Talk:National Express East Anglia

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 13, 2006

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

London Transport Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Archives

Archive 1

Photo nonsense

We need to put a stop to this photo nonsense. In particular, Image:Mark 3 coach in NXEA Livery at stowmarket.jpg is no such thing: it's a Mark 4, and appears to be a Kings Cross. We had similar problems when the CrossCountry franchise changed: some users then were impatient regarding trying to get a photo of a train in the new livery as soon as possible, leading to all sorts of trouble. (Given that most trains will still be in 'one' livery, such a depiction is reasonable.)

Finally, some users really need to learn the difference a backquote ` and an inverted comma ' (!). Grammatically, the inverted commas are correct, not the backquotes. --RFBailey (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely correct RFBailey. The photo of the "Mk3" that keeps being uploaded is as you note actually a Mk4. Not only that, as you understand, it shows the train at King's Cross so clearly people are attempting to mislead. I also understand it to be a computer generated image copyright National Express so if we were to use it some source info and a fair use rationale would we required. However, seeing as we can't justify using copyrighted images in this instance then it simply shouldn't be used.

I'm not aware of the fun and games that were had with CrossCountry but am not surprised. When the East Coast franchise was launched I managed to find an image which the photographer agreed upon request to release under an appropriate licence then shortly afterwards managed to upload a number of images of the new livery taken myself. This is what we should be attempting to do in this case also. Adambro (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo req

Just requesting a photo of the new brand. Simply south (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go out and get one yourself? Or how about attempting to contact their press office with a request for photos to be released under suitable licensing? Has anyone tried this before? Cambridge al (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One Railway

Why don't we create another article dedicated to 'One' railway, this way, the NXEA article can be less cluttered with information about 'One'. Please get back to me on this! Britishrailclass91 (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to note that NXEA is 'one', simply with a new name. This is unlike the situation on the ECML where NXEC is a new company that won the franchise after it was taken away from GNER. Adambro (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we simply take away the info about 'one' railway and put it in a seperate section to indicate life before NXEA so as to "declutter" the article without having to make a new one? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there really is anything to separate since, as I've noted, NXEA = one so anything which forms history etc of one is that of NXEA also. Could you highlight any text which you feel in particular should be separated? Adambro (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Adambro: they're exactly the same company: a company that recently happened to change its trading name, that's all. The history of NXEA is the history of 'one'. A split would be a really stupid and unnecessary one. --RFBailey (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:90012 at Liverpool Street 2.jpg

This image has been put in the fleet section, however upon futher investigation, I notice that the image is very blurred, what should I do about it? Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it is very blurred, maybe a little. Is there a better alternative? If not then it is fine as it is. Adambro (talk) 16:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best photo in the world, but it doesn't seem overly blurred. So it seems fine to me. --RFBailey (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine, I just wanted another view on it, by the way, it's not in the commons Britishrailclass91 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on Commons. Adambro (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant it's not in the NXEA section on Commons Britishrailclass91 (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, indeed, I understand. I've added it to the NXEA category now. Thanks for spotting this. Adambro (talk) 09:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome (for the thanks for spotting this section), and thank you for adding it to the NXEA section on commons. Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class 47s

I read in an issue of Railway Illustrated that NXEA are taking on an unspecified number of class 47 trains along with Mark 3 stock and DVTs, I thought I'd better let you all know that I am going to at a future fleet table to this article, Thanks and Regards Britishrailclass91 (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Stanstedxpresslogo.gif

The image Image:Stanstedxpresslogo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problem fixed. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 08:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism or correct?

Is this correct: [1]? How do we know? --VanBurenen (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Express East Anglia. 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) 17:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]