Talk:Public transport in Waikato

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

'Bicycle ban' section

I have undone your revisions regarding Public transport in Hamilton and Waikato specifically the 'Bicycle ban' section which claims Hamilton has been the largest city not to carry bicycles on any of its public transport. No reference specifically verifying this statement has yet been cited. Multiple references relating to transport in other cities (Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch) are references to their own respective transport systems (but not those in Hamilton and Waikato). A reference to city populations from the New Zealand census does not state anything about bicycles on public transport. It is not immediately distinguishable to the reader and remains trivial and ambiguous.

If you can find a single source which clearly states that Hamilton has been the largest city not to carry bicycles on any of its public transport, then I'll be happy to allow it to remain. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page seems a more appropriate place to resolve Edit Wars, not continued use of the undo button, or user talk pages.

There are many instances in Wikipedia, including this article, where the references don't say specifically what is written in the article. For example, where can I find, in a single reference, your statement that "SH 35 is the longest two-digit state highway at 334 kilometres (208 mi), longer than three single-digit highways (SH 4, SH 5 and SH 7)"? Using the same logic (or lack of it), if Hamilton is the 4th largest city and, if it doesn't allow bikes on public transport, but the three larger ones do, then does it not follow that Hamilton is the largest city which doesn't? I therefore suggest that the original statement should be reinstated, but with the addition of the extra references. Thank you for prompting me to look those up.

Alternatively, we could use the list on the map of places with bike racks on buses to create a table showing populations of those places and other large cities, thus showing where Hamilton ranks in provision of cycle friendly public transport, relative to its size. Possibly such a table should form a section in Public transport in New Zealand. Should we start a discussion on the talk page there?

Can you think of other options to produce a succinct statement verifiable by the citations?Johnragla (talk) 20:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know why you need to defend such a non-notable piece of information that requires four sources for complete verification. Ajf773 (talk) 11:24, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is to some extent subjective, which is probably why Notability is a guideline, rather than a rule. To me it's more notable that a city doesn't allow bikes on it's buses, than that a road with two digits is longer than one with a single digit. Even the guideline doesn't apply to content within an article, which is why we are both entitled to include information which some might consider not to be notable. Yes, my statement does require four sources for complete verification, but it strikes me as odd that you complain about that, when your SH 35 statement about digits has no verification.Johnragla (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- List of New Zealand State Highways contains all highways lengths. If there is an article on "Lists of cities in New Zealand with bike carriers on buses" that may also be appropriate. Ajf773 (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was asking above; whether you thought it preferable to start a discussion on the Public transport in New Zealand.talk page. It'd involve more work, but result in a tidier outcome and be more comprehensive.Johnragla (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead question

Regarding the first sentence in the lead that it’s “poorly developed”: compared to what? Why is it poorly developed? Similarly, why is Public transport in the Wellington Region well developed? Fork99 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The map and 0.9% and 2.3% figures show it is poorly developed. To answer why that is would need more information about when and how it got that way. There isn't enough detail in the Routes section to answer that. Wellington is well developed in terms of ridership and coverage, compared to the rest of the country, though not by international standards. Johnragla (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Public transport in Hamilton" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Public transport in Hamilton has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 22 § Public transport in Hamilton until a consensus is reached. NotReallySoroka (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]