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: 60 days

	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 articles

Anybody care to offer their opinion on if the placing of an image to the left of the infobox as at Alexander ALX100 contravenes the MOS:SANDWICH section of the Manual of Style. For mine it clearly does. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/Archive 2#Images has a more detailed explanation. Pinging Davey2010, Murgatroyd49, Mattdaviesfsic, QuicoleJR, Mr.choppers. Not canvassing, but because theses editors expressed an opinion on the similar Dennis Dart discussion. Kermelei (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SANDWICH is hopelessly outdated and quite frankly should be ignored. It dates to an era where the average screen was much smaller, when browsers didn't adapt well to window sizes, and when mobile devices simply didn't exist. Left-aligned images opposite an infobox aren't a problem any more.

That said, when there's an infobox, there doesn't need to be any other images in the lede section. For a stub article like this with no sectioning, that means there's no need for the left-aligned image - especially since it doesn't provide anything not already present in the infobox image. The image can be re-added if the article is ever lengthened to have sections. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a case for the policy to be updated / scrapped then that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. But until there is an agreement to change the policy, we should be operating within the confines of the policy and not just ignoring. Kermelei (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed it already is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#MOS:SANDWICH. Kermelei (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can ony concur with the above. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My only justification for having a rear image on the left is that cars have front and rear images so why shouldn't buses ? (of course I appreciate car articles are longer but Kermelei also had a problem with galleries existing[1] so galleries apparently can't be used which is why we're now at this sandwiching issue)

Using Alexander ALX200 as a example - If we were to right align the image it would be trailing under the infobox and on longer articles can squash references and create huge amounts of whitespace so in that respect this way works better,

Some may say "Well, we have commons" to which I'd say you shouldn't need to go to a different website for basic information (it should all be on one page). I appreciate SANDWICH is an issue but we can't please everyone.

I have removed the image from ALX100 as concur that image wasn't needed as it wasn't a rear image and there wasn't any difference between that and the infobox image. Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 13:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Sandwich is totally enforcable - if I make my screen narrower, pictures often un-sandwich themselves. A gallery always works, as long as there are valid reasons for including additional photos.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't having rears of buses per se, the issue is that because articles like Alexander ALX200, Alexander ALX300 and Alexander ALX500 are short, they are not long enough to accommodate more than one image.

If the rears of these buses were notable and thus there was text in the article, there would be a case for illustrating by way of a gallery as permitted by WP:IG. But as they aren't, all being run of the mill with a flat panel, number box, window and tail lights. Unsurprisingly they gain no mention in the text.

Despite Davey2010's insistence that I have a problem with galleries existing and have an agenda I don't, I just edit within the confines of Wikipedia’s policies rather than trying to find ways to get around them. The fact is that many of these bus articles have excessive images that contravene multiples policies. It was discussed extensively at Talk:Dennis Dart earlier in the year where Davey came up with all sorts of excuses as to why the policy should be ignored, no one agreed and despite continued protesting, the policy was enforced. If editors really want to add an infinite number of images, then commons is the place for that. Kermelei (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think its worth trying to bring this issue up time and time again. What, this kicked off back in June or July? I was of a similar opinion to yours, but I've decided to agree and disagree and see what happens - I don't want to look like I'm claiming 'ownership' of an article, anyway - and even if some of the articles are rather stubbish, I do agree that if conventional cars have front and rear shots in their articles, e.g. the Vauxhall Cavalier page, why can't buses? The Cavalier doesn't have a photo of every trim variant, at least, just pre and post-facelift.

My main concern is whether the article itself is navigable enough for non-enthusiasts/non-experts on buses. Without wanting to sound biased as I'd worked on the article quite a lot over last year, I think layouts like on Wright Eclipse Gemini might be a good way forward if enough information can be found for the type to fill the page out beyond the infobox. Hullian111 (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One problem is that not many people actually take photos of the back end of buses! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes that's the important bit. A Leyland Atlantean and Daimler Fleetline that were completed by the same coachbuilder look virtually identical from the front - especially when the coachbuilder didn't fit the chassis maker's badge (Atlantean or Fleetline?). But seen from the reat, the visual differences are more apparent (Atlantean, definitely). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick, though nowhere near exhaustive, search on commons only comes up with one useful Fleetline rear view. I might add it in to the page. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah damn, so that's how it is? Unfortunately, I don't think I have anything for a Fleetline on file, but I might be able to rustle up a few photographs of preserved Leyland Atlantean rears, if that is what you're looking for. Hullian111 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanteans we've got, and on the article page! Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this image of a Fleetline and Atlantean side by side; conveniently, both have Northern Counties bodywork, so above the engine cover they're seen to be very similar. Some more Fleetline rears: Greater Manchester 8001; Lancashire United 6990; Southend 233 - note that Commons seem to put all of them into the Leyland categories even though some were built with Daimler badges before production was moved from Coventry. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater Manchester one is probably better than the Hong Kong one I found, though that does demonstrate the reason for the design. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, regarding Fleetline rear ends, though I haven't found one with an open engine bay (and someone not stood in front of it), typing "Daimler Fleetline" into Commons without quotes has yielded this preserved Park Royal-bodied WMPTE example, which even features a Daimler badge! The good thing about it is that it is taken on an angle that really highlights the 'bustle' effect, so with a bit of cropping, I think that would make a good fit. If not, there's a preserved NCME-bodied Teeside example that could work, too. Hullian111 (talk) 10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with having images of rears of buses where there is some context and room to accommodate. For example different variations as with the Atlantean or Fleetline as mentioned, or something unique, e.g. the rear platform of a Borismaster, but just illustrating the rear of a bus for the sake of it as at Alexander ALX300 is pointless, particularly when it goes against policy. Much like people, every bus has a rear, but they are rarely notable. The aforementioned Vauxhall Cavalier article is a much larger article, so therefore can easily accommodate the four images it has, albeit their placement was causing sandwiching, which has since been fixed. Kermelei (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the China Bus image to the page,replacing a photo of a preserved example. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses/Archive 2#Images. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article MiWay has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to List of MiWay bus routes and MiWay Fleet. If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Millsy0303 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Somerset Passenger Solutions#Requested move 6 June 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I started {{NCRTD}} for NCRTD but got bogged down in the documentation for the markup; could someone help me? Arlo James Barnes 06:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]