010^Talk 07:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This stupidity has already wasted too much of my time, so I will not waste another minute. However just let you know that if you continue to be disruptive by edit warring and breaking the three-revert rule on other Pages, you should know the consequences of your actions...you will be blocked from editing. That's my final word on the matter. SethWhales^talk 19:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus christ give it a fucking rest already!, We've moved on the from the whole edit warring bollocks so if you cannot discuss the actual matter at hand I suggest you do us both a favour & jog on!. –Davey2010^Talk 20:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You both really need to get back to discussing the article, not the three-revert rule! FWIW I don't see a problem with the image gallery, but I'd strongly recommend using the less obtrusive/clunky <gallery> tags. This is a long article that is hardly overflowing with images. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough I did wonder this morning on how this became derailed!, Anyway back on track

.... Sorry!, Anyway even it just being a "normal" gallery it would surely still make the article as a whole look odd ?, Don't get me wrong I don't mind people changing things but I honestly don't see the need to change it ?, As you said it's not overflowing with images so at this stage atleast IMHO it's not really an improvement ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:23, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries are common in articles. I don't have a great deal of time for transport articles (they seem to attract a certain nerdy type) but generally there is an abundance of images of buses, trains etc available on Wikimedia. I can see the benefit of having a photo of a bus in each company's livery (several are already represented in the article). The 'gallery' tags normally create fairly small, inobtrusive images. Sionk (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see the point in this but you know what we'll give it a try .... How would it make sense tho ?, You'd have images, gallery, images which I'd imagine would look odd, I really wouldn't know where to begin on this

–Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bus transport in Cardiff. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 05:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bus transport in Cardiff. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2870%2C4048%2C4187%2C4237&parent_directory_id=2865
Corrected formatting/usage for http://cardiff.acislive.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/ca98/decisions/cardiffbus
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/content.asp?nav=2869%2C3047%2C3063%2C5167&parent_directory_id=2865
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101007204320/http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml to http://www.cardiffbus.com/smartcard.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010044719/http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm to http://www.cardiffbus.com/terms_conditions.htm

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) 21:28, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]