Talk:London Buses

Buses Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Mid‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Transport Mid‑importance

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

23 million

"over 23 million buses running every day." --- errr what??! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim166 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 September 2006.

Confusing

It is confusing to say that buses accept Oyster cards, because Oyster cards are just containers for electronic tickets. It is analagous to saying they accept wallets when cash is meant. Travelcards - strictly travelcard season tickets - can be on carboard or on Oyster (though one day travel cards are not offered as an Oyster product). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.7.54.92 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 September 2006.

Its not confusing, they have the readers for Oyster cards so can accpet them, simple.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Destination blinds

Additionally, London Buses also specifies that vehicles operating in London use linen roller destination blinds, whereas in most other parts of the country, electronic dot matrix or LED displays are the norm on new buses.

Has it ever been explained why they require this — is it aesthetically motivated, just an anachronism, or is there some other logic behind it? David Arthur 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TfL think it is clearer. Arriva436^talk 11:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, unless sunlight reflects off them, or the light has blown.. but electronic displays have a low resolution.155.198.33.150 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the word 'linen' to 'printed' roller destination blinds. This is because since around 1988, when the manufacture of LT's destination blinds were outsourced, the use of silk screen printed paper bills glued to a linen (calaco) backing ceased and manufacture switched to using Tyvek, a type of plastic paper made from polyethylene. Today, blinds made from PET film are commonplace in London as part of the PowerBlinds and SmartBlinds packages fitted to the latest vehicles. The word 'linen' is therefore an anachronism. Mike Welch, www.blindsforbuses.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emjayuu (talk • contribs) 22:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:BusMark.jpg

Image:BusMark.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logo

Can anyone confirm this logo Image:BusMark.jpg is still in use on buses or anywhere else, as the replaced roundel looks absolutely crap, and I'm sure the colour is wrong looking disticntly orange. I might be imagining it, but if you look at the bottom of this map [1], it should be redder. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took roundel from TfL design standards. <Flrn^talk> 14:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus image for infobox

There have been a fair few modifications to the infobox image, I wonder if we can agree on a consensus image? I think the infobox image needs to depict the "classic red double decker", should be a common model that is most familiar to readers, and as modern as possible. The hybrid bus Image:London Bus route 328 hybrid bus A.jpg looks great but is rare, I've never seen one and I live and work in London, while the current image Image:Arriva VLA156 on 159.JPG is probably more ideal but it's a bus that's at least five years old (55 plate), and there are so many more modern buses in the fleet (59, 10 & 60 plates). User:Tbmurray (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we need red double decker. I also agree that we need one familiar to readers, which the ALX400 is very. I was looking for a Wright Eclipse Gemini but I couldn't find one that would be suitable. Where I disagree is that we need as modern image as possible. The most modern buses are less familiar to readers. How many ALX400s are there in London compared with OmniCitys and Gemini 2s for example? Many more ALX400s. I also don't see a problem with the bus being five years old. While there are many more modern buses in the fleet, there are also many (and probably more) buses that are older than it. I don't think we should have a hybrid, as as you say they're rare, and besides that image didn't suit the infobox very well. Plus there's an article about hybrid buses in London anyway.

I don't mind if anyone changes the image, as I realise the current one is mine and it looks like I've just put it there because of that, but I think any image should show:

A familiar bus.
Be in sunny conditions (the sun shining onto the bus at the right angle)
Be in a decent location, not an obscure place.
Be cropped quite tightly.
Have the bus at the "right" angle, so it suits the infobox. I think the bus needs to be pointing so it faces out of the infoxbox if you see what I mean.

And it would be good if we good find concesnus here first. Unfortuantely, someone's been busy uploading images from Flickr etc onto Wikimedia Commons, but not bothering to put them into categories properly, so you can't really search by type of bus. Most of these images have just been dumped into the bus routes categories. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points which I mostly agree with. One other option is to create and use a collage of images of the different buses used past and present, e.g. Routemaster, ALX400, OmniCity, hybrid... I'll have a hunt later for a decent image on WM Commons, and likewise on Flickr, but in any event I think this is the type of article where the lead picture should be a consensus agreed image. User:Tbmurray (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The composite image is a good idea. A Routemaster, an ALX400, a hybrid, an artic and a single-decker would be my ideal combination. One should be an East Thames Buses vehicles since they were directly operated by TfL. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but I don't like the composite image idea. While it sounds good at first, I don't think it will work. While for example the London article has composite images, this works because each image is so different. With several small images of different bus types, I'm not convinced it will look anything other than a load of small red boxes, unless you make the image huge. A more important issue, and one I think has been overlooked, is what this article is actually about. It's not about "Buses in London", or "London Transport" (who operated their own buses). Its London Buses, which, taking from the lead of the article, "is the subsidiary of Transport for London (TfL) that manages bus services within Greater London, UK. Buses are required to carry similar red colour schemes and conform to the same fare scheme. All services are provided by private sector operators." So it's just a governing body, that doesn't really have anything to do with the buses themselves (I know they specify type, double-, single-, artic etc), but the manufacturer of the bus is down the the operators, Routemasters and artics is more to do with the mayor than anything else, as are hybrids. I note that the Transport for London article doesn't even have an image. I think our best bet is to find the best image of a red double decker and just leave it at that. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we do need to keep in context. The article Buses in London is probably the more suitable home for a image or composite image of a bus, as this article relates to just the operating body. In fact, is a photo of a bus warranted at all, given that London Undergound, for example, doesn't carry a photo of a tube in it's infobox...? User:Tbmurray (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

NOT DONE

As noted below one article goes in to detail about he history of the buses whereas the other tends to focus on the company.... so IMHO it's better off as it is. –Davey2010^Talk 16:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The two London Buses articles are not sufficiently distinct to warrant two articles. One is supposed to be more historical / general than the other, but in fact they are both broad. London Underground has only one article, so London Buses should follow. Algarve1233 (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, London Buses doesn't mention anything earlier than 1985, when the company was formed, and goes into more detail about this period than the other article. I've moved the "London buses used in art" section there. Peter James (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Buses. 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) 11:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]