Talk:List of bus routes in London/Archive 1

message: There is no way we are going to have an article for every London district "Bus routes in....", there are well over 500 districts and that information can go on the relevant district page. This needs to be expanded into a List of bus routes in London and become a complete list. MRSC 05:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've converted the Ilford list into a London-wide list. It needs to be populated now. The "start" column contains the location nearest to Charing Cross. MRSC 11:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page moved from [[Bus routes in Ilford]]

message: The Victoria in route 185 leads to the disambiguation page of Victoria. Can someone who has knowledge of the route update the link? Thanks Grey Shadow 14:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus Route 185 

message: I am just thinking, would it be a good idea to add a column to show whether buses run 24 hrs or not? Simply south 12:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These bus routes are highlighted, so it's probably not necessary. --sonicKAI 10:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  However the use of highlighting is not immediately obvious as the Key is at the end of a long page. Page94 23:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Highlighting I've sorted. Is blue okay? Simply south 15:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Put the key at the top -- Arriva436 20:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: Is there not some other page which already exists which would be able to show this information with a map, or a couple of maps? Garrie 22:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some huge pdf maps are available from [TfL], hence the usefulness of this simple and easy to use list. Page94 17:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: It seems you have thrown convention to the wind and linked every mention of any article. The convention is to only wikilink the first mention of an article name. Garrie 05:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is useful for lists to have such extra links. An article about Bobblyboos should link only the first mention of Fobblyfoos but in a list of Bobblyboos with each entry giving its Fobblyfoo a deal of scrolling to find a link to Fobblyfoo23 is avoided.--SilasW (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why so many wikilinks? 

message: I think this section should be removed. The rest of the list is very good (and easy to maintain as they are all regulated from one place). This section however is difficult to control. There must be hundreds of routes that cross the boundary and they come from at least five different transport areas. Also they have infrequent services and this really isn't the place to note what bus runs on Sunday and what doesn't. Aside from that some of the neighbouring areas have stub articles like List of bus routes in Essex and it would be better for the focus to go there rather than here. MRSC 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: X-boundary/Non-TfL

message: I think the schools services should be split out from this and form a separate section. Its unclear at the moment. MRSC 13:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 600-699

message: I've started by adding "early histories" to routes 3;4;5;8;20;25;30;38;63; 96 & 108... but I´m not up-to-date on the latest info.. My working list for the near future is as follows:-  22; 35; 48; 55; 137; 149; 243. Please help by adding recent info where necessary--IsarSteve 21:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Histories 

message: Removed as 724 is non-TfL. Simply south 16:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed 700s message 

message: I've reverted all these changes as the two companies are the same thing (one is a trading name). MRSC 12:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stagecoach <> East London Bus Co 

message: Would it be a good idea to link to all the articles of each route, even if it created a broken link. At least then you wouldn't keep track of the articles created, as a minute ago I found the C1 row didn't have a link, when the C1's article was made ages ago. Or am I being stupid??? Arriva436 19:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had it in thought for some time and am not still sure. Btw, no you are not being stupid. Simply south 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to get involved, but there are over 120 articles on buses on Wikipedia, and there are hundreds more in existence. It's probably a bad idea at the moment. --sonicKAI 22:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, creating redlinks will encourage lots of stubs. It is better to let these articles grow organically (and with high quality). Having lots of stubs has generated campaigns against the whole category of articles in the past. MRSC • Talk 23:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay then. It would take ages anyway!!! Arriva436 19:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Links 

message: The C2 has just been converted into a 24 hour service.
Arriva London has just introduced a school service 628 that runs from Southgate Station to Kingsbury JFS via the the 688. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CourtneyBonnick (talk • contribs) 08:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second one was deleted. Simply south (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The C2 and 628 

message: Route 205 is now a 24 hour service.C.bonnick 22:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 205 

message: The 220 was turned into a 24 hour service, in 2005.C.bonnick 01:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 220 

message: Route 102 is now a 24-hour serviceC.bonnick 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 102 

message: New school route 605 has just began and if you want evidence for this just look on Metroline website.
I have already created a page for it can you please make a link to it.C.bonnick 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added it to the table for you.  Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) (review) 17:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 605 

message: New route 332 replaced 316 between Neasden and Cricklewood and then runs parallel the 316 to Kilburn, it then continues via route 16 to Edgware Road and then via route 27 to Paddington. If you want for what I'm talking about then check the Metroline website and www.londonbusroutes.net
I have created page for it so can someone create a link for it. C.bonnick 10:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route 332 / 316 

message: How detailed should the end points of routes be?  I suggest that in a list they should be only the district and not the exact location; most routes are now linked and presumably the rest have aficionados who hope to write the missing WP articles. Now what is given is a right old mishmash; some give the exact location (but the link can be just the district), some the district (but the link may be the location), sometimes different end points in an area are differentiated, sometimes not. Is a reader of this article likely to need a quick link to the etymology, history and list of "celebrity" inhabitants of a place that happens to be the end of a bus route? By and large most passengers never go the ends.--SilasW 12:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find the definition of the end points of routes, as in town names, suburb names, local landmarks, pubs etc, and how many to display, is an ongoing issue within the Tfl hierarchy, or at least a cause of bemusement among the industry press. Where sensible we should include the destination displayed on the bus, although this changes as per said issue. MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency of End Points of Routes

message: I have deleted these from the list as they are non-TfL -in fact run under contract to Surrey County Council. Arriva436 (talk) 13:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Routes 514/515 

message: While not technically to do with this article, I thought that as it is the first London bus route article I have done, it is important I confirm that the article is OK, is it? The history section is a bit basic, I couldn't find any info on the usual sites, luckily I knew a bit already! 
Something that is related to this article is that I have changed the operator name in the table to Arriva Guildford and West Surrey, as this is the part of Arriva Southern Counties that runs the route. As the 465 is the only TfL route Arriva G&WS runs, it shouldn't cause much of a problem. Thanks -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[London Buses route 465]] 

message: This discussion has grown to be too large with for example many old "reasons" for making uncontroversial changes, questions often not relevant to the article itself which a little search would have answered (that is not always easy if trying to edit an article and its talk, read another WP article and compare other "sources" at the same time). But
some reduction is needed (deletings/archiving/refactoring/?).--SilasW (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear-out of this Talk 

message: The opening note of the article that it covers only TfL contracted routes was mine, based on the article's content, some non-TfL routes had just been removed. But others remain
e.g. 610, searching on TfL gives that there is more than one route 610, one is listed but without a route line on an Enfieldish spider map. Should it and the like go?--SilasW (talk) 11:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have deleted some non-TfL routes that remained in the article, and I think that they should all go to be honest. One problem is route 614, which has an article for it, although it is not a TfL route. It's operated under another service permit, it just happens to accept Oyster cards etc. -- Thanks, Arriva436shout! 12:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-TFL routes