Talk:FlixBus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fusion

They recently fusioned with Meinfernbus 2A02:810A:8200:20B0:559:17EC:4119:AD56 (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Request edit

Moved from User talk:Fc2016

 – Better venue. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 09:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am Francesco Castronovo, an official representative of Flixbus.de, I tell you that because I read about the COI, which I am willing to respect thouroughly. Our company had a rebranding, therefore the informations about our company on Wikipedia are currently not precise. I would like to know how we can reflect the actual situation of our company without breaking any Wikipedia rule.

This are the details: First we were only Flixbus GmbH After merging with Meinfernbus and the Rebranding, Flixbus is now a subsidiary of the new entity "Flixmobility". Our former page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flixbus has been renamed to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flixmobility This is not correct, as Flixbus keeps existing as subsidiary of Flixmobility, but is NOT Flixmobility

Therefore we are asking to restore the wikipedia page to the former version https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flixbus Consequently we would add the additional wikipedia page https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flixmobility In both pages we would make clear the hierarchy between Flixmobility and Flixbus: the latter being subsidiary of the former.

What have we to do to submit the correct information to Wikipedia? Thanks in advance, Francesco

Fc2016 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, boy! I misread your edit request and have moved Flixbus to Flixmobility, but I now see that you want de:Flixmobility moved back to de:Flixbus. Well, the good thing about Wikipedia is, that mistakes can always be corrected.

The discussion regarding the two German pages is one you need to raise on German Wikipedia, e.g. as a comment on de:Diskussion:Flixmobility. Let me know, if you want the page moved here on English Wikipedia reverted, I will be watching this page and you could WP:PING me also by including my alias like this: {{Re|Sam Sailor}}. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:05, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Flixbus English should be reverted

Thanks for your help Sam Sailor. :-) And yes, the Flixbus page in english should be reverted. I will post the same request on the german page. @Sam Sailor: Francesco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fc2016 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Follow upo on restoring FlixBus Page

Hi, can somebody confirm me that the page will be restored from Flixmobility to Flixbus? @Sam Sailor: Thanks a lot, Fc2016 (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you JamesBWatson for fixing my mistake. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 12:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

this reads too positive

I just removed a buzzword ("sustainable") that seems to have been lifted directly from the Flixbus press department. This article does not address anyy criticisms like the price-dumping or the disputes between German cities and the company about stations and access charges. German media also has coverage on the way buses are operated and suggests that breaks and work times often do not align with the legal requirements, though this seems to be true for all bus companies. Some of this - but by no means all - is addressed in the equivalent de-WP article. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC) Hobbitschuster

Trying to avoid an edit war

So someone wants to insist on this whitewash of the criticism of Flixbus. I have no skin in the game besides occasionally using buses (I much prefer trains), but I wanted to avoid an edit war, so how should I proceed? I honestly don't want to let that whitewash stand just because someone is persistent. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy

The article is not matching with the current state of the business and the complications related to it. Currently Flixbus is over 95% of the German intercity bus market and the biggest bus operator in Europe itself. Flixbus uses a new business model of "fleet-less" operator. Currently over 3000 bus providers are contracted by Flixbus. Flixbus neither a social network based operator. There is no review or report system whatsoever that is quite different from Uber or BlaBlaCar. The concept of FlixBus developed in Germany with the high traditions in the law and transportation. But currently it operates all across Europe with the exactly same business model. Currently there are thousands of the reputable reviews from different sources (Tripadvisor ranked reviewers, Newspapers etc) about common issues with Flixbus. In most of the cases the damage done to the passanger is "moderate". I.e. It is canceled or disrupted trips (including family or groups), unexpected overnight stays, stolen luggage etc. This is under trash hold of opening a criminal or civil cases but quite harmful. Ignoring this information on Wikipedia is unacceptable. Please suggest how to present it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 09:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, you can't do your own aggregation and analysis of user-generated reviews or comments - that's WP:Original research. You need to find a reliable source that comments on these matters: see WP:Reliable sources.

In order to state in the article that there is some sort of trend or pattern to individual reports you need to find a reliable source that makes that conclusion, and cite it. You can't do that yourself, because that would be WP:Synthesis. Individual incidents may not be significant enough on their own for inclusion even if reliably sourced, unless the source itself demonstrates their significance.

On top of all that, we need balance, so if there are sources which conclude differently we need to include and cite them too.

If you think you have an addition that meets all those requirements then you could post the proposed content, with sources, here, for other editors to comment on.

From the comments you have made thus far, I think it's also probably a good idea for you to read Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs to get a better understanding of what kind of content is appropriate here, and why, perhaps, an encyclopedia might not be a suitable venue for your desired content. I hope some of that helps. -- Begoon 09:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• I added Accidents and incidents exactluy the same way as on the wiki/Lufthansa and the other carriers pages. No a signle word from myself, only citations from the reputable news (including AP etc). What wrongs with this? Or with FlixBus thant it can't be handled even like Lufthansa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 09:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Ashafir: First and foremost, do not add copyrighted text from other websites, either in original or (machine) translated. Doing so is a copyright violation and strictly forbidden. If you add text, it has to be in your own words, not someone else's. Regards SoWhy 09:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  @SoWhy:OK, that's fine. It can be just 1-2 sentense per accident. Anything else? "Second" etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  Yes. Read the comments I made above again. We are not going to play a "piling on" game where you add any incident you can find, including people having to wait for a bus, indicator boards being wrong, people sitting on the floor etc. You are clearly editing with an agenda - did you read Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs as I suggested?

  A couple of the incidents you added might just be relevant for inclusion if properly sourced and written, such as the unfortunate fatality, but run-of-the-mill road accidents and ticketing problems are just not notable. You can't use the article to compile "evidence" and, as I told you above, in order to state in the article that there is some sort of trend or pattern to individual reports you need to find a reliable source that makes that conclusion, and cite it. You can't do that yourself, because that would be WP:Synthesis. I really recommend you take the advice you have already been given, because trying to make your case in an article is not acceptable and will just waste a lot (more) of your, and our, time. -- Begoon 09:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Begoon: Sorry, first you answerd instead of User:SoWhy. BUT: there is NO agenda. This is just accidents listed in the news. Ad if there is a pattern it is something with the comany. Again, according the reffered Lufthansa artile there are non-fatal accidents listed as well. If you have your own preferences you are free to correct/update the list. Also you deleted the fatal as well. And you have not listed the copyright issue, so it does not looks this is the major reason of your involvement in this page. Since you are fully anonyous can you explain why you so bind to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashafir (talk • contribs)

  Please sign your posts. You have my reply above. I have no special interest in this page, I respond to disruptive editing in lots of places, as you'll see from looking at my contributions. I am also not going to reply to vague, hostile innuendo when you don't get your own way. That approach will really not help your cause. Follow the advice you have been given, don't violate copyright, don't bombard the article with trivial incidents, and write correctly, in your own words. I'll probably leave others to deal with you now because, quite frankly, your innuendos and hostility have pissed me off after I have spent so much time here trying to explain and help you. I can better spend my time elsewhere. Good luck. -- Begoon 10:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  RE: "don't bombard the article with trivial incidents". Let's assume that there is no "trivial incidents" in the news. There certainly must be something catching otherwise the news will not publish it. It can be the accident itself or the hadling by a company or police for instance. As the experienced contributor you must know this. I hope it does not sounds like innuendo? Tnank you for your advices any way. Ashafir (talk) 10:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  See WP:INDISCRIMINATE, particularly "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". All this has already been explained to you above, though... Thank you for signing your post - that's probably the first piece of advice I've seen you follow, rather than reporting people at noticeboards as 'biased' when you don't get your own way or unwarranted implications that people who are trying to help you have some kind of ulterior motive. It's a step in the right direction, and hopefully you won't alienate others who you deal with in the same ways as you have me. As I said, good luck, and please don't ping me back here - I'm personally done with this discussion. -- Begoon 10:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion above it makes sense to clarify "triviality of incidents" to avoid further edit wars. Let's imagine a situation, when a group or family is traveling as usual. It knows the transportation laws etc. It expects a bus on a stop ... but it does not stops. It expects to solve the incident with a transport company ... but it plainly ignored. It reads the relevant reviews and finds out thar it is a very stable pattern of the company handling. Is it a "trivial incident" for the family/group? Certainly not. Since it disrupts the whole holiday plans, costs more than most of the trip etc. Is it trivial for a company? Certainly yes if it care only about court cases but not about the customers. The question is it a "trivial incident" for the readers of the encyclopedia. I assume, not only a company and it's fans reads it by regular readers. So, as i stated above, if an accident has been noticed and published by a news agency it is more than "merely being true, or even verifiable". I can say that "true and verifiable" is applicabe for the way more incidents than published in the news. So a news publication can be a trashhold level for "non-triviality". How does it sounds? Is there any specific policy for such "triviality"?Ashafir (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• @Begoon:Why are you so persistent about watching this page? "non-notable trivia about booking/timetable issues" how can you judge it? You should disclose you affiliation with FlixBus.Ashafir (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is the last warning you're going to get about casting these (absurd) aspersions — there will not be another. El_C 15:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

• One more "trivial incident"[1]. Of course "it is not a system".--Ashafir (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)