Talk:London Buses route E8

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Use of hybrids on the E8

I have just removed from this article a few sentences of referenced material on the deployment of hybrids on the E8, because it it synthesises two refs from Dec 2008 ('Hounslow Brentford Times' Dec 2008, Mayor's press release Dec 2008) with a third ref (The Engineer July 2009) to produce a result which is not supported by the sources.

The Hounslow Brentford Times article from Dec 2008 is about 25 hybrid buses to be deployed in London that month, of which five are on the E8 (another 18 were to be added later in 2009 on difft routes in London). The Mayor's press release confirms the 25 hybrids-with-18-to-follow

'The Engineer' article from July 2009 namechecks the E8 once, in para 5, where it is the second of two routes mentioned; but it refers to five hybrid buses on the E8, out of ten across London, and says that they "will" be deployed.

So what's going on here? Do we have on the E8:

a trial of 5 hybrids, announced Dec 2008 as about to begin that month ('Hounslow Brentford Times' Dec 2008, Mayor's press release Dec 2008), but which actually began some time after July 2009 ('The Engineer')... or
Two separate trials on the E8 of five buses each, one beginning in Dec 2008 as part of 25-hybrids-across-London, the other after July 2009 as part of 10-hybrids-across-London

The text which I removed included an assertion that the buses were deployed in March 2009; I can find nothing in any of the 3 sources to confirm that. The word "March" appears in only one of the 3 sources: it is used once in the Mayor's press release Dec 2008: "TfL is committed to a longer term programme that will see a further 300 new hybrid buses joining the fleet by the end of March 2011.

The material I removed says "The first of the hybrid buses appeared in the route in late March 2009. These buses use regenerative braking to store energy when they brake and so they consume less fuel and emit less pollutants than conventional buses." However, the regenerative braking angle is mentioned only in the The Engineer July 2009, and as above it is unclear whether that refers to the same buses.

If this material is to be used in the article, it needs acknowledge the incompatibilities between the sources, and not conflate them all into one whole. However, given the incompatibilities, it would be better to seek further sources to clarify what's actually going on.

It seems that 'The Engineer' article from July 2009 may be based on somebody's press release, because a substantially similar (tho not identical) story appears on GreenCarSite 02 July 2009. I wonder how much fact-checking went into either article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News articles about the same event will naturally contain similar content. Such agreement is good evidence that the facts are correct. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you read my comments above. The different articles do not assert the same facts; they may be contradicting each other, or may be referring to different events. Also note that one of statements in your edit is not supported by any of the refs.

Rather than repeatedly re-inserting contested text, please follow WP:BRD and discuss this to try to unravel what these difft refs refer to. That means discuss it to reach consensus, not make a brief comment and reinstate the contested text. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, BHG are you trying to say you suspect there are two separate groups of hybrid busses being used here? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, that's one possible interpretation. Another possibility is that the deployment announced in Dec 2008 did not happen that month, and was being discussed again in July 2009 as a future deployment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BHG's objections seem incoherent, claiming that the sources disagree and are too much the same. There doesn't seem to be any case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Col W, if you want to to cite references, please can you try to make a serious effort to assess what they actually mean rather than just making caustic comments?

I'll try putting some of the points to you again, and I'll start with just one of the problems.

AFAICS, none of the sources appears to support your assertion that the buses were deployed in March 2009. Where is your source for that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Remove the text relating to "March 2009" as this isn't supported by the reference. Leave the rest as this is supported. Then expand the paragraph with relevant encyclopedic information from the sources. Any objections? Alzarian16 (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea as far as it goes, but that doesn't solve the other problem, which is that one pair of refs refers to the E8 getting 5 out 30 new hybrids in Dec 2008 ... and the other ref refers to the E8 getting 5 out of 10 new hybrids some time after July 2009.

There are several possible explanations for this, such as a) two separate batches of hybyrids were deployed on the E8; b) the Dec 2008 was vapourware which never materialised, and it was still coming real-soon-now in July 09 ... and there may be other explanations. However, given the substantial differences in the sources, it's not clear which applies, and so far nobody has found a ref which says at any point that hybrids have been deployed on the E8; all we have is two difft promises, 7 months apart. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This TfL page says that hybrids are now operating on the E8. Unfortunately, it doesn't say when they werre introduced, or how many of them there are. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since that ref confirms something which did happen, it would be a better starting point than refs which refer to something expected in the future. Does anyone want to suggest a wording? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about not mentioning dates at all, but going with undisputed facts:

The new contract is operated using hybrid single deckers.<reference TfL article from my last comment> These buses ~~use regenerative braking to store energy when they brake and so they~~ consume less fuel and emit around 40% less pollutants than conventional buses.<reference Brentford Times article>—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alzarian16 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 April 2010

I suggest leaving out the second sentence, because we don't know whether that second ref refers to buses which were actually deployed on this route. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brentford Times article which you linked to above appears to be entirely about the buses used on this route, so it should be OK to use this as a source. Perhaps we should drop the Engineer article as a source for the reason you gave, but I don;t think that's a good reason to remove the whole sentence. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same Brentford Times article? I don't see any mention of regenerative braking there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)`[reply]

It seems you're right, so I've rephrased the sentence to take account of this. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's much better. I'm still not sure that it's entirely accurate to assume that the promise-of-hybrids in Dec 2008 is describing the buses actually deployed, but if other editors are happy to run with your revised text, I won't stand in the way. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition stated after three days, so I've added it to the article. Let's hope no-one reverts it. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]