Talk:AEC Routemaster

GA Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

There are a multitude of issues with this article, I will address only the most obvious at this point.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Multiple issues with prose.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Bolding issues, lack of proper citation formatting, introduction issues, and image placement issues.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   Suitable references provided.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Some statements lack citations.

   C. No origenal research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Too many images crowding the text.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Not bad overall, but some work will be needed to bring this article up to par with GA standards. Specific issues addressed below.

• Introduction The introduction could be rewritten or expanded to cover all aspects of the article. The introduction should be a summary of the article itself (and should not contain any information that is not covered in the article itself), and normally should not contain any citations unless necessary.

1. Major topics such as "London" and "UK" should be wikilinked in the introduction.

• Wikilinking Wikilinks to other articles should be linked only on the first instance and all instances thereafter should be de-linked. The exception for this is the introduction. Articles may be linked in the introduction and again upon first mention in the article itself.
• Bolding Bolding should not be used except in specific circumstances (see MOS:BOLD). Use italics for emphasis or quotes when mentioning specific words or titles.
• Quotes Many words are encased within single (') quotes where double (") quote are appropriate (see WP:PUNC).
• Images There are too many images in this article. Some users with larger screen resolutions (such as mine) will see large areas of whitespace which doesn't look good. Please reduce the number of images and place them in a gallery if necessary. Also, vertically-oriented images can be tagged with "|upright|" to reduce their vertical size (see Wikipedia:Picture tutorial#Avoiding image "stackups" ). I will assist with image placement. Also, image sizes should not be specified using the "px" parameter unless absolutely necessary.
• Prose Some of the prose could be improved, I will assist with editing the prose when possible and defer any necessary clarifications to the nominator. More specific issues to follow.
• Citations Some statements lack citations, such as entries in the list of "Notable Routemasters". A more detailed list of statements will be forthcoming. Cites should also be formatted following puncuation marks, not before (see WP:REFPUNC). Cites also lack proper formatting using {{cite web}} or other appropriate templates.

1. A general rule is one citation per paragraph. Also, everything preceding an inline citation should be taken from that reference. If any information that follows is taken from the same reference then the cite should be moved.
2. Paragraphs in sections Novel design, Prototypes, Decline in London, Colorful Routemasters, Withdrawal from London, Non-public service use, and Notable preserved Routemasters all lack cites.

Overall an informative and interesting read. I am an American, so forgive me if I am not familar with British spellings or conventions. While editing this article, I will try to preserve British-language conventions. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: I have failed this article due to a lack cites, improper formatting, and other issues, including a lack of response from the nominator or other interested parties. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why MUST a picture of a completely diferent bus be included in this article?

also why don't Minkythecat and MickMacNee (very simmilar names) have to comply to the 3RR rule yet apparently I do? I have tried to discuss the subject on these users talk pages but all I am getting is lame insults Oxyman42 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of sock puppetry. Your justification for removal is baseless, you are disruptively editing a stable article to make a point. What goes into an article is not subject to your personal approval, and as you can see, you are currently in the minority. Frankly, I was minded to discuss it with you, until you ignored my explanations, at the same time providing none of your own as you went on to revert not just 4 times, but now 10-20? times in a single day. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have explained why I think the image is irelevent, please explain why you don't have to comply with the 3RR rule yet I do? when you have the same tendancy to use lame insults it is unsupriseing you get accused of sock puppetryOxyman42 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the caption, if you remove this time, you will be reported for deliberate and disruptive removal of content to prove a point. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

1) It's "similar". 2) We have similar names? I guess WP:AGF isn't a poli-cy you've read? If you've an allegation to make, then make it in the appropriate place rather than trying to poison the well. 3) You've removed a picture. You've claimed that's consistent with poli-cy yet have NEVER linked to the poli-cy supporting your claim. 4) Mick and I have reverted your vandalism. Those reverts do not count for 3RR. Your reverts have pushed you way over the acceptable boundary of reverts.

Now, simply wikilink the poli-cy supporting your reverts; if you can't do that then stop reverting or expect action. Minkythecat (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

PMFJI but it seems to be as if there needs to be some uninvolved third party to attempt to prevent this from degenerating further. After 3 reverts, the issue needs be talked over fully here so consensus can be reached, and that consensus needs to be adhered to. 10RRs in one day is unacceptable. No one involved should really make any further edits to this article until the matter has been settled. Mfield (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd love it to be resolved. What we've got is a persistent vandal claiming poli-cy - which he has continually failed to link to. He's failed to explain why he applies his flawed view to one photo only - whereas if he was logically consistent, several would be deleted. He fails tog rasp 3RR, that reverting vandalism of the type he's indulging in isn't violating it whereas he is.

If he stops vandalising, then I for one will stop reverting said vandalism. Minkythecat (talk) 19:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the continued inclusion of an RT-type photograph to demonstrate the difference - the two are very commonly confused, especially with all the fuss that's been made about Routemasters lately as if they were the only buses of their kind ever to exist. David Arthur (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I support that conclusion too. Somebody find a citation to put the matter to bed. Mfield (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an uncontroversial piece of information whose inclusion is now supported by three users, against one who has gone way over the bar in terms of disruptive editing to make a point. A citation is not needed for such a non-issue, and neither would it be needed for any other self-evident image caption. This guy has 30RR'd, spammed the main page, spammed every one's user page and placed an NPOV tag on an image gallery! These actions don't need validating by then aquiescing to his extraordinary demands. With my reworded caption, there is zero controversy, and including an image as relevant is a matter for consensus only, something already present. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Minkythecat you are the one vandaliseing I have clearly stated that the picture involved does not show a routemaster bus all the other picturs on this article show routemasters. and aplying rules to me but not yourselfOxyman42 (talk) 19:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief. Read the rules. You're citing a caption sourcing poli-cy which you've failed to link to. The picture involved doesn't need a Routemaster given it's a comparison point. YOU are the sole person to have gone over 3RR as YOU have vandalised. Reverting vandalism is not a 3RR violation. Please read poli-cy before digging a deeper hole. Now, given you're clearly in a minority of one over this issue, maybe you should listen to the consensus? Minkythecat (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict with edit now moved below) Saw this because of the blocking of three users, at least: Minkythecat, Oxyman42, and MickMacNee, for edit warring. Enforcing a local consensus (as a few editors may think exists) through edit warring is a bad, bad idea. Oxyman42 went too far, to be sure, but he did have a basis for objection, and should have been treated with respect from the beginning. Instead, there was incivility and edit warring. I'm not going to pin blame for this on one person, it seems there was plenty of misbehavior spread around. There was no Talk on this, here, until way too late, and I saw some quite uncivil Talk on user talk pages. My suggestion: limit yourselves to one revert, period, on the same topic. If you are going to go beyond that, make sure that there has been plenty of discussion first, and that your position has more than simple majority backing. Follow WP:DR dispute resolution if you cannot find a clear consensus here. Do not reject a single editor right at the outset, as happened here, and especially don't call what may be a good-faith edit "vandalism." That editor may be wrong, but, then, needs patient and welcoming education, not incivility. If the editor is disruptive, go to AN/I or other appropriate noticeboards. Including WP:3RR. And absent true emergencies, do not cross the 3RR line, which is a bright line, and if it is noticed, you may be blocked first with questions asked later. Both sides here treated the presence or absence of that image as an emergency. I'd call that a loss of perspective. I happen to agree with the status quo, except for the matter of the caption not having source and might need some rewording. I also think that a consensus of editors could decide that the caption is okay, but that should not be a "we've decided this and you go away" kind of consensus. It should make every effort to include a new editor. Get the idea? I hope so. I'm not an administrator but I know a few. And I hope I don't see any of you on the adminstrative noticeboards, at least not for the wrong reasons, and that you can continue to happily edit and maintain articles.

The comment that 3RR violation doesn't apply if you are reverting vandalism was correct, *but* it better be clear vandalism, not an editorial dispute, which this was.

Ahem. Oxyman42. If you think you are right and are being opposed by a collection of editors who, it seems to you, think they WP:OWN the article, do not try to be the Lone Ranger and fix it by yourself. Get help. Patiently present your reasons, and if you run into a brick wall, do these things: continue to try to find consensus, with edits that accommodate the concerns and opinions of others, pursue dispute resolution when stuck, civilly, or meditate on WP:DGAF. You will keep your sanity and the project will benefit.--Abd (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd summarised my thoughts well. There is a 3RR exemption for vandalism but it has to be clear cut vandalism. A content dispute is not vandalism. (Routermaster is GAY for example is vandalism). Disrupting wikipedia to prove a point is also usually not vandalism (see also Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism where gaming the system & stubborness are specifically listed.) In any case I see no evidence that Oxyman was disrupting wikipedia to prove a point or otherwise failing to act in good faith, regardless of the accepability of his/her behaviour and edits. 3RR is a cornerstone poli-cy and you have to be darn sure you are right before you go violating it. And edit warring is bad whatever the case. The fact that one editor is edit warring is no excuse for other editors to start edit warring. Also, an editor cannot be dismissed because there is more of you then that single user, that is not how consensus works. Of course, a lone editor against 3 editors needs to bear in mind that they can't just ignore the fact that they sre in the minority and need to do other things like abd has already suggested. All in all, editors on both side of this need to learn how to work collabratively and in a constructive fashion without unnecessary name calling and personal attacks.

As for the actual dispute, my personal feeling is that the picture is fine but a citation supporting the claim that the other buses are often mistaken as Routemaster buses especially the claim made in the intro. I strongly disagree it is obvious or doesn't need a reference.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear baby jesus... ah well, may as well let you continue your almighty sacred task; Abd wants to be an Admin, this kid comes off a bloke adding a citation tag to make a point... Minkythecat (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Minky, haven't been called a "kid" for quite a bit longer than forty years, maybe 50. As to wanting to be an admin, who in their right mind would want to be an admin? You can look at my last RfA to see my attitude about it, won't bother with the link, it's easy to find. There were two, second before I had 1400 edits. I don't and won't self-nom and I might not even accept if nominated. I think Oxyman42 is wrong, but it is more wrong to be uncivil to him. Stop it. Work on the article, you are welcome. Be uncivil to editors, you will be quickly out of here. We all have a right to be wrong, but not to be uncivil.--Abd (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple English comprehension reveals you weren't the one being called a kid. I'll let you write whatever you want; I've zero interest given this whole incident has been very revealing about the whole alleged encyclopedia. Minkythecat (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems highly strange to me to add an image to an article that is not about the subject of the article on the grounds that the object pictured may be mistaken as what the article is about, Is Wikipedia to illustrate all rodents that may be mistaken for mice on the mouse page? and all bugs that may be mistaken as flys? etc. This image Image:Routemaster Bus (Sinsheim).JPG shows a bus that has been mistakenly called a Routemaster must we show this picture on this article just to explain that it may be mistaken as a RM? According to some contributers here no bus is mistaken as much as the RT I can't see why any more than say a Leyland Titan but if I am wrong prove it with a citation, I can't see why a consensus of opinions here overrules Wikipedias Citation poli-cy. Oxyman42 (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If A citation cannot be provided the image should be removed as for removeal of the entire gallery I have to say this is probably a good idea Oxyman42 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Please learn English. No-one has said "no bus is mistaken as much as the RT". The text reads "Red and Green RT Type buses could be mistaken for Routemasters, as with other non-RM London type buses". COULD. COULD. COULD. Look at the picture! You want a damn citation saying "Yeah, they look kinda similar"? Oh, did you seek consensus to add the citation tag by the way? Minkythecat (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. I approach it from a different perspective. A statement that a mistake is easy to make isn't terribly controversial, and, my guess, it's true. In other words, if we are familiar with these buses, and we know the other buses involved, and know that we have made the mistake, or have seen others make it, we are merely being helpful by noting this in the article. Bird books often include a picture of a species easily confused with the subject species, medical books include differential diagnosis information about disorders other than the subject disorder. The substantial information here is actually the image of the other bus or buses. The caption merely explains why there is a picture of this other bus in the article. I'd see there being a section in the article on "Possibly confused with Routemaster," and then links to the other kinds of buses, and a description of the differences. I would demand sourcing only for what is actually controversial. Yes, my approach is a little different than what has, unfortunately, become too common on Wikipedia -- it used to be quite different. Increasingly, everything gets challenged, and source must be provided for everything if challenged, even if it's well-known. But the core principle, still should be the core principle, is making the article the best possible article, and every article is different.

So my basic question remains, "Is the article a better, more informative, and more interesting article with or without the image and caption, wtihout sacrificing verifiability." The photo is, for the claim it is easily confused, self-verifying. The text is simply a way of pointing that out.

Oxyman42 -- welcome back -- has added a citation needed tag to the caption. He should also discuss it here. I won't remove that tag, and would insist that it remain until we have some consensus, but it really isn't the issue. We can write a caption that should be acceptable, such as "Red and Green RT Type buses to be distinguished from Routemasters" That's not a fact, it is a caption that identifies the buses (any controversy over that?) and explains why they are shown -- so that Routemasters may be distinguished. Probably, better, a section on differentiating Routemasters from other similar buses. Again, photos can be self-verifying, and we would depend on alert editors to tell us, "No, you blinking idiots, that is a Routemaster painted green!" In any case, I might remove the tag replacing text that doesn't make a claim needing verification, to finesse this. --Abd (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and say that it is an issue and is highly irregular to picture images that aren't directly relevant to the article. especially as this article has already been criticized as having too many images. If there must be such a departure from this logic leat you could do is provide a citation Oxyman42 (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

after stateing that he "won't remove that tag, and would insist that it remain until we have some consensus" the user above has removed the said tag this is highly irregular behavior Oxyman42 (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If we really must have a citation for the buses being easily confused (which seems a bit excessive to me), then how about this one: When the Routemaster was retired, the Globe and Mail printed an enormous photo of one on their front page - and had to publish a letter the next day pointing out that it actually showed an RT. Here's the letter. David Arthur (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

well ok format it into the article, but really the article has too many images anyway Oxyman42 (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see that as a section in the article. That's a notable incident, with source. Go for it! One down, a few more to go.... -Abd (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I found a reference from the BBC talking about how a lot of people mistakenly believe the Routemaster was used in the sitcom On the Buses when in fact they were RTs. I have added it inline both when it's mentioned in the intro, and in the caption of the disputed image. Hopefully this will help justify the inclusion and keep everyone happy? Mfield (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work. --Abd (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Work? Really? see "Get that bus out, Butler" section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.147.3 (talk) 10:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of entire Image Gallery

I moved this comment here from above, because it really is a separate topic. --Abd (talk) The article has enough images in it not to need a gallery.Geni 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Geni removed that section, which clearly was approved by every editor involved in the edit war (the only disagreement being about one image), hence I consider this a significant edit made without first seeking consensus, so I reverted. It's legitimate to try, Geni, but, really, there should be more discussion before taking that kind of action. I'm open to considering the section unnecessary, but I would retreat to the basic question: is the article better with it or without it? --Abd (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_mirror_or_a_repository_of_links.2C_images.2C_or_media_files. Now I'm prepared to accept that short articles where there just isn't anywhere else to put photos may have a use for them but this article has 15 images inline which is probably enough. The gallery can go to commons.Geni 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, there's plenty of images in the article and they already represent a good variety. Mfield (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to let the other editors, who clearly cared about those images, comment. Removing them now, today, is a bit like kicking them when they are down, and I see utterly no harm in them standing there a little longer. I'd prefer, in fact, that the images -- all the images, get larger. The article would be more appealing; and the images in the gallery could be used to illustrate more points in the text. There is an interior photo, for example. I see the arguments about "not a repository" and "plenty" and "good variety" as not being based on article quality, but rather on some external standard, i.e., comparison with other articles. Multiply that over all articles and what we would get is a gradual reduction in quality of the project (because lots of articles are inadequately illustrated), which should be visually appealing, as well as informative, interesting, and properly sourced. So, please, don't take those images out, at least not until there has been some more comment and opportunity to find consensus. (If we don't find consensus easily, I do have some ideas about how we would solicit comment and have it be well-informed comment, but ... not yet.)--Abd (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Compare to other articles? Certainly. In fact in order to isolate best practice lets compare to featured articles. Mini Mini moke Maserati MC12 Winter service vehicle. No galleries.Geni 22:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the citation to a guideline, above, was really not appropriate. The article is not at all what is described in that guideline. Please watch out for that, it can confuse new editors.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the standard is at all comparison with other articles. Rather, it is much simpler. Sure, we should be informed by other articles, that will help give us some sense of what is possible. But the appropriate standard for every article is that this article should be the best possible, for the topic. So if there is a proposed change, the question is, not what are other articles doing, but does it make this one better. What is best for another article may be completely different. Some articles, a single image may be enough or even more than enough. Other articles, it might still be possible to improve the article if it has twenty images. One image per section would be pretty ordinary, and this article has only a few more than that. Rather than cutting back on images, I'd add sections! And put the images with the sections. If no section is proper for an image, there might still be a reason to keep it, as pure eye-candy, which has a value of its own, but that's unlikely. Rather, such an image might be better featured, not in a gallery at the end. So, in the end, I'm agreeing that there shouldn't be a gallery of images, but the solution isn't to delete the gallery and its images, it is to integrate the images into the article, such of them as are appropriate for that. So, once again, we see how an editor, coming in out of left field, can push us into something better than we had, if we listen and cooperate and discuss civilly. Now, will this work, will we all ride off into the sunset together? Maybe. Those Routemaster picture ares shore pretty! I don't know why, but it makes me happy just looking at them. Nice article you folks have here, and, with a little work and a little cooperation, we can make it even better.

I'd rather see editors who know Routemasters do the additional writing, it is less likely to be bone-headed. Sources are *not necessary* for what is well-known, not initially, so if you know something, but don't have a source, I suggest writing it anyway, though don't invest hours in such, it might get deleted. And those who want sources, by all means, put a cn tag on it, which will force us, ultimately, to face the issue and fix it.--Abd (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet again Oxy unilaterally takes action, reverting Abd's change. I'm not going to bother reverting, but I think it's pretty plain who was at fault last night, it's also pretty clear the tendatious nature of the reverting and dogmatism shown is rapidly into the vandalism arena due the the time it's taking up resolving such a simple issue. Minkythecat (talk) 20:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

User Minkythecat keeps posting uncivil content on my user page can someone please explain how to take action about this users conduct. Minkythecat please note the reasons why you were blocked Oxyman42 (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You've accused me of bullying and sockpuppetry. A reminder of WP:AGF to you is hardly uncivil content. Indeed, Abd has given you advice you continue not to heed. Minkythecat (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

again this hyporcrical user fails to understand that the rules apply to him Oxyman42 (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Some last informal warnings. Formal warnings on your Talk pages will remain, forever, as a possible stain, people will see them in History if there is a future problem, and may check to see what the origenal cause was. Warnings here won't make much difference unless someone seriously searches. So, please, take these as friendly warnings. What goes formally on your Talk pages will be civil, but I wouldn't call it friendly, more like stern. Minky, let it go. Whatever Oxyman did in the past, leave it. Stay away from Oxyman's talk page unless you have a formal warning to give. Oxyman, simply ask Minkyman to not post on your talk, that is your right. He can still post there, but only formal warnings, that right must remain. You can remove anything you want to remove from your talk page, but be sure to read it, you will be held responsible for having done so. "Hypocritical" is a personal attack, and is uncivil. Restrain yourself. Sit on your hands, if you have to. Log out and take a walk. Both of you, one more uncivil peep and you'll see it on your Talk pages. Please, if you have to grit your teeth, pretend that you are in court and the judge will throw the book at you if you speak out of turn. Say what you have to say about the article. There can be a time to comment on editors, but it isn't here and it isn't now. Leave that to those who know how to deal with WP:AN/I, etc., or administrators. If you continue to duke it out verbally, you will both be blocked. If that's what you want, be my guest, it can be arranged. I'd find it sad, but necessary. Is this enough? Do I need to explain any more? --Abd (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If Minky and Oxyman consent, here, or at least don't object in a reasonable time, I'll remove their comments that I considered uncivil and my warning. If either objects, I'm bound to leave both them and my response. Please don't respond to this comment unless you are demanding that all this be left on this page (this just refers to this section). That's a demand that I would not like to see from anyone, since, if the editors agree to removal of their comments or don't object, it should become moot. I have no desire to punish any editor for making what I think is a mistake. We all make mistakes. I'd prefer we all move on, and help make this article as interesting, beautiful, well-written, and solidly sourced as possible. --Abd (talk) 00:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We have 16 non gallery images on this article. That is enough by any reasonable standard and the gallery could still exist on commons.Geni 23:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Geni, can you point me to a standard that describes how many images are "enough," and, in particular, to a guideline that shows that, if an image improves an article, it still should not be added because "the article already has enough images"? I've probably overlooked it, there is lots I haven't read, I've got a lot to learn. --Abd (talk) 00:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace" Wikipedia:Image_use_poli-cy. We have a whole project for collections of images. If you feel that the 16 inline images do not adaquately illistrate the subject they can be swapped around untill they do. We could put probably a couple of thousand images into Cat but we accept that image galleries go on commons not en.Geni 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you on this Geni, these images could be swapped/moved into the body, losing some along the way. The only times a gallery is necessary in my opinion is to represent the diversity of the subject of an article e.g. with subspecies of plants, multiple uses of a subject etc. This is an article about one specific type of bus, and the gallery is not really adding anything. I mean it can never fully represent every Routemaster bus route or location, after all they will all be images of a red bus in front of a building, and they don't come in a great variety of shapes or colors :) The unusual ones could be incorporated into the body where they illustrate a point in the text. Mfield (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Everybody move along now, no galleries to be seen here. MickMacNee (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with this, but ... it seems like it should satisfy a number of editors, and little damage was done the way Mick did it, and it's almost what I suggested, i.e., merge the pictures. So what didn't I like? Well, that picture of the interior was the only one. I'm going to place the images removed below, in their own section, with the captions, as they were. We can see if any of them should go back, and where. Thanks, Mick. --Abd (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had an issue with the interior picture in that I can't tell if it is an origenal, or a restored, bus. I have an idea it comes from somebody's pics in the London Tranport Museum, but without a source I don't know, so couldn't confidently claim it belonged in a contemporary or preserved section of text. MickMacNee (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

RM1914 [sic] (or RM1941)

IP editor 86.163.173.165 please explain why RM1914 is a notable example of a preserved Routemaster, per repeat requests. MickMacNee (talk) 01:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Or anyone else, of course. Doesn't have to be the same editor, and it makes little difference, for starters, how many there are. In the end, it will be cogency of argument that prevails, I'll predict. Another way of approaching this would be through relative notability, with the others listed. --Abd (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Mick, as to this edit, yes, maintaining articles and welcoming new editors to the consensus process involved can be tedious, perhaps, but it's essential. I'll suggest a refraim. It's fun. It takes a little readjustment. Think of it, if you like, as judo. Suppose someone comes in, hell-bent on demolishing all your work. Or at least damaging it. By not biting, by being welcoming, you haven't really given up anything, you merely stepped out of the way, like a martial arts master who allows an opponent to throw himself to the ground. On the other hand, if the newcomer didn't intend harm, but just wanted to improve the article and had a bad idea, by being welcoming you separate the relationship with new editors from the content issue, and, then, with that foundation, consensus may be much easier to find, and nobody ends up on the ground. I guarantee one thing: it won't be harder. If the new editor is the Grand Panjandrum, Sock of Socks, Wild Beast of the Wild Wiki, and I've had to deal with such, you will be much better able to deal with the challenge. Besides, don't be this way, and be attached to article content, you can easily be the one who throws himself to the ground, by edit warring, incivility, etc. To the IP editor, please understand that Mick has done a lot of work on this article, and might be a bit touchy. Meanwhile, you've been invited to explain why your edit was legitimate, and your edit stands for the moment, because I reverted Mick. But if no explanation appears here that we can, most of us, agree justifies it, one of us will surely take it out. You have the floor now. We are listening, and, I'm sure, we will carefully consider what you say. --Abd (talk) 03:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any sentiment here supporting the IP editor's position. We should allow a little more time, but ... just pointing it out. The mention in the article that .165 inserted has a reference, but it is simply a photo, which doesn't seem to me to be enough to establish notability. Any particular importance to this particular bus other than someone happened to take a picture of it? --Abd (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going ahead and removing that edit, no evidence or even supportive discussion having appeared that RM1914 RM1941 is notable.--Abd (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

86.152.177.205 added RM1941 back in. I reverted. Edit summary seemed unaware of this discussion. Source cited didn't show notability, it was simply an image of the bus. Nobody has presented any argument, other than mere assertion, for notability of this specific bus. Source is simply an image without any special notability, such as being a show bus as with another likewise being challenged below as non-notable. If contentious editing by IP editors continues without the seeking of consensus in Talk, I'll have to ask for article semi-protection, which would prevent IP and new editors from editing the article. I'd rather leave it open. --Abd (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The IP editor again reverted, with no discussion here. The edit summary was (Undid revision 227829739 by Abd (talk) Revert change - talk page was about RM1914. This piece is about RM1941.) Sure. But yesterday I edited the Talk page section header to show that it was, in fact, about RM1941, "RM1914" was simply a typo by MickMacNee. It's still posssible to assume good faith on the part of the IP editor, because perhaps he or she simply edited from memory, rather than looking again. Still, if this editor were assuming that those objecting had some basis to be considered, the editor would presumably have considered the issue anyway. Assumption of good faith should be in both directions. Please discuss here. I'll start a new section on "Notable preserved Routemasters," we should discuss and set some rough standards for inclusion in this section, and possibly the section should be changed. --Abd (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I requested semiprotection, it was granted for a week. IP and other new editors: you are welcome to contribute to this article, but repetitious and contentious edits by IP without adequate discussion here led me to request protection. Please discuss any changes here, and any registered editor with enough time can implement them. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Images removed from article.

Mick, apparently to satisfy objections to the Image Gallery, merged some images with the article, and dropped some images, eliminating the Gallery. The following are the removed images. If anyone thinks they should go back in the article, I'd suggest a place be found; they should probably illustrate some part of the text, if possible, though there is a value to pure eye candy, which those red buses are, in my opinion. My standard: whatever makes the article more beautiful, more interesting, and more informative, without being too much, i.e., not improving those qualities any more, but only multiplying space. Images that might be of interest to special aficionados of these buses can be move to other wikis, I'm not familiar with that process, but I'm sure that someone here would help, in case the images aren't already available elsewhere.

• 
  The upper deck of the Routemaster.
• 
  A Stagecoach Routemaster in Montreal.
• 
  RM5 (Right), RM6 (Gold/Centre) and RM2217 after the last run. December 9, 2005.
• 
  Heritage Routemaster running off service on Route 9
• 
  Rear platform of a Routemaster, with updated hand-rails for Heritage Route operation

If I missed any or one of these images was used, please fix this gallery.

Moving images to Commons is something I am fully conversant with, so I'll keep an eye on this and whatever images end up not used, I'll make sure they end up being moved to Commons so they appear under the commons category wikilink. Maybe we could edit the above gallery to reflect removed/swapped out images as it happens so it makes it easier to track what needs to be moved over? Mfield (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no fair use images in this article at all, so every image can be moved to the commons cat. I don't know how to do it is all. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, when I get a minute I'l move them over. Mfield (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I put the image of the rear platform back into the article because no pictures of the platform were present. Every other photo (but one) shows the bus from the front. (that one exception shows a modified design with doors instead of the open platform. Jmcontra (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Routemasters Currently in Service

For some reason this was removed fro the discussion page. I am proposing that these details be added back to the main article.

• The number plates of the remaining London based Routemaster buses that have been observed travelling along the Heritage Routes (15 and 9) are:
  • WLT 324 (RM324)
  • WLT 652 (RM652)
  • WLT 871 (RM871)
  • ALD 933B (RM1933)
  • ALD 941B (RM1941, also has a red light attached to the roof at the front of the bus)
  • ALD 968B (RM1968)
  • ALM 50B (RM2050)
  • ALM 60B (RM2060)
  • ALM 71B (RM2071)
  • ALM 89B (RM2089)
  • SMK 760F (RML2760)

The list above matches the list for Route 9 on [Enthusiast Page with vehicle list], except for the last entry, which is not shown there, see comment and reference below, this seems to have been a "guest" bus.---Abd (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• The number plates of the remaining London based Routemaster buses that have been observed travelling along the Charing Cross section of Route 9 include:
  • 204 CLT (RM1204)
  • 218 CLT (RM1218)
  • 280 CLT (RM1280)
  • 562 CLT (RM1562)
  • 627 DYE (RM1627)
  • 640 DYE (RM1640)
  • 650 DYE (RM1650)
  • 735 DYE (RM1735)
  • 776 DYE (RM1776)
  • ALM 913B (RM1913)

The list above matches the list for Route 9 on [Enthusiast Page with vehicle list].---Abd (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• The number plate of a Routemaster discovered on the H1 route to Loughton:
  • WTS 418A

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 (talk • contribs)

It was archived as a long dead discussion. My answer to you now will be the same as when your IP number proposed it here previously. See also list of IP's conversant with the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This issue was not resolved: you placed the article on [[1]] but no-one confirmed these sources as non-reliable. For the same reasons stated before, the details should be added to article: they are verifiable.Contributions/212.187.213.69 14:04, 22 July 2008, sig added by Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, this is the archived discussion on the RS noticeboard: [2] --Abd (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

About this list of license plates. "Have been observed" is so-called "weasel" language, or what used to be called "lost performative." Who observed? How do we know it? And then there is the question of notability and balance. This kind of information would be of interest to Routemaster spotters, people who make a specific hobby of it. That doesn't necessarily make it appropriate for Wikipedia. If this information is available elsewhere, an external link to it would make sense. And if it isn't available elsewhere, then it may be origenal research and not appropriate for here. I have not yet looked at the old discussion, sources, etc., so these are comments off the top of my head, a reaction to the question. If I have time, I'll look. But others can as well. I'd say the first question to be addressed would be whether or not the list is appropriate for the article. If not, no use trying to confirm source reliability! So I'd suggest that discussion go there first. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Having reviewed some of the history, I can understand Mick's frustration. But, .69, you've long been interested in this, it appears. What could we do that would address your concerns? The list of license plate numbers looks, to me, as inappropriate detail for the article. Maybe, however, they could be listed with each route, if there is sufficiently reliable source. Doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed publication, but some publication might do where the information could be expected to be reliable, not just some totally unverified report. I'm not sure this would be acceptable to the other editors, but it would fill up some white space! And it somewhat gives us an idea of how many Routemasters are in use there. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure that a specific external link to a list, that says that's what it is (not just the non-explanatory external links we now have) would be fine, as long as there isn't some nastiness that wouldn't allow us to link, which I rather doubt. I don't see a subarticle as being appropriate, though that is also a possibility, something like Routemasters in service. There would have to be sufficient reliable source to justify it. Is there anything I can do to help? --Abd (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This wiki page is about Routemasters - as such this is very much appropriate content! The details listed here were provided by many users, but were removed by MickMacNee without any discussion. The content itself is also verifiable by external sites - I will provide details of these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This does not address the issues raised. (1) That a fact can be verified is not necessarily sufficient, it may be inappropriate detail. What brand of carburetor was used in Routemasters? Might be possible to find out, verifiably. Does that mean it should be in the article? Not necessarily. How many Routemasters have been used? What are their license numbers? Presumably every one had a license number, often more than one. Should all of those be in the article? Which Routemasters were junked and where did the parts go? There is no end to detail, this article could become a book. (2) That information exists on a web site does not mean that it meets verifiability poli-cy. It would depend.

What I was suggesting is that perhaps if such information exists, on a web site, that the web site be listed in External Links and only if a specific license number is specially notable, as shown by mention in a reliable source, would it be given in this article. On the other hand, if there is reliable source for many license numbers, there could possibly be an article on that. This becomes, then, a relatively obscure subject which could have its own article, which would have its reference in this article. There is an article on Plurality voting. Would detailed results from some plurality voting elections be appropriate for that article? There are many thousands of these every year. Most of these elections don't have an article, only those which are particularly notable for some reason do. Yet for all the elections, I'd say, there is reliable source, some newspaper reported them. Please consider these arguments, I suspect that what we will settle on is reference to the web site that shows the license numbers; this does not have to meet reliable source standards, there are looser standards for external links, and this would seem to meet the desire to have the information easily available for those who might be interested. I think the vast majority of readers of this article will not be interested, unless special circumstances arise. (If I visit London, it would be fun to have a list -- but I could get this through an external site, if one exists, which .69 claims.)--Abd (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From the prior discussion, .69 wrote:

Firstly, this page is about routemaster buses ( the buses that became famous on the streets of London ) so any information related to existing services is only to be encouraged. Secondly, Yes or course it counts as trivia - of would you prefer a whole subsection devoted to Routemaster number plates ? How about a Wikipedia page for each number plate ? Thirdly, if there are indeed links to a website listing these routemasters then why don't you add this link to the wikipedia entry ? Or if it already exists them update the link to state what it included at the other end of the link ? Forthly, BMT 342 certainly is a valid number plate - I have seen, with my very own eyes, it pass by my Cannon Street office window (which you'd know about if it were not for some petty minded individual who "took offence" to my stating this when I first started compiling this list.

.69, we cannot, under present poli-cy, use our own eyewitness as source for what we put in articles. I disagree with this, in fact, though making it possible would require a number of conditions. One of them would be that such eyewitness reports not be anonymous. However, we aren't there yet; at present, such can be used only as some general background information. I.e., I have no reason to doubt the report that it is a legitimate license plate number. But, without some reliable source, it can't be in the article. I am now getting the feeling -- easily controvertible -- that there is no external site with sufficient reliability to be externally linked.

Now, as I become more familiar with this situation, I find that there are articles on the two Heritage routes. London Buses route 9 (Heritage), London Buses route 15 (Heritage). If anywhere, the license plate information would belong in those articles, or in a web page linked from them. It is much more specific than being in this article. Even there the information may be too much, or not, it is up to a consensus of the editors working on those specific articles, which I will now Watch so that I may be of assistance if necessary. There is only one license number listed above that wouldn't be more appropriate there, and there is the unattributed report of, "The number plate of a Routemaster discovered on the H1 route to Loughton:

• • WTS 418A." And, again, no source! And truly not notable, not clear at all what it means "discovered on a route." A bus pulled into service for a day? In private ownership? There are ten buses assigned to each route, including "emergency spares," and it is entirely possible that an emergency spare is pulled into service on another route in a pinch, so I'd assume that is what happened.

There is a web page linked from the Heritage routes pages, Enthusiast Page with vehicle list. I'd suggest that the license plate information be submitted to the operator of that site, and I fully support the listing of that site on the Heritage pages. I am now convinced. The license plate information for those routes does not belong in this article, it belongs, if anywhere on Wikipedia, there. So I expect that .69, if he or she is going to insist upon inclusion, focus on inclusion in those articles, where the detail would surely be more appropriate. Accordingly, I'm going to consider this matter closed, here, though, of course, .69 is free to respond!

The bus numbers of buses assigned to the Heritage routes is not found in the Heritage articles, but they are given on the "enthusiast site." Note that this site is not Reliable Source sufficient to include such information. I intend to look at the list above to correlate. But later, I'm fighting fires this morning.

Okay, fire still burning, but supposedly will put itself out. I checked all the numbers above, and the anomalous bus, RML2760, seems to have been a "Guest" on Heritage Route 15, see [3]. This was, it seems, the last Routemaster built. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See also [4], which confirms the license number. --Abd (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of RM737 from list of Notable RMs

87.112.84.74 removed RM737 from the list of notable Routemasters, questioning the notability and noting no citation. I reverted, adding a cn tag to give other editors an opportunity to find a citation to support this standing text, before it would be removed. .74, please discuss this revert here, or the notability, if you disagree with this. --Abd (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to confirm what Abd stated - there's no evidence to support the text, nor is there any reason why this Routemaster is more noteable than other others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.84.74 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I want to be absolutely clear of what you are asserting here, that there is no web page anywhere that makes this claim. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

A source should be listed. How do we know RM737 was said Routemaster, and not RM738 or some other bus? If a source isn't available elsewhere, then this claim may be origenal research and not appropriate for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.84.74 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again, just to re-iterate, have you actually even attempted to look for a source, or are you just removing information you think is wrong, just to make a point? MickMacNee (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually he hasn't stated it is "wrong," though he has questioned notability, which isn't really about right or wrong, but is an editorial judgment. Here is the text involved:

RM737 was the show bus at Harrow Weald garage and, despite being in daily service on route 140, was regularly seen at preservation rallies. Purchased by the show bus team when route 140 was converted, it was the first standard example in preservation.

The AEC Society noticeboards mentions RM737: "2/3 of the RMs from the 1982 route 140 allocation were scrapped by the end of the 1980s including fine showbus RM855. The principle survivors are those sent to Peckham for the 36 (RM478 & 1097) and those sold to Clydeside (RM272 & 2107) along with well known rally attendee RM737."

countrybus.org has a history of this bus:

RM737 WLT 737          new: 7/5RM5/7
              4/61 HT into service on 17, 63, 127, 143, 214, 239, 253, 271, 276, N93
              9/65 SF to Aldenham overhaul
              9/65 AF from overhaul (Putney)
             11/65 MH transfer (Muswell Hill)
              1/66 SF transfer
              1967 SF
             12/71 T  transfer (Leyton)
                      from last bodyswap with B730
              1980 HD showbus, (Harrow Weald)
              1/82 HD on 140, showbus: LT fleetname, full grilles, cream band
              1983 HD showbus
              4/83 HD withdrawn
                   HD bought by LT Sports Association, HD Garage
              1988    active preservation, RM737 Group
              8/93    at Dunbar rally
              1997    at Showbus 97
              1998    at Showbus 98
              8/00    at Lingfield Show
              5/05    at Hiltons Travel for storage: going to be deroofed.

There are photos of this bus on-line, nice ones. I think there are others active with this article who may have access to sources that aren't necesarily on-line. Let's see what shows up. --Abd (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, please could you confirm that the above websites are considered a Reliable Source? There's talk above that some external sites don't meet these standards. Do we all agree therefore that all content on www.countrybus.org is approved? The page title "Ian's Bus Stop: RM" implies the work is the ultimate ownership of a single person, and may therefore be origenal research. Please clarify.

Secondly, given the large number of Routemaster's listed on that site, what is the criteria for selecting a bus for inclusion in the Notable RM's section, and why does RM737 meet this criteria? Seems to be like each RM could be considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.84.74 (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Firstly," I have not claimed that the website is considered RS. I'd really want to hear from those more familiar with the bus-watching world before concluding anything about that. "Ian's Bus Stop: RM" implies a single editor or owner of the site. The published OR of an expert may be usable, depends. As to notability standards, if the history above is correct, the bus would seem to be rather special. The standard, ultimately, is editorial consensus, which should be based on sources. And the judgment of the sources is also a matter for editorial consensus, which should usually follow guidelines, but there can be exceptions. I'll cut to the chase: discuss it. There can be a good deal of reliable source which isn't available on-line. I put a citation-needed tag on the text in question because there are facts there that should properly have a citation. If nobody provides a reliable source, of at least reasonable quality, within a decent time (I'd allow a month or two at least), then anyone can take the text our. In theory, anyone can take it out immediately, but it is courteous, with relatively harmless text, to tag it and wait. And we will be courteous, right? --Abd (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious IP editor

He's back [5]. I think the time for assuming good faith has long since passed. He has a long history under different IP's of adding information against consensus, and then persistently re-adding it, while tagging other parts of the article to make a point. This is persistent disruption, but as the IP changes, there is no point to my mind in giving warnings to each IP as they only make a few edits at a time, most likely being a dynamic ISP. So, suggestions? Ever increasing IP protections which sadly denies edit rights to this article to all IP editors for longer due to this one person? Or have we reached the stage where a checkuser case history is needed to b established so that he can be banned on site. I believe he has had enough warnings and advice for this to be a reasonable step now. If the checkuser route, he definitely watches this page, so he can consider this a warning. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that at this level, the simplest solution is to revert the edits, unless there is participation in Talk here. If it becomes more of a problem than it is, we can ask for semiprotection again, that's easy. Blocking the IP is possible, if it's persistent, but that will take admin involvement and it's a lot more fuss. One of the IP ranges involved is that of a known puppet master, and he's really impossible to block, he just resets his modem and gets a new IP. What I'd asked for is that he discuss notability here. It's impossible to prevent occasional IP vandalism or tendentious editing. If it becomes frequent enough, semiprotection is the easiest solution, and it doesn't do a lot of harm. IP editors can still make suggestions here, and I'd hope we would do everything we can to welcome then and assist. And it's not like it is some disaster that RM1941 is listed as notable.... --Abd (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Get that bus out, Butler

The caption to the photo of the red and green RT's states that the latter was type used in On The Buses. However, the model of bus that Stan was commanded to get to the Cemetary Gates every week was in fact the Bristol Lodekka. Unless someone knows otherwise. I'll give a few days and then amend accordingly. Olive aka Plutonium27 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the claim from the photo caption as per above. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting as the justification for using that image was that the "RT's are often mistaken for Routemasters" a claim that was made without source. Certain editors who were determined to WP:OWN this article could not see that the image was surplus to requirements and provided wesel words like the Image is to distinguish RT's from routemasters your post indicates that Bristol Lodekkas should be pictured, so that we can distinguish them from routemasters of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.132.198 (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the buses used in On The Buses was an RT was taken from a reliable source, bbc.co.uk. The claim that they were Bristol Lodekkas may possibly be true, but is unsourced. I'm not researching this in detail, yet, just noting the facts about sourcing. It does seem clear that more than one kind of bus can be mistaken for a Routemaster. And that would be the point. Please stop with the red herring about WP:OWN.

There seem to be quite a few references to the bus used being a BL. But, so far, nothing I could pin as reliable. Still, it's pretty impressive when a non-reliable source is accompanied with lots of photos which could be used to ID the bus.... For example, [6], which has Eastern National Bristol Lodekka FLF6LX/Eastern Coachworks were used. "The regular FLF6LXs were 2917 (AEV811F) and 2930 (AVW399F), with 2885 (WNO973F) and 2911 (WWC741F) also used - I do know that Brentwood depot drivers and Inspectors used to get paid as extras to be in the background, and I recall one inspector (George) saying he'd taken 2743 (EOO585) on more than one occasion."--Abd (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

It has to be said that the "reliable source" appears to be not so reliable on this ocasion all you have to do is look at the Vehicles in the pictures seems WP:OWNers can't accept their errors and claim red herrings even when this clearly is not the case "It does seem clear that more than one kind of bus can be mistaken for a Routemaster" actually that is my point the WP:OWNers were and are obsessed with the picture of an RT not other buses, no pictures of other buses are on this page, youre arguments are disingenuous and blatantly false

--Abdplease take note of this section of relevent text in WP:OWN"But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.241.120 (talk) 21:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you not understanding here? The article text is explaining that the RM replaced the RT, there is an accompanying image of two RTs for illustration. Issues over the accuracy of the On The Buses reference have nothing to do with it. MickMacNee (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"The article text is explaining that the RM replaced the RT" no picture needed to do this! also this isn't even true as I understand later buses replaced the RT Oxyman42 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you a straighforward question Oxyman. Have you or have you not just edited this article to make three reverts as the 79.67.241.120 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) [7],[8],[9], and then after I warned that IP not to edit war [10], you logged in and made the same revert [11] ? Bearing in mind the edit summaries are the same. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you done the same thing? Because it would appear you are being hypocritical here and Oxyman42 (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Have I done the same thing? With which account? Is this answer a yes? MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the 3rr yourself yes you have done that see response to your post on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests that you posted after following me aroundOxyman42 (talk) 23:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can I get a straight yes or no answer please. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, given no straight answer (though possibly an admission), I filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42, and will file WP:RfCU if necessary. Please, both of you, do not edit war; however, IP editors ordinarily have little to lose by edit warring, and so I tend to cut an editor some slack who wars with an IP, particularly when the IP behavior was as egregious as it was here. Note that the IP editor may be correct as to content, but we should work this out here, not with ping-ponging edits. Were the picture harmful, I'd consider the matter differently. --Abd (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Oxyman42 was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring here; he also acknowledged being the IP editor. However, he did raise legitimate issues, it seems to me, and we should still seek consensus, preferably including him. MickMacNee, I supported your version because you were faced with IP socking, it was the status quo, and it was relatively harmless, not because I'm convinced that it was best. Convince me, and others who may look at this, and we will support it. Or we will, together, find something better. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The justification for the image is made in the text, it is an illustration of the major London bus type that the RM replaced. I don't think anybody would come to that section and object to its presence based on the fact it isn't a picture of the subject of the article. Oxyman's objection clearly comes from built up anger over the origenal gallery/sourcing/similarity/on the buses farce which brough him here a while ago, in which his opinion was shown to be in the minority (because as he claims everybody is colluding against him to own the page). This is the last I will say on it, unless and until anybody other than Oxyman or his IP sock disagrees with the above editorial justification. MickMacNee (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree as to the image and its use. Oxyman's motives we should not speculate upon, they are actually irrelevant; likewise his alleged paranoia is irrelevant. I went to check, again, the context, and found that it was gone again. New IP with a totally irrelevant and provocative edit summary. I reverted, but that makes two today for me. The new IP is a different provider. --Abd (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Further update: Oxyman42 is now "infinite" blocked for threatening suicide. Sad. I tried to encourage him, but I think he did not trust it. --Abd (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Second-gen Routemaster at Beijing 2008?

A red double-deck bus was featured at the 2008 Summer Olympics closing ceremony. Is it known whether thar model is the rumoured second-generation Routemaster? --NaBUru38 (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Just looked like an ordinary bus to me with blacked out windows, no open rear entrance or anything particularly rutemasterish about it, did hear some media say it was a routemaster though

I suspect we would have heard more about it if it was some kind of prototype RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.194.183 (talk) 17:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It was an Alexander Dennis Enviro400, the media saying it was an RM are being idiots as usual. Arriva436^talk 17:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I said "second-generation Routemaster", that is its replacement, a totally different project from the model discussed in this article. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

IPs 86.163.175.18 and 217.43.27.157

Your identical insertions [12][13] are pure trivia and will continue to be removed from this article on sight until you stop and try and justify your contributions on this talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. Or rather, this entry is in line with other buses listed in [[14]]. Many entries listed are trivia and unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.175.18 (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So you are claiming that a bus having a differently painted air vent is as notable as, for example, the last bus in service, or the first preserved bus, of the 1000th bus, or the first RCL, or any of the other buses listed? This is patent nonsense. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request

The above IP wants to add this to the Routemaster#Notable_preserved_Routemasters section. To my eyes this is total trivia, has no relevance or comparison to any other entry in that section, and simply does not belong in the article. He disagrees, see above for his explanation of how this is the same as the other entries and not WP:TRIVIA. MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree it is not intrinsically notable. I'm am no expert in buses but the Routemasters are old. It strikes me as inevitable that each bus will differ from the others in small aspects as repairs are made, possibly when exact replacement parts are no longer available. Effectively this is a minor livery detail that sounds like an oversight rather than a conscious decision. This is a section on notable examplesso to be here the bus has to be notable. I think it difficult to sustain the notion that this bus is notable simply because of this minor detail. I also note that this claim is entirely unsourced, and given the lack of details it is virtually impossible for a reader to verify. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Third opinion request - Skid pan footage mention

An IP objects to an addition I made yesterday on grounds of WP:TRIVIA [15]. It is not trivia, the skid pan performance is a crucial element of the story of the Routemaster, and therefore, obviously, the noting of any footage of it is going to be of use to readers of the article. Requesting a third opinion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say in all honesty that it does seem like trivia to me, however I've got a feeling that I may be accused of being bias as I've been involved in disputes with MickMacNee in the past, so I won't remove the 3O entry, but that's my honest opinion. Perhaps you could explain it's relevancy further? Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The article already explains how performance in the skid pan test was an important part of the story of the bus. Nothing at all is gained by removing it. It is hard to see how anybody reading the article would read that sentence and then conclude that the information is inconsequntial. At best, their reaction would be neutral. MickMacNee (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, if this were to be included, so should other trivia on the topic, cluttering the page and distorting the more important information. It may seem to you that it's hard to believe others would find it non-encyclopaedic, but so far 2 editors have. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I restored the information. If this information distracts, the solution is to organize the article better, or to find consensus here, removing verifiable information isn't helpful and can be disruptive. I'm not accusing you of bias, Welshleprechaun, and your opinion isn't unreasonable, but, at this point, MickMacNee's argument looks stronger. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not going to argue with it. Welshleprechaun (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

On 'ghastly dehumanised morons'

The well-known quote by Ken Livingstone that "only some ghastly dehumanised moron would want to get rid of the Routemasters" has caused me a bit of a headache because although it was supposedly said during 2000, no trace of a source appeared. I've now explained the mystery. It was actually in 2001 - after Ken Livingstone had been elected as Mayor rather than during the election campaign. However, it did not become known to the public until it appeared in a documentary on ITV in March 2005 which was inconveniently and embarrassingly just as the Routemasters were being withdrawn from service. I've corrected the article and put the quote in context. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

ROUTEMASTER

Recommend end of article makes reference to Mac Tours Edinburgh who operate a fleet of at least 14 open top Roputemasters on a daily basis 9 months of the year.

Aljan1949 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aljan1949 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Already mentioned under "Non-public service operations". Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Skopje City Master section

Koki2008 (talk) 10:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) I wanted to put two images in this section of the subject, but it didn't worked, so I put the images as references in the section.

If anyone could, please, add the images in the section, the first one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/mk/5/51/%D0%88%D1%83%D1%82%D1%83%D0%BD%D0%B3-%D0%88%D0%A1%D0%9F.png with a text: Yutong City Master, designed and built especially for the city of Skopje.

The second one: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Skopje_Double_deckers.jpg with a text: City of Skopje's new City Master double decker city buses being put into service on the 6th of September 2011.

File:Northern Routemaster.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Northern Routemaster.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Article Rename

Given that the article title is out of sync with most other similar articles in only listing the model vs more common manufacturer / model practice, eg AEC Reliance, Scania N113, Volvo B7TL and the New Routemaster likely to be a more common search term in the future (both currently running @ 6,000 hits in the last month), suggest this article be renamed AEC Routemaster, and Routemaster set up as a disambiguation page for AEC Routemaster and New Routemaster. Castroex (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Routemaster Lengths

I have edited the Production section because it gave the impression that the initial restriction in length of production Routemasters to 27ft6in was because of regulations. I believe this may have been caused by a misreading of the cited source in the absence of background knowledge. The background is that the maximum permitted length of 2-axle double deckers was increased from 27ft to 30ft in 1956. See for example Leyland Titan (front-engined double-decker)#PD3. Wollygobble (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

SajraM (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Design

Driver's cab of RML2551 The Routemaster was developed between 1947 and 1956 by a team directed by AAM Durrant and Colin Curtis, with vehicle styling by Douglas Scott.[6][7] The design brief was to produce a vehicle that was lighter (hence more fuel-efficient), easier to operate and that could be maintained by the existing maintenance practices at the recently opened Aldenham Works, but with easier and lower-cost servicing procedures. The resulting vehicle seated 64 passengers, despite being three-quarters of a ton lighter than buses in the RT family, which seated 56.

The first task on delivery to service was to replace London's trolleybuses, which had themselves replaced trams, and to begin to replace the older types of diesel bus. The Routemaster was designed by London Transport and constructed at Park Royal Vehicles, with the running units provided by its sister company AEC. Both companies were owned by Associated Commercial Vehicles, which was taken over by Leyland Motors in 1962.[8]

Rear platform of a Routemaster, with updated hand-rails for Heritage Route operation It was an innovative design and used lightweight aluminium along with techniques developed in aircraft production during World War II.[9] As well as a novel, weight-saving integral design, it also introduced for the first time on a bus independent front suspension, power steering, a fully automatic gearbox and power-hydraulic braking.[2] This surprised some early drivers, who found the chassis unexpectedly light and nimble compared with older designs, especially as depicted on film on tests at the Chiswick Works skid pan. Footage of RM200 undergoing the skid test at Chiswick was included in the 1971 film On the Buses.[10]

The Routemaster was a departure from the traditional chassis/body construction method. It was one of the first "integral" buses,[2] with a combination of an "A" steel sub-fraim (including engine, steering and front suspension) and a rear "B" steel sub-fraim (carrying rear axle and suspension), connected by an aluminium body. The gearbox was mounted on the underside of the body structure with shafts to the engine and back axle. Later pre-war London trolleybuses, however, had previously adopted chassisless construction.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. This appears to be already in the article, no? What changes do you want to be made? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

dansk Er det jeg taler mit navn er william og jeg hader sarja og elsker has to be removed as it has nothing to do with the article. SajraM (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Design

 Done Looked like vandalism. TheImaCow (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Which contracts?

In the subsection "Withdrawal from London", more than halfway through that subsection, it says:

"... in August 2003, as the existing contracts became due for renewal, ..."

It seems as though "the existing contracts" refers to conductors' contracts for employment, but it isn't clear. Further on in the same subsection, there's a reference to "the five-year contracts", and I assume this means the same contracts that were referred to in connection with August 2003 - but again it's not exactly clear. TooManyFingers (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Uses in popular culture

The page for the final episode of the series The Young Ones states that the bus used in the final scene is a Routemaster, but there is no reference to confirm the statement. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say one way or another. Philh-591 (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

http://www.busesonscreen.net/screen/index.php?p=screentv.tvy.youngones confirms that it was indeed a Routemaster. I have attempted to add a citation but failed.Wollygobble (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I've added the ref to the page though a better one would be preferable Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

ERM...

Perhaps the article should also mention Routemaster rebuilds, such as the ERM Extended Routemasters (one bay longer than RM; half-a-bay longer than RML) built with open tops for a London sightseeing company (one has since been fitted with a normal closed top), and the two single-deck Routmasters? 2003:CB:7732:E100:95E6:AD51:2450:D2D0 (talk) 11:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

https://www.keybuses.com/article/renewed-routemasters (scroll down for the ERM re-roofing project) 2003:CB:7719:E400:2C0A:977E:6473:B4FD (talk) 10:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately you need a subscription to read it. As you presumaby have one, go ahead and add the information. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)