Talk:GM "old-look" transit bus

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.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

TDM-5108 popularity

The following paragraph was just added to the Design section:

"The larger TDM-5108s were very popular with operators like Public Service of New Jersey and elsewhere in the Northeast because of their passenger capacity and reliability."

I am not sure if the popularity of the TDM-5108 really warrants a special mention given that only 461 were built and that eight other models had over 1,000 units built, two other models had over 2,000 units built, and yet two more other models had over 3,000 units built. Additionally, no citation was given for this information. Perhaps it would be more useful to add this to the Public Service of New Jersey page or a separate page devoted solely to the GM TDM-5108?

I'm going to revert it for now, but if you disagree, put your thoughts here. Spicoli 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Just a small thought - there has to be a better name for this page. I don't know what it might be, having only a passing knowledge of GM buses, but something without the phrase "old-look" (and especially without quotes) is probably more appropriate. Duncan1800 (talk) 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the name, but to my knowledge there really isn't/wasn't a common name to these buses other than the "old-look" moniker, which itself didn't come about until the New-Look was introduced in 1959. When I created this page I decided to put old-look in quotes because it wasn't an actual official name, but I'm not sure if that was really the best solution. It was just one of those till-something-else-better-comes-along type things. Spicoli (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't fault your thought process, anyway - especially since I can't think of a better title for this page either. Guess we can wait for further insights later. I do love these old buses, though - it's nice to see an article about them at all. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on GM "old-look" transit bus. 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) 02:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]