Talk:List of bus routes in London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Exemption from verifiability[edit]

User:Class455 in this edit [1] restoring altered material, you gave as an edit summary "Contract changes does not require a source, and never has". Please can you explain how, and where it is documented, that this content is exempt from the policy that 'All content must be verifiable'?[2].SovalValtos (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I can actually. If you look at the list, and scroll through all the operators there, you will find there are NO sources cited for operators, and there has never been. This is because they are cited on the indivdual operator's article to prevent clutter. I dont know but I can only assume that a consensus was made long ago or it simply has not been done, and hasnt needed to. Additionally, when there has been an operator change on a London route, it is changed, without a source and without any issues, even though these edits are reviewed at times. Why now have you decided to create an unnecessary issue, as you always have been doing? I suggest you examine previous edits where operators have changed, and explain why there have not been any issues. I can understand your revert of the IP's edit, since they use the "fixed typo" edit summary, which usually means they are upto no good, but that is rather misleading. Of course, I can find and provide a source for route 258's takeover, but this will just break the style of which the article is formatted, so on this occasion I am not going to do so and maintain consistency.What I will do however is update this on the operator's article. However, and I mean this not as a personal attack, I again urge you to stop "looking to start trouble", by creating issues when there are none. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a thought - If we're requesting a source for Class455's changes then shouldn't all of the operators be sourced ? ..... (I asked asked this an hour ago but had internet issues so it never made it beyond preview). –Davey2010Talk 19:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Davey2010 Exactly. I'm also sure there may be a guideline regarding lists and referencing or consensus somewhere, which may point to why these aren't referenced in the first place. The same applies to similar lists such as List of bus routes in Singapore, which the operators do not have sources, and List of bus routes in Hong Kong, which only has two references in the entire article, let alone for operators. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware Operators on each and every list here has never been sourced, So what do we do remove all operators ? .. No you research the route - You go on google images, Search (for instance) "london bus 466" and you realise "Oh yes Arriva is the operator of this route" - You don't start being awkward for the sake of being awkward. –Davey2010Talk 20:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Dave- pretty much my thoughts exactly. Enough people watch this page and incorrect entries are very quickly reverted. jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Jcc - Exactly, As I explained below bus companies never release this info so we have to take peoples word on it, If an IP added it sure I'd be sketchy but all of this kerfuffle over (a) long standing editor(s) is rather sad. –Davey2010Talk 22:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @SovalValtos: The relevant literature is at WP:LISTN: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Cheers, — fortunavelut luna 21:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is about verifiability rather than notability.Charles (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The existance of other lists lacking sources is no excuse for posting unsourced material here. WP:V has no exemptions. Going to primary sources such as operator websites to establish the fact as Davey suggests is WP:Original research and not allowed on Wikipedia.Charles (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles - I agree things do need to be sourced I agree but it seems silly requesting a source for a bus company taking over another bus companies route, If we cited this one trivial thing then we'd need to source all operators as well as all tos, froms and vias which we both know is next to none impossible, Bus companies usually keep hush hush when it comes to this sort of thing (or if they're Arriva they'll shove it on their site for a week and then delete it entirely). –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • In that case it is unencyclopedic ephemera which is unverifiable in the longer term and should not be on Wikipedia. Fancruft.Charles (talk) 08:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you everyone who has tried to answer my question mentioning User:Class455. So far no documentation for an exemption from verifiability for Operators in this list has been forthcoming. I was not content to take the IP's word for the change, nor should any reader have to go on google images and search to verify the content as suggested by User:Davey2010. If such material is so problematic to source perhaps it should not be on Wikipedia being a trivial thing, or "unencyclopedic ephemera which is unverifiable in the longer term" as User:Charlesdrakew said. I would like to see if any other editors can document an exemption in a few days. I may not be able to edit.SovalValtos (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out, this page has been nominated for deletion twice in the same format and has been kept, so you saying that this shouldn't be on Wikipedia is complete bullshit if I may say so myself. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 18:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Class455 A page being nominated for deletion in the past and the page kept has zero to do with keeping unverifiable content.SovalValtos (talk) 08:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)



To clarify the route of each bus line to indicate the route, it would be useful to add a retractible Wikipedia:Route diagram template to each of those lines in an additional column using

Please indicate whether it seems a good or bad idea.

--Railfan01 (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Terrible idea on such a long list! Jeni (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. Keep the list simple, just route numbers, termini and bus contractor. Ajf773 (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a guide. People can get route details direct from TfL.Charles (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Dear god no!, As per above the list should be kept simple and anyone who wants to see a map of the route can go to TFL or the main bus operators website, –Davey2010Talk 19:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Support if that means my gaff has a little icon of its own, thanks to the 69  :o ;) — fortunavelut luna 19:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Of no real benefit. Uncorneast (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - In what way does this benefit the article? Only articles to do with rail routes are suited to this template. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of bus routes in London. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)