User talk:Arriva436/Archive 2009

This is the third archive of my current talk page. It starts from the beginning 2009 and continues until the of the year. Where possible, I have tried to provide replies and/or initial comments I made about the subjects being talked about, to try and provide a more thorough conversation. This means that some of the content in some discussions will have actually appeared on other users' talk pages as opposed to mine, but there's no point archiving stuff if you don't know what it's about afterwards!

Arriva Southern Counties

Your edit: (Rm underscores from Wikilinks.)

Why?

They work with or without; it's easier to create them with (by copying and pasting). I don't see the point of your edit but I'd rather ask than just revert it as a silly edit.  ;) MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the vast majority of Wikilinks do not have things like underscores in them. I don't know whether they are allowed to have them or not, I just remove them as they look messy and get in the way, not least because they don't need to be there. You say they work with or without, but they underscores do display, such as: Arriva_Southern_Counties. Or course, if I pipe the link (as you had done) it will appear as if it is normal. (Nowiki: [[Arriva_Southern_Counties|it will appear as if it is normal]].) I hope you can see my reasoning!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. As you say, each of the links involved was piped, so the underscores don't appear. So it makes no difference if they are there or not! It does rather seem like a petty and pointless edit. The only time I copy and paste links from an http: address (i.e. with the underscores) is if it's complicated and that often/normally means it has # location references in it as well. I would always pipe links like that.

By the way, I see that you have a lot of posts in the Guildford area. My grandmother lived in Guildford throughout my childhood, and I was very interested in the buses in that area like the RF which seemed to always be in one of the fleet's yards. (Can't remember which, now, but probably Safeguard). I am in Malta on holiday at the moment so there are many interesting buses ... and a depressing number of new or newish Chinese ones which are far less interesting.

MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at your article London Buses route S1. For starters, I'm interested that you consider an individual bus-route sufficiently notable to deserve its own article. I'm sure that this could be debated - it may already have been - but I doubt most would agree.

Anyway, having got past that hurdle, as we are on the subject of wikilinking, the article is a nightmare! MOS Wikipedia:Wikilinks#Overlinking_and_underlinking says that wikilinking the same term more than once is bad. I agree. But the article has the same terms wikilinked many, many times (or did, till I removed them this evening). Excessive wikilinking is ugly - far uglier than invisible underscoring within piped links. And the dates are all wikilinked - urgh! Date wikilinking is deprecated for the same reason - it's ugly and distracting - and even more so, because the links are of no value. Just because a bus route got changed in the summer of 1998 (or whenever) doesn't lead any sensible reader to want to know what "Summer" is about or what else happened in 1998.

I'm not trying to get into a tit-for-tat edit war. I've only looked at one section of that article in detail (there were so many edits and I'm getting hassled to get off the PC) but it certainly demonstrates that there are many issues on any side of a discussion regarding wikilinking.

MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because they are piped doesn't mean they are treated differently to other links. The underscores don't display, but I still wouldn't leave them in, just as I wouldn't in a normal link. You may say it seems "like a petty and pointless edit", but as I see it it was a tidy up and general standardisation, similar to what you say you do on your talk page. Petty maybe, but it clears the mess up. Anyway, now you've copied and pasted the links on the Arriva SC and I cleared it up there's not much more we can do.

My edits in Guildford are related to the rather well publicised loss of the Guildford Shuttle, now due to return.

Regarding the route S1 article, there's loads like it. See List of bus routes in London, where most routes have an article. It has been debated many times and the articles have survived. You may wish to see WP:WikiProject London Transport which supports all of the articles, where everyone agrees on their notability. Hence the specific infobox.

Don't forget some of my articles were started quite a while ago now, before linking dates was frowned upon so much and "Lightbot" was invented. If I had the time I would go through articles looking for things, but I'm busy doing other things and monitoring the 1,521 pages on my watchlist. That's why Wikipedia is so great, different editors do different things. I have no removed some more links from the S1 article.

You say that excessive linking is uglier than piped links with underscores, well, of course it is as piped links are..... piped! But under the face of the article things are just the same.

Of course you are not trying to get in an edit war!! This sort of discussion is the complete opposite, and what should be happening. I cannot disagree that linking styles are important, and agree that some things needed sorting out on route S1. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's great to have a constructive discussion - thanks! The "edit war" comments arose because I've had some run-ins in the past with people who wouldn't accept any edits to "their" page as justified, however justifiable they in fact were.

And the extra S1 edits are great too! Thanks for saving me the effort of making them.

Regarding notability of individual bus routes, it's a very "London" sort of thing, wouldn't you agree? I can't imagine anyone possibly imagining that the 101 from Gillingham to Maidstone (which passes my house) is notable in the slightest, and the logic (IMHO) extrapolates equally to the S1 or any other TfL route.

Have a good 2009! MarkyMarkD (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well no Wikipedia page can be "theirs" as such, just because you start it doesn't mean you own it!! Unfortunately some people get a bit protective!! I think the S1 page is OK now.

I do agree it's a London thing. The buses are a bit different there anyway. One argument it that most London routes have long histories and can be associated with the same route, some even from the 1920s and 30s!! The 101 is the one that's got the brand new Enviro400s isn't it??!! Lucky you, seeing as the previous buses weren't exactly old!

You have a good year too! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The new Enviro400s are very nice indeed - very comfortable to travel on, and very good looking buses indeed. Hardly any of the Medway area buses are old apart from the rather strange yellow-liveried ones - I don't understand the concept given that whenever I see them, they are running on normal services rather than schools. Perhaps it's because they don't meet the standards of "Operations Overdrive" so they are like unwanted children? MarkyMarkD (talk) 22:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Other parts of Arriva must be envious! Well the concept is for them to be on schools, but if they aren't its another matter!! Arriva SC have been getting a few more new buses recently and with the obvious transfers resulting - so we need to keep an eye on the fleet section. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent edit here doesn't make sense. It talks about Dartford having various routes, and getting some more. Fine. Then the new bit talks about routes formally operated from here ... what? Where does that come from or fit into the previous section? And "the next local Kent Thameside depot" doesn't make sense either. I appreciate you are only reinstating what the bot removed, but I was pretty happy with the bot removing what was actually nonsense, at least in how it's worded! MarkyMarkD (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It meant that the commercial routes previously operated from DT were moved to NF when DT went completely TfL. I've now fixed the issue. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! That makes a lot more sense now. MarkyMarkD (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

www.the101.co.uk is quite informative (I spied it on the side of a fotopic snap of a bus). MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Mick. I agree it's an interesting site - and I hadn't noticed it on the buses despite seeing some of them every day of my life!

Arriva make a few annoying "mistakes" though - including large PDF files as part of their site, rather than making efficient-to-download versions (whether PDF or HTML) - and they don't provide any fare information about particular journies which is rubbish. Given that the 101 falls between two areas' fare ranges (Medway and Maidstone) the only ticket covering the whole lot is their South East ticket which isn't particularly cheap. It's a shame they don't seem to make more effort to make fare information available.

The fare structure is a bit rubbish too in any case. If you travel one stop - central Chatham to Chatham Railway Station - it costs 50p. If you travel two stops it costs £1.50. That's a ridiculous differential - apparently explained by the 50p being a special discounted far to encourage interchange from bus to train and vice versa (or something like that). I'd suggest that £1.50 for two stops is way over the top, rather than that 50p for one stop is a particular bargain. I think they're also falling into the common trap of bus operators, of believing that it's fair to set fares based on the route mileage even when the bus does a "round the houses" route. MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NIBS

Thanks for cleaning up and putting the fleetlist I added into a table. I intend to add several more fleetlists onto pages, so could you look at them when I add them. So far I have not added any more, but will do soon. See you next time Arriva436. --Dennisman (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure, feel free to notify me if you want me to check anything once you've done some stuff. I'm sure you'll get used to it!! Also, if you are wondering where your other comments are from this talk page I've archived them! Click "2008" in the box above. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New Year Met

Simply south not SS, sorry 17:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC

Norwich park and ride

I have found several good photos of buses on these routes. Here are the links.

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

I wasn't able to find the green buses on the Costessey route. Hopefully these are good to use. Tell me on my talk page please if they have worked. --Dennisman (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately they are copyrighted images on Fotopic so cannot be put on Wikipedia as they have non-free licenses. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglian Bus

I have added a fleet summary showing how many of each vehicle is owned by this company. Is it good? Reply to my talk page. --Dennisman (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that fleet summary is excellent. I've fixed a couple of links, part apart from that it was fine. I think a fleet summary is of much more use that a fleetlist, as a large fleet list pointlessly gives too much info that can be found elsewhere. A summary is much more useful! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Preston Bus

On the Preston Bus page,which we both have edited responsibly, there seems to be several user ID's making vandal edits. I will give the following User IDs. Dennisman (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• 79.69.123.51 (Talk)
• 79.77.40.242 (Talk)
• 79.77.32.205 (Talk)

Could you also have a look at the edits. I will change them back to their last proper edit. --Dennisman (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

New Enterprise routes 781 and 784

Hi. I have noted with interest your recent move of New Enterprise routes 781 and 784 to Green Line routes 781 and 784. I was wondering whether you could clarify this? You said that "These routes have always been part of the Green Line network". Well, strictly no, they haven't. The article says that in 2005, Green Line dropped the services. This meant that all traces of Green Line branding went, and New Enterprise took over. The only thing that linked it to GL was the website linked to the service, which is hardly a lot seeing how rarely that site is updated. You also said that "due to organizational changes, New Enterprise Coaches no longer operates these services." Yes, Chalwell are operating them, totally separate, and not under the Green Line name. I'd like to hear your opinions! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Reading your message, I see that you're quite right that routes 781 and 784 were not ALWAYS part of the Green Line network, as they actually originated from Invictaway and was later amalgamated with the Green Line network in the early 90s (then numbered 980-985). I stand corrected there! However, they were still part of the Green Line network and remained so almost certainly a few years after New Enterprise took over operation, just as the X1 and X10 did when Stephensons took over - hence the change to "Green Line routes 781 and 784".

After checking the Green Line website it appears they now have removed the service from their website, so it's also correct that Green Line have no association with the Chalkwell operation. If you feel this is still in any way misleading then perhaps a more appropriate and current title for this article could be "London commuter routes 781 and 784". Please feel free to change this if that is the case.

I must mention at this point that I was actually a driver for the 781 from the Green Line days, right the way through the New Enterprise tenure until last week when we ran out the very last coaches (16th January). I am still an Arriva employee (been nearly 6 years now), and since we no longer run the 781/784 I've now been relocated to Dartford Garage. Despite this, I do still maintain the New Enterprise Coaches website on their behalf (as no one at Tonbridge knows how to maintain the thing!!!). A lot of the info on the page has been passed to me by a fellow driver who has been in the company for over 20 years and has been on the commuter services since the Invictaway days, so I know much of what's there is rather accurate. Of course, my fellow colleagues could misinform me of certain facts, but I do check before I publish them... usually!

I do feel it is important though to pass on the facts and indeed to word them correctly and appropriately, so thank you for raising the issue. Faithless78 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought that they left the timetables on the Green Line site after NE took over as it was still with Arriva. It appears Chalkwell are completely separate, so I have changed the route box template back with "New Enterprise 781 and 784 (Past Routes)". The problem is is that there is no real suitable name that has no issues with it! "London commuter routes 781 and 784" was the old name, but it is still quite bland.

Clearly, you are the expert, having driven for the company and on those routes!! No doubt about that! As you say it is important though to pass on the facts. What we should decide it whether to leave the article about "when it was" (about New Enterprise), or whether to move it on (about Chalkwell). The problem is, some random article about a coach service run by an operator that doesn't even have its own article probably isn't notable!! Any ideas...? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep the article current, so perhaps associating the article with Chalkwell will accommodate that. However, the route's history I feel is just as important. I think the whole "London Commuter" thing denotes the type of service that it is without tying it up with just one company, since the route has changed hands on a number of occasions and is likely to do so again since this is the norm for bus and coach operations these days.

The Green Line thing however placed emphasis on the route's history and the type of service that it's evolved from... although Invictaway may have been a better bet. The only problem with that is the fact that Invictaway ran a collection of services at the time with the 9XX prefix, and the 7XX prefix only really came in after a call from TfL to bring the route numbering in line with other commuter and Home Counties services in 2004.

Personally I wouldn't associate the routes with a company in the title. It might look bland, but it leaves the article manageable when the need to update it arises. I'll leave that choice with you I think Faithless78 (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Now you've said it like that I've changed my mind. Yes, I do think that "London Commuter routes..." would be a better name. Then we could keep it up to date without associating it to a particular operator too much. I would keep the emphasis on the operators in the article, and make it clear what happened when. I will let you move the page (and make any other changes). Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor title?

I need your opinion. "Ipswich Rapid Transit" only exists as a title in online articles that have sourced Wikipedia for their information. I know nothing about First Eastern Counties but it appears to me that this article is really about Superoute 66 and, if the article is to be kept, it should be renamed and edited to reflect this. It is notable and unique enough to retain, but, as you have noted, it should be researched and referenced. I think this is something that can be boldy done without much discussion, but I am consulting you for a second opinion as to whether we should just treat this as a bus route with a partial busway - not a rapid transit system - which would therefore not be listed on the Wikipedia:WikiProject buses/UK bus operator quality drive/status table. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that that is probably a good idea. Superoute 66 is the only guideway I know about in Ipswich so they must be the same. It could be improved with more refs and background. I would say that the "Superoute 66" is more a "scheme" than a route (the number bus 66 would be the route) so I would leave it in the status table. I will let you do the move/any changes you want to make. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do the research and provide references. Get Your Kicks On Route 66 is already being used! -Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Red links

Please don't remove red links from lists, just because they are red! Wikipedia is a wiki, and red links have been a deliberate feature of wiki software from the very early days of wikis. They are intended to encourage the creation of new articles -- which was the principal motivation for creating the list in the first place. See WP:REDLINK for more on this topic, particularly the bit which says that academic studies short that red links are the driver for Wikipedia's growth.

If you want to get rid of the red links, perhaps you should consider creating articles in question? Bus stations seem to me to be just as article-worthy as tube stations. -- The Anome (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But vast lists of red links look messy and are uneeded. One or two may help "encourage the creation of articles", but an entire page of them just looks messy and puts me off. WP:RED says that "articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles". Well I really doubt that all of the bus stations will suddenly have articles in the near future. Also, you said "Bus stations seem to me to be just as article-worthy as tube stations", so I have relinked and moved to have lower case article names such as "X railway station" per WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

Victoria Coach Station

I think you've got this one wrong. This is a proper name and should be capitalized as indicated by Transport for London[6] and also shown on the sign in the photograph. Windsor Castle but not Scottish castle; Albert Hall but not Music hall. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget though that on signs and websites etc they will use capitals to make it look nice. Such as this photo of Victoria Station and London Victoria station, and this and London Waterloo station. Anyway I've moved it back. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 09:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arriva NW & Wales

Yes, I agree with you now that I've thought about it. There's no reason for it not to have either a picture or an infobox. I think at the back of my mind was "there's nowhere to put date disbanded, therefore this is an infobox for current operators, therefore it should go". But that isn't really logical. As for the pic, I was using it to illustrate ABW, so thought it oughtn't to be the main pic for two articles, which probably isn't logical either! Anyways, now you know what I was thinking :)

Quackdave (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought that it needed a picture, and seeing as all the ones we have are of NW&W it wasn't a problem. I just put an appropriate message saying where the bus is now. I wasn't sure whether to put the infobox in but I thought why not? I have juts added a new option to Template:Infobox Bus transit for "defunct" which I've added to NW&W. I'm not sure defunct is quite the right word, can you think of any others, baring in mind it will be for all operators? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, never considered that! No, I can't think of any better word than "defunct". The only other one I thought of was "ceased", but if anything that's probably less suitable. It seems to have more of a connotation of the operations ceasing, rather than just the entity that runs them being superseded. "Defunct", on the other hand, seems appropriate enough for either. Quackdave (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Defunct it will stay! It does seem the best at the moment. I was amazed I actually managed to do it without breaking the template!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Defunct

Yes! That parameter has been needed for a long time. There are former bus companies that use the Template:Infobox Company which uses "defunct" (which I think is the right word). I have previously not changed them because of this. Thank you. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As above, I think that defunct is probably the best word. Maybe some other bus operators can have the more specific infobox now. I was surprised added defunct worked but I don't seem to have caused any side effect yet! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

UK Bus Routes

I have created a quality drive similar to the operator drive, based on some of the points I have previously raised regarding bus routes in the UK. Your input and participation would be greatly welcomed! Find the page at WP:UKBRQDRIVE. Thanks! jenuk1985 (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a quick note to say, that while it appears that I have a vendetta against bus route articles, I don't. Personally I'd love to see articles for all my local routes in Bromsgrove, its just not in the remit of Wikipedia. I'm just trying to achieve a level of consistency. jenuk1985 (talk) 03:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I'm very busy at the moment so maybe I'll get back to you properly in a couple of weeks time. You definitely don't have a vendetta against them, of course most aren't notable!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Feb metro!

Simply south not SS, sorry 14:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

I guess you are back from your holiday now, welcome back and did you have a good time? :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes thank you! You've reminded me to remove the break templates as well! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		For all your contributions to UK Bus related articles Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you, I have never been given a barnstar before!!!! Thanks once again. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you deserve it! You keep cropping up on my watchlist left right and centre and its about time you had some recognition! Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Infobox

If the reason you tried to change the infobox is because you need two logos for Transdev London, why don't you create two infoboxes, one for each service. The information seems to be nicely divided in the article. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It was yes! Thanks for the idea, but having thought about it, I've decided it wouldn't work. It would disrupt the layout too much and displace the older logos and other pictures. I'm happy with the result anyway! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Arriva SVG

Thanks very much for uploading an SVG version of File:Arriva logo.svg. It's a great improvement on the PNG that I'd overwritten. Cheers! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem at all, mate. Anything else you need (especially SVG wise), just drop me a line and I'll get right on it. Cheers. :) — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

April Metro

Simply south (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Kent Top Travel

Hi 436, thanks for your help on this article! Crookesmoor (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem! It's a pleasure! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you know if it's the same company as Nu-Venture or not? I seem to remember that NV is also part of Kent County Council? Crookesmoor (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I've never heard Nu-Venture is part of KCC. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Manchester bus routes

Hi, I would appreciate your advice. I recently created Wilmslow Road bus corridor and have long been considering making articles on the routes themselves. I'm not sure, however, how notable these routes are, and whether they warrant their own article. I think the most notable Manchester bus route is probably the 192 service, but still, I'm not sure. What do you think? Majorly talk 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry for the late reply! Wilmslow Road bus corridor is a good article and is notable. I'm not sure creating separate articles on the routes will be particularly helpful if it only duplicates info, but if there's history to the routes then it should be OK. I'd say the 42 is probably notable.

As for other routes, the 192 is definitely notable. At the end of the day, as long as you can ref it well and it's reasonably well known, then I'd say it should be fine! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See Greater Manchester bus route 192. I'm very pleased with how much stuff I was able to find! Majorly talk 20:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ooh excellent! I knew they'd be a lot of stuff about it! Well done, it's a great article. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May Metro

As Simply South is busy, I've stepped in for this one; this is my first time, so feel free to fix any mistakes or let me know of anything I've missed. – iridescent 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine to me! Cheers. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When you get a min...

Would you mind sicking your head in User_talk:Welshleprechaun#Bus_transport_in_Cardiff and making a comment please? Sometimes I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh god! I'll have a look in a minute :) Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Just done it! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your general courteousness in messages etc. Simply south (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now that I've actually got some barnstars, I'll have to put them on my user page!!! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Nu-Venture

Hi A436, I've started a routes table on the Nu-Venture article. Crookesmoor (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

June Metro

I've decided to fill in the empty job vacancy for the Metro for this month, feel free to correct any mistakes or add any missing information. Cheers! Crest of London ^(T|C|A) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NSL Buses

Hello there. I just wanted to say something about NSL Buses.

I changed the File:419 bus.jpg image with the File:493 bus.jpg. And it looks like you reverted it back. My reason why I did this is because The 493 bus on the image looks too far away than the 419 one. However, I agree with you that the 493 picture is nicer, but as you see, there's a street and a white car next to it, which makes the pic not look very nice.

However, if you want the 493 picture at the top, its OK. Whatever you want =)

--AimalCool (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind what you did, it would have just been nicer if you said in the edit summary why you did it. Unfortuatley, neither image is perfect. While the Pointer Dart on the 419 is closer to the camera, the bus shelter and darkness in the background draw your eyes away from it. Whereas, even though it is further away, the Enviro200 Dart on the 493 is in much sunnier conditions so your eyes get drawn towards it. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have a picture of an NSL bus yet? These are both NCP. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sadly not me, I've not been to London since last year. I've not actually seen a picture of a bus with any form of NSL branding yet either. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, NSL is currently rebranding their buses. This means that we'll see the new NSL logos on their buses in the future. --AimalCool (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, so there aren't any photos yet. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I'm intrigued.

What is your interest/connection with Bowvayne? We seem to have a mutual interest in this guy and buses!

Regards Tim

Some time ago, I was looking at bus related stuff (most likely your contributions to Compass Bus) and saw a link to Bowvayne. I looked at the article, and because it had some improvement tags on it, I put it on my watchlist. That is how, when someone vandalised it, I knew about it. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 10:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

July Metro

Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Stephensons of Essex

Oops! I didn't realise that 'ridership' in the template was for daily ridership, the figure of 1.5 million is for the whole of last year, and is from their website. It is alright to divide it by 365 to get a mean daily figure of 4,110? Thanks for flagging it up! Perhaps the template could be made clearer so it refers specifically to "daily ridership"? Huangcjz (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

It is OK now as an interim measure now I think. I'll have a look at the infobox when I get time. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've just realised I completely forgot about this, so apologies! I have now made some changes to the infobox, by adding a new parameter for annual ridership, and putting a hidden comment in the documentation for "ridership" to show it means "daily ridership". I have also made appropriate changes to the Stephensons edit. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 09:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

East London (Bow Garage)

Hi, I am new to this and sorry if you didn't agree with what I have put. I have found out today from someone who works for East London that the Enviro400 is still based at West Ham and didn't transfer to Bow, this is also on the ELBG website latest fleet list. Regard, Dagenham Bus Spotter. 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagenhambusspotter (talk • contribs)

Hi! Don't worry, I didn't disagree with what you put. It's just that stuff like that (such as asking questions relating to the article etc), should be put on the talk page, rather than the article. Also, when using talk pages, such as this one, remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes like this ~~~~. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 10:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. 11:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — unsigned comment added by Dagenhambusspotter (talk • contribs)

Hopefully I have sorted now the sogning bit after leaving message. Again thanks for feedback. 22:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you did five then, not four. ~~~~. Four does the whole thing. (Three does only your name, and five only the date). Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 11:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

JP Travel and general notability of smaller bus operators

Hello, there is a discussion at Talk:JP Travel which you may be interested in regarding notability of smaller bus operators. (This is a copy and paste message, I have included you in this as you make bus related contributions) Jeni ^(talk) 18:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Metropolitan - Issue 16

--DavidCane (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 09:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary

Re your edit summary here, it can be obvious only to someone who knows the route or looks it up on a route map (outside Wikipedia). As the dab page Weymouth shows, Wikipedia has multiple articles about specific transportation points in Weymouth, so Weymouth, Dorset is not necessarily the most appropriate article. Thanks for disambiguating the link. --Una Smith (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being sarcastic given that the article name is "First Hampshire & Dorset", there aren't any other "Weymouth"s in the country and it was in a table listing towns as opposed to transport points. Also the Weymouth, Dorset article mentions the said bus service.

I've had to update the timetable anyway as some parts were out of date (it was seemingly reinstated a couple of months ago after a period of absence, following an "incident" where one user removed lots of info from loads of articles without any consensus! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

September Metro

Simply south (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

London Transport

[7]?

I can't see the difference in scope you refer to to be honest. Both cover the same period, but one is an article bringing together all the sub-articles, the other is just a dab page listing the same sub-articles. Unless you meant something else? MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to see London Transport stuff I think it's better to arrive at a disambiguation page than be hit with a huge amount of information like at History of ....., where you have to work out what's just happened! Feel free to change it back, I don't really care about these things anymore, and I've not sorted anything else out. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I would actually prefer renaming the History article to London Transport now I think about it, that might take some of the confusion away, with appropriate hatnotes. If you aren't particularly bothered, I'll get on it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the database is going screwy, its not showing me the latest changes, so I'll leave it for now. It has to be done through WP:RM anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. See Talk:History_of_transport_in_London_(1933–2003)#Requested_move. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Arriva436

Would that refer to the route between Shrewsbury and Bridgnorth? Metrolink-Boy (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is one of the 436s Arriva operate... Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as i can remember there're only two in the UK Shrewsbury-Bridgnorth and Wakefield-somewhere else... Metrolink-Boy (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

October Metro - better late than never

Simply south (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

TIL 6710

Thanks for the correction to the correction!

It is referenced in various places as an ECW body and it looks like an ECW body - but then again, the Leyland Motors page says that the "Leyland" bodies built from 1988 to 1992 were basically ECW bodies built at Leyland.

So you are quite right.

MarkyMarkD (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I forgot about this. Yes - no problem! I had always had that in the back of my mind there was something wrong with it, not helped by the fact, as you say, they are basically the same body! Anyway, hopefully all is fixed now! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nov Metro

Simply south (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 11:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

December

Simply south (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Aviance UK

Hi. I moved the article by cutting and pasting because a move was not possible - Aviance UK already existed as a redirect. I had been told in the past that copying and pasting was acceptable where this was the case. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Merry Christmas! Wikiwoohoo (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no, you shouldn't do that, as it ruins the page history. What you should do is request the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, so an admin can delete the page you want to move to and then move it. This avoids page history problems. Anyway, not to worry, an admin has sorted the Aviance UK article out now! Hope you had a good Christmas - have a happy new year! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

2009 archive now completed. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)