Talk:First Hampshire & Dorset

Copyright notice?

Why is there the need for a copyright notice to appear in the external links section and why does it appear to be copyrighted to one person (eg "Copyright (c) 2007 pjc")? The article (like most wikipedia articles) is certainly not all the work of one contributor. Red Fox 13:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting route information in tables

I am currently in the process of putting the route information in tables to make it easier to read. I have done the Southampton section and will do the others in due course. --Arriva436 (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth area now done. -- Arriva436 (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fareham and Gosport completed -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset area now finished - completing everything. I will in due course Wikilink some of the place names as with Southampton. -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the tables? They're no longer on the page. Dennisman (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page is becoming of a size that the routes being included in tables is just adding to the size. I wonder if we should simplfy it to a list of calling points and introduce "Past services" as there have been lots of changes in recent years Dwhittgray (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We could consider splitting them out into Services of First Hampshire & Dorset, like we did with Services of Wilts & Dorset and Services of Lothian Buses. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur that this might be a good idea. If there are no objctions I might make a start on it over the next week or so? Dwhittgray (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress with this? I see you've created a userspace draft, but it seems not to have progressed in four months now. Would it not be easier to move the current route information to a new page immediately and progressively improve it there rather than starting from scratch? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes apologies, I had issues which took me away from it and lost the momentum that I should have had. I will remove the userspace draft as I have left it so long Dwhittgray (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that. If nobody objects, I think I'll split the current text out as it is to get it off this page. Hope to see you editing again soon. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me - I just wish I could kick myself up the derriere sometimes rather than get distracted. Dwhittgray (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I wonder if it would be any cleaner to move all the First Dorset sid eof the operation to a seperate page? First Hampshire and First Dorset seem to be kept seperate publically now in all except operating name including on their website and it may be that the seperation of the two would provide increased utility to readers than having it together? Dwhittgray (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, based on this that might not be a bad idea. I'd prefer to wait for some sort of indepedent verification first though - Buses Magazine are still showing them together in Fleet News reports, so it isn't totally clear-cut. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do however also have the example of Stagecoach South where the core information for the companies are split between Stagecoach in Hampshire and Stagecoach in the South Downs so an argument can be made both ways as Stagecoach South is the header in Buses if I remember correctly..... Dwhittgray (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry for the late reply, I totally missed this on my watchlist somehow.) Stagecoach South is an unusual case in that legally it's still three different companies, each of which trade under different names but share a common management structure. Buses' coverage of them is a bit strange; until earlier this year it also included what's now Stagecoach South East (itself several companies, all of which have their own articles). First Hampshire & Dorset is still legally one company as far as I know, so not quite the same as yet. The other analogous case would be Arriva Southern Counties, but that provides no guidance whatsoever since some parts have articles and others don't. So we're pretty much back where we started. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dorset WikiProject assessments

I've just assessed this article for the above WikiProject. I decided to class it as 'C' because it contains quite a bit of info and occupies a good length of page, however much of the info is in the form of tables (which expand the apparent length of the text) and references are a bit sparse, so I wouldn't put up a huge fight if others argue it should be classed as 'Start'. Similarly I classed it as being of 'Low' importance to the project, largely because the company isn't based in the county and doesn't operate throughout all of it, however if others claim that this is the bus company which most Dorset residents associate with the county (I wouldn't know), I can see the rationale for classing it as being of 'Mid' importance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low-importance seems fair to me, not that importance classes really matter than much. The Go South Coast group of companies (mainly Wilts & Dorset and Damory Coaches in this case) operate substantially more buses in the county and serve a larger proportion of it including some fairly substantial towns that First don't get to (e.g. Blandford Forum, Wimborne, Verwood, Swanage...) Alzarian16 (talk) 00:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting own photos?

Hey guys, I have taken several of my own photos of First Provincial buses and am keen to post one or two on here. Any ideas how please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.229.157 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Probably best to upload your pictures to the picture version of Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons. You have to create a user account first before you can upload anything. Once you've done that, go to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard and see if the Upload Wizzard can take you through it step by step. All the current First Hampshire & Dorset pictures are in Category:First Hampshire & Dorset. Hope that helps, if you need any clarification come back here and ask :) Arriva436/talk/contribs 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on First Hampshire & Dorset. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071009063329/http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2003/7/23/46261.html to http://archive.thisishampshire.net/2003/7/23/46261.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:19, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Hampshire & Dorset. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113131053/http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/hampshire/ to http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/hampshire/

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) 12:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking members of the public and shooting at drones.

I don't know how to go about covering a current event that hasn't been covered by the news, but this is the only reason this place is known globally now outside of the small area it serves; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3AfH7qgnE

In the UK firearms are not a common thing, and shooting in public is a serious criminal offence. So it's a real shocker. Could a wikipedian with more experience perhaps take this on? As I said, it's the only reason the place is known globally now, so it's very noteworth. 2001:8003:2953:1900:50FD:2CD8:8930:2A5B (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a deliberate attempt to provoke security staff. Certainly not notable and a self-published source. As to globally known, do me a favour. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]