Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Buses and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 2 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Buses This page is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport

Greyhound Lines has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:First London#Requested move 10 December 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Hullian111 (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per the introduction of the new FirstBus logo the other day, I found it quite odd that FirstGroup articles (i.e. First West Yorkshire) feature the First logo in their infobox, while Stagecoach Group ones (i.e. Stagecoach Manchester) don't. Around the time Stagecoach rebranded in 2020, edits adding the new Stagecoach logo to Stagecoach subsidiary operators' infoboxes were reverted due to @Davey2010 stating 'Consensus was to not have individual bus company logos'.

Now I definitely don't disagree with the reversions, because I think a reused infobox logo for every group operator is a bit odd when an photo does the job fine enough, but where and when was this consensus reached? There's no talk page for File:StagecoachGroup.svg and this WikiProject's archives don't turn up anything. Its a bit difficult to potentially justify removing the logos to users who have edits reverted when the so-called consensus in writing isn't easily accessible at a moment's notice.

If applicable, at the end of all this, should this no-logos-in-infoboxes consensus be rolled out to First articles, too? I'm of the mind that you can't have one (First) without the other (Stagecoach), so for consistency's sake, I'd lean towards removing them. Hullian111 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Hullian111, I went down some rabbit holes and found Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_72#File:StagecoachLogo.svg which is where it may have all stemmed from, For some reason I'm so sure consensus was achieved somewhere and that it involved Redrose64 however from what I can find their only involvement was to remove the logo from Stagecoach articles in February 2016[1], (if there was a consensus/discussion somewhere then I cannot for the life of me find it),

At that time I may have misunderstood things and assumed that the above link/discussion applied to all articles but I honestly don't know as it was nearly 10 years ago,

FWIW I've always wanted the logos shown for every single division and have never agreed with reverting people which is why I'm so convinced consensus was achieved somewhere but like I say maybe the link above was it and I've just been misremembering for the past 5/6 years!, who knows!,

Anyway I'd be happy for either a RFC to be held or for us to either reinclude or exclude all logos as like you say the consensus should be shown at a moments notice, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add I did ask Redrose here but was ignored, I really am so sure a discussion took place somewhere but who knows, I certainly don't go by that consensus today and tbh I wished I didn't in 2020 but we live and we learn. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:08, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the discussion, the logos may have been taken out per WP:NFC#UUI #17: 'The logo of an entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks its own branding. The specific child entity's logo remains acceptable.'

Looks like we have a consensus?

[The logo] should be removed from all other articles except Stagecoach Group (where it isn't currently used). Its current use is excessive (WP:NFCC#3) and does not meet contextual significance for any other article (WP:NFCC#8).

That being said, it looks like consensus was achieved by those outside the WikiProject. In that case, I'm open for an RfC on the FirstBus logo matter to clarify this project's position. Hullian111 (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: I did not ignore you. This edit will not have notified me, as my user name does not have the second "r" capitalised. This amendment will also not have notified me, since it fails WP:MENTION (Create a new comment; modifying an earlier comment does not work.) - you need to get it right on the first try, subsequent attempts to correct a misnotification will not succeed.

When it comes to non-free content, such as that Stagecoach logo, a WikiProject's discussion cannot override Wikipedia policy, even if there were 100% consensus to use the logos. Where a non-free image is used, WP:NFCCP#10c shows that its file description page must include The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use. That "each" means that every single article using the logo must have a rationale, independent of the rationale(s) for any other article, which justifies why the use of that image is appropriate to that specific article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64 Oh ..... I thought the amendment after made the pings work. Okay wow I never knew that, Please accept my sincere apologies, Thanks for making me aware of this, I've struck that part out,

@Hullian111, Okay no worries, Thanks, Warm Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 12:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit did notify me, thanks. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to source this long-unsourced stub. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]