Talk:FTR (bus)/Archive 1

message: The criticisms have all been made (and having travelled on the things, I can bear them out), but without sources they are unverifiable, and qualify as original research.  We don't want to give Yorkshire First the opportunity to portray Wikipedia as a soapbox for dissatisfied passengers, so can someone please find references?  --RobertG ♬ talk 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I have added some content from a trade publication and tried to wikify the rest of it.  I have also amended the Leeds section which I believe was factually incorrect.  I don't believe that Metro have made any decision on this yet (Metro published a tender invitation in August 24th edition of LTT saying "no costs or timescales are available").Jezzerk 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: * Despite being 100% longer than their predecessors, the ftr buses can seat only one more person. 
...See above - this is not true.
* The length of the buses frequently leads to problems navigating York's often narrow and twisting streets, despite the jointed nature of the buses.
...But the original bendy buses still work and have done so. The ftr is based on the same chassis, the Volvo B7LA
* The 'Emergency door open' buttons are frequently mistaken by passengers as the correct way to open the back doors.
... they are clearly marked 'EMERGENCY USE ONLY' and are clearly visible. Is this therefore the fault of the bus or passengers?
Mdcollins1984 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are clearly marked but that has not stopped many passengers pressing them thinking that's the correct way to  open the doors. It's clearly mostly the passengers' fault but IMHO the point is that it's a mistake they might not have made had the doors been designed better. --Jmptdc 11:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most of the critisms don't have sources and are entirely original research. Probably done by the members of the facebook group (which is hardly relavent to the topic)
-What is the source of this comment then? 'Probably' is not a valid critism (dc505)   
Yet they have a right to their opinions and views. As do you. So not irrelevant, but a useful perception.  
* First Group advertised ticketing with the ftr as being easy, with 'm-tickets' being available to buy and download using a mobile phone, and pre-paid barcode tickets also being available from paypoints. Despite the trial period having been in operation for several months, these systems have still not yet been put into operation. First have given no indication of when, or even if, these pre-paid tickets will become available.
Removed, both these payment methods are fully operational, as far as I'm aware. I've certainly had no trouble obtaining tickets from paypoints. DezSP 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms removed for discussion and/or verification 

message: "The vehicles have been designed to make refubishment straightforward to freshen their appeal every few years. FirstGroup's record has not been impressive when it comes to maintaining the appearance of its existing fleet of conventional buses."  This paragraph has no logic within this topic, it matters not on the type of bus.  But when they are refurbished/repainted. -- Matthew Forth 88.109.123.206 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless paragraph 

message: Whilst some aspects of this article are well done, the criticism section is very poor. I am aware this article was either started (or at least extensively edited) by a Facebook group claiming to hate the ftr but it is still important to retain balance. I propose these changes for a start:
"A Facebook group "I Hate The New Bus Society" has been formed, which now has over 840 members, with the aim of increasing awareness of problems with the buses and taking action against some of the problems. This contrasts to the 'ftr's might not be perfect but i don't hate them' group, which has only 16 members."
This is ridiculous. There are many valid criticisms that can be levelled at the service but the membership of Facebook groups is surely not one of them. This should be deleted.
The rest of the criticism section contains unverified claims and weasel words. For example, "Some have commented that ..." should go unless it can be cited. Similarly "The bus often fails to stop at the correct bus stop ..." is unverified and therefore out of place here. The ftr has been plagued with technical problems, can nobody find a reference?
In the 'support' section, *every* point is rebutted. They all follow the formula of <Grudging acceptance of a point> followed by <BUT some reason why this is still a criticism in disguise>. The nature of a bus service is that few people are going to come out with verifiable praise. If it is not there, don't make it up. Delete it and if the criticism section were written more fairly then the reader can make their own mind up about the service without need for a 'support' section.
I will leave it a while to see how people respond before making these changes. Thanks. 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article requires extensive work 

message: Per our guidelines (WP:NC, WP:MOS, WP:MOSTM), ftr is not an appropriate article title unless there is no reasonable alternative.   is for the exception, not the rule.  81.104.175.145 10:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: :Any additional comments:
:Do the people who oppose the move also want to put a  tag on Adidas? SalaSkan 12:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of irrelevant, really. The guideline is explicit about how to present an all-lower-case trademark like "addidas" -- it should be capitalized like a proper noun. 
*I'm neither supporting nor opposing the move at this time; however, I don't think it is quite accurate to say that Ftr "does not meet the guidelines stated in WP:MOSTM". Can we please be more precise and indicate exactly what part of that guideline Ftr fails to meet? By my reading of the guideline: "ftr" is an all-lower-case trademark, which the guideline says to capitalize like a proper noun. The guideline does not give explicit direction about presentation of all-lower-case trademarks that happen to be a string of characters. If ftr were an acronymn, there would likely be little discussion as acronymns are generally presented as all caps in standard english. But ftr is not an acronymn. Abbreviations are not always presented as all caps in standard english. It is not even clear that ftr is actually an abreviation -- it is derived from text messaging shorthand for "future", but unlike a typical abbreviation, it would be incorrect to refer to the buses or the system as "future". older ≠ wiser 16:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Good question about the trademark status. I don't know if it is a registered trademark. Re pronunciation, it has also been suggested that it is pronounced as eff-ter. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Substituted at 14:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment