Talk:First Student (United States)

Proposed merge

This discussion has been moved from related articles and User talk pages. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of three aticles about the operations of First Student, a subsidiary of First Group in one of three geographies. Each article lacks context and should be merged into a single article with three sections.

posted by User:Urbanrenewal

The nominator appears to have no real knowledge of the subject. Although all three operations have similar names they are completely different operations. The original USA brand "First Student", and the only one fully named that way, is a subsidiary of First Transit which covers all First Group operations in America outside of Greyhound. First Student Canada is the public presence of First Canada, and a brand used by different subsidiary operators like Laidlaw, Cardinal, Farwest, etc, and the operator of many public transit systems. First Student UK mimics the North American yellow school bus concept and is used by local operators to distinguish their school services. The North Americian companies are in fact much larger than many UK regional companies, which have separate articles. All of these First Group companies, subsidiaries and operators are different legal entities and fit in different places in the corporate jigsaw. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am very well versed in the school bus space in the US and Canada as an investor.I am very familiar with the consolidation trends over the last 5-10 years. However, I do have some distance from the subject of transpor and am not too close to the subject - my interest is in companies. First Student, First Student UK and First Student Canada are all school bus subsidiaries of FirstGroup. These are not "completely separate operations" and in fact FirstGroup has elected to use the same brand purposefully. They all use the same logo, all have the same company motto, etc. "First Student has 68,000 employees helping transport 4 million children daily on a fleet of over 60,000 buses operating 650 locations in North America." This to me is very clear that this is one business with operations in the US and Canada. They do maintain separate websites so when they go into a proposal in the midwest the company can say it is an Ohio based company rather than a foreign company. In reality, all three articles could easily be merged back into FirstGroup but given the distinct acquisition history of the company i would not propose that. If you want to discuss further I would propose doing so on the talk pages of the individual websites. |? ?r?an?ene?al • TALK ?| 18:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge per Secondarywaltz, 3 completely separate companies. I have also reverted this article back to a dab page, there appears to be no consensus for any other change. Jeni ^(talk) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you contend that these are three separate companies? They are very clearly divisions of the same company just in different countries - this is from the company's own website. These are three largely unreferenced articles, none of which are really notable on their own. The articles all confuse whether they are talking about just one division or all of First Student - for example the references from the US article relate to the UK division. It would be much better to have one article that incorporates all three parts of the business which can be improved and expanded. If at some point the content on one part of First Student becomes too large and detailed then I would propose a new separate article. See how the company itself describes the businesses:

From US: "First Student, Inc. is North America’s leading school bus transportation services company and responsible for safely transporting 4 million students to and from school every day. With a fleet of more than 60,000 school buses and 68,000 drivers, we’re able to leverage significant economies of scale, global resources, capital investment, experience and systems expertise for our customers, to provide a range of cost-effective, customized transportation solutions."

From Canada: "First Student Canada is an operating unit of First Group plc, a worldwide public transportation company traded on the London Stock Exchange. Annualized revenues are approximately $5 billion Canadian dollars with over 33,800 stockholders and 342 million shares outstanding."

From UK: "First Student UK is an operating company of FirstGroup, a market leader in provision of school bus services in North America. First Student America transports over 2 million students everyday on behalf of over 400 school districts. FirstGroup is changing the way our children travel to school. We aren’t just offering the “yellow school bus” but the whole package of a safe, reliable and tailored service to meet the requirements of the local community, schools and parents. The experience of First Student America, coupled with the synergies of existing operational bases around the UK has encouraged us to introduce similar services over here. In the US, school buses are recognised as being one of the safest forms of transportation. At FirstGroup safety is paramount in all that we do. We recognise the huge responsibilities that come with transporting children and work hard to ensure that school buses retain the “safe” reputation they have earned."

|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 01:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Your idea that they are the same company seems to stem from the idea that they have the same parent company. In fact, they are managed separately and are very different. There's also a scope for expanding each article so it would be silly to merge them now. Also, if we're going by the idea they have the same parent company, then why don't we have one huge FirstGroup article about everything? Also, it would be helpful if you didn't keep making changes before any consensus was reached.Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am just looking at the facts. look at First Group Overview on the company's own website. They break their business up as follows:

(1) First Student "First Student is the largest provider of student transportation in North America with a fleet of approximately 60,000 yellow school buses, carrying 4 million students every day across the US and Canada." (2) First Transit (3) First Services (4) Greyhound (5) UK Bus - operating as First (6) UK Rail - operating as – First Capital Connect, First Great Western, First ScotRail and First TransPennine Express, First Hull Trains, First GBRf.

It is very clear that the distinction between First Student (United States) and First Student Canada is artificial in Wikipedia whereas the company operates them and brands them the same. First Student UK, which runs 185 yellow school buses for 8,000 student (not even half of 1% of the company's overall school bus business) is likely not notable on a standalone basis and is hardly even mentioned in the company's corporate information. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄|

Oppose They operate in different jurisdictions. Merging would confuse things even more. Martin Morin (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would suggest that someone who is opposed to merging try to do something other than argue the point without any facts. You could easily prove the point by trying to expand the individual articles and include some references - I came to this with that intention only to find that they have limited notability on their own. I would contend that First Student Canada and First Student UK are both going to fail notability tests on their own. The only notability that you will be able to establish will be borrowed from the First Student parent. I will leave an appropriate amount of time and then propose the articles for deletion. I would love if someone can prove me wrong by writing three acctual articles that are not complete copies of each other about each of the entities with references, etc. I just don't think it is possible and that is why i propopse merging the articles into one and focusing on that. This serves the best interest of the community. When you have more content, then feel free to expand. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, there's not much point going into a lot of detail when it's only a basic point: They are separate. Anyway, I have been reference searching and editing - and have managed to at least double the size of the UK article, so it is notable on its own and can stand up by itself. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice analysis, but contibutes nothing to substantiate merging.

First Student UK has no relationship to North American operations. It will never be a major article, but now that it has been improved - leave it alone. It's not doing any harm.
First Student Canada - now expanded and referenced.
"First Student" is not the parent and refers only to operations in the USA. There is no need for a disambiguation page and First Student (United States) should be moved back to it's proper title here, but the article still needs to be improved. If I get some time, I will work on it next week. (It's hard to search on words like First and Student and not get a lot of irrelevant results). Thanks to those who have conributed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want to really try to save these as separate articles. For the life of me I cannot understand why - and I am really trying to understand because I feel like the idiot. I saw the edits made to First Student UK but as I noted on the talk page there, the references offer little in the way of establishing notability and almost serve to prove that the school bus effort in the UK is a small nascent function of a larger company or a thriving North American school bus business. Because you guys feel strongly and are so focused on this transportation niche, I will back off for a couple of days to see what changes occur but I really think you should consider what is achieved by keeping these articles separate. if I could offer my suggestion - since any effort to create a consolidate article keep getting abruptly reverted - I think you would do a lot better with the following organization:

INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW OF THE COMPANY
1. Size and scope of the business
2. First Student operations by geography / areas served - you can show differences in regional branding / equipment, if they are different
3. First's focus on local districts
4. Explanation of organizational structure (if these are such "different" businesses)
5. Interaction with other First Group businesses
6. Business strategy (acquisition / bidding / conversion) - rural / suburban / urban markets
HISTORY
1. History of the company's predecessors
2. Entry of First Group into North America
3. Consolidation in the 1990s and 2000s under the First brand
4. Export of school busing to UK in the 2000s
5. Current status of the company

This is a much clearer narrative that an outside reader could benefit from. But you prefered to avoid going in that direction. I will respect that consensus here but I still think there is a stub article and two non-notable articles that could be turned into something much better. Good luck - we can circle back next week - I am open minded but remain skeptical.|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 06:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you say - if we were trying to compile a paper encyclopedia. Here there is no need to merge everything into 22 volumes. Everything about a subject does not need to be on the same page. If you believe that, all FirstBus articles in the UK would be merged into one massive article. The great advantage of an electronic system is in the way they are currently organized, the articles can be grouped and categorized with similar bus operations. These are all FirstGroup articles, but also refer to different functions in different areas/counties/countries. This is where we differ. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I really think you should consider what is achieved by keeping these articles separate". Well, what would we achive by merging them? As it currently stands, we have separate articles. As Secondarywaltz says, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, there's no reason that means the articles need to be merged.

"if I could offer my suggestion - since any effort to create a consolidate article keep getting abruptly reverted". Hmm, I'd be inclined to say it was more of a case of "since my abrupt efforts to create one article (without consensus), got reverted". Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone still watching this, see Talk:First Student UK for discussion regarding what to do with that article which pretty much removes the need to merge that one here. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]