Talk:First York

Yorkshire Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal First York is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Request

Couple of NPOVs in this - please provide citations for the ftrs being unpopular and for the student discontent over the termly/annual fares.

(Incidentally, First expect us to believe the conductors are called 'Customer Service Hosts' - that's what they called them when they were recruiting for the Leeds ftrs!)

Pete Fenelon (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FTR Not in York — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh24B (talk • contribs) 22:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet list

Unless an operator publishes their fleet list, any list is only ever going to be indicative. But assuming the list at [1] is compiled in WP:Goodfaith, then I see know reason not to include as it gives the reader an idea of the size of a fleet at a point in time.

Also takes the place of uncited lists of bus types that periodically appear in articles. Mo7838 (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Self published original research on a personal webpage is not a reliable source for Wikipedia.--Charles (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3O requested Mo7838 (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on First York and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." http://www.swhite.org.uk/ is clearly not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It is a self published source and Wikipedia policy says,

"Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

GOODFAITH has nothing to do with evaluation of sources.

If uncited lists of bus types appear in other articles, then the proper remedy is to remove them there, not insert them here: Per the verifiability policy (of which the self published sources policy is a part, incidentally),

"All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."

(Emphasis added.)

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TransporterMan (TALK) 15:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:First York/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates
Switch existing references to use one of the {{Cite}} templates
Copy edit for WP:MOS

Keith D (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 15:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First York. 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, 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) 07:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

First York Logo.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]