![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As discussed, I have created a new Wikipedia article. This article now has all the details of the range of bus routes that ACTION currently operates in Canberra. This has meant that I have removed all the details about Canberra bus routes (other than the summary) from this article to avoid unnecessary duplication. -- Chaleyer61 ( talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Chaleyer - the new article looks good. It provides the details for those who want it. Now what's needed is for the 'Canberra bus routes' article to include Deane's and Transborder services. Also a new category of Bus transport in Canberra would be useful to link these articles together. (Please don't delete the un-created category link again - it would be better to create the category.) I'm going to remove the weekday/weekend headings from the ACTION article since it is no longer required. --Martin 149.135.112.72 ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Bidgee, I've removed '(Civic)' from the info box because it is incorrect information - Civic is not a suburb of Canberra. Instead I've added a statement in the Infrastructure section stating that Signage calls it Civic Bus Interchange, however ACTION always refers to it as City Interchange.
I hope this is acceptable to you. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the section on REDEX in the article has been removed - presumably because it is not yet a current service, but only a proposed service.
IMO it is relevant to mention the Chief Minister's announcement in the ACTION article, but not to quote the entire press release. I plan to add a section on the REDEX announcement soon, with a reference to the press release, along with some updates concerning the Belconnen Interchange closure/relocation.
If anyone has strong views about the inclusion of REDEX in the article, please air those views here in the Talk section. MartinL-585 ( talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that including ticket prices was discussed before and they were removed, but when I was creating a table of all the ticket information it made sense to include the ticket prices in the table rather than just a simple yes or no to denote whether the ticket was available. Since the ACTION ticket structure is fairly simple and only changes annually, this shouldn't be too much trouble to maintain.
I have also colour-coded the table to match the colour of the pre-purchased ticket.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 04:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User 210.10.129.122 added into the history section that ACTION was "the first operator in Australia to operate Euro V standard engines (2009)". I have removed this claim as I do not believe it is correct. While I will agree that ACTION operated the first Euro V MAN bus, I believe that other bus operators have operated Euro V standard Volvos (B12) prior to ACTION's MAN 18.320
I am happy to be proven wrong, but would like to see a citation for this claim before it is added back. (All the other claimed 'firsts' come from the Canberra's Engineering Heritage article, so no further citations are required for those.) MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.actbus.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=16959 :D -- Airship (whoops) ( talk) 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Mo7838: before removing significant content from this page, you should have had the decency to discuss it first. Many other bus operator pages include fleet details, ACTION should not be an exception.
Therefore fleet information has been re-instated, pending such a discussion.
Question for other editors: is the fleet information valid? Is there a better way of providing such information? Perhaps the bus types can be listed without providing a fleet count?
MartinL-585 ( talk) 08:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Many bus operators have fleet lists, unfortunately many of these are outdated. A list may be correct when added but unless maintained, will become obsolete. I have come across plenty where bus types are listed that have long been withdrawn. Upon drilling down the list had not been updated in years. With a fleet of 400, ACTION's is likely to change fairly regularly. An editor may place a list with the intention of maintaining, and may do so for some time, but the reality is we will all leave the wiki building at some stage.
2) IMO a better way is to say 'As at December 2013 the fleet consisted of 123 buses', or 'consisted of 123 Mercedes-Benz, Scania and Volvo buses' and link to a cite. Is easier to maintain as assuming the cite remains, just need to change the date and number.
3) A detailed list is not of interest to the audience at large, so better to maintain elsewhere, eg ACT Bus Wiki. Likewise there is little relevancy to a bus being built in Ireland, having a Euro V engine, air-conditioning, low-floor or a bike rack.
4) Not necessary to wikilink a Toyota Hiace with 2 wikilinks eg, Toyota & Hiace.
5) Not necessary to mention
Qcity Transit etc in the intro and external links. The article is about ACTION, not public transport in the ACT in general. If needed an article like
Public transport in Sydney can be created. Likewise no need for
Custom Coaches and other suppliers in the external links.
Mo7838 (
talk)
11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
1-3} I have always been consistent in why I disliked the information as it was presented. I never said this list was obsolete, just that without maintenance lists do become out of date. I stand by my point that the way it was laid out was cumbersome. It is for these reasons and not me 'not liking the format' as you have asserted.
As stated at the beginning the problem when a detailed list is added, unless maintained it can become out of date and meaningless. Having edited a few hundred of similar articles, often I have found a list that upon drilling down has not been edited for years. Even if the list was old but stated the "fleet consisted of 123 buses as at April 2007" at least the reader would be in a better position to assess its relevance. Unfortunately, as this article did until 23 December, many simply state "fleet consists of 123 buses" with no reference to a date. Yes the reader can play around with the history and work out when last changed, but a bit cumbersome.
Per WP:Fancruft, a detailed list of bus types only appeals to a small audience. With a clickable cite, any reader who is interested is going to able to find the detail there. There is a place for that level of detail, its just not Wikipedia, ACT Bus Wiki is the perfect place. By keeping it as simple as possible it is easier to update for an editor without a detailed knowledge. With only one cite it is a quick job to update.
While you are here and maintaining this page it will be fine, but there will come a time when you decide to move on and within a few years may bare little resemblance to the real picture. And without your detailed knowledge, it will be harder for someone else to pick up and less likely be done, particularly when a new bus type needs to be added.
The table is certainly is a much cleaner way of presenting, but the problem of being harder to maintain remains with 13 types.
5) Agree - all fixed
Mo7838 (
talk)
10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So why have I removed "Registrations"? Because (A) it is a level of detail which is not of interest to the audience at large. Bus registration details (or fleet numbers) are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, but can be found on other reference websites; and (B) the information that is shown is incomplete - so it is better to not include it at all.
Why have I removed the mention of Kingston depot? Again, because the information is incomplete/incorrect. If you are going to mention a "maintenance workshop" at Kingston, you need to mention ALL other former ACTION depots and workshops. Better to leave it out and just mention the current locations.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
When the article’s temporary editing block expires, the following changes are proposed to be made:
Comments and suggestions welcome. Mo7838 ( talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, where new citations are provided, they MUST use the cite web (or other) template. There are to be no exceptions to this. MartinL-585 ( talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No going to go into details, changes have been made based on my previous statements. Where content has not been removed or edited does not necessarily imply that I agree with the content as written.
(7) Suggest that Mo7838 needs to learn the difference between livery, logo and corporate colours.
However, main change has been to remove all citations which did not utilize the cite web template. As mentioned above, there are no reasons for not using this template. Refer
WP:Citing sources - "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it".
MartinL-585 (
talk)
02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So you're happy to throw up style rules when you think others have strayed from them, but are not willing to follow them yourself, Mo7838? It's not that hard to use cite web properly, yet you seem incapable of doing so. Edits reverted again until you are able to comply with quite simple style rules.
Should the citations not be re-instated using the correct format (cite web), then the next step is to remove all information that the citation refers to. Alternatively, the previous version of the article where citations were correctly used will be reinstated. It's NOT my responsibility to make corrections to the citations - it is the responsibility of the editor to make the citations correctly in the first place.
Yes, this is not constructive consensual editing, but I'm not the one who made wholesale changes without consent, nor am I the one who used an incorrect citation method. I'm fairly sure whose house needs to be put in order first! MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
To address the question about content of the article: I have given it much thought and my concerns always come back to history: what to include, what not to include, what is relevant, what is trivial. My conclusion is that it is too hard to strike the right balance between history and current day. There is too much history to cover and to do it properly - (A) may not be possible to find sources and (B) will overwhelm the article.
So, the best solution is to remove all history from the article (except where it is relevant to current day - such as opening dates of depots), and also remove any mention of unconfirmed future events. The same method should be applied to the Qcity transit and Transborder articles. A brief history section should still remain in Public transport in Canberra.
This also overcomes the problem of duplicated content between the articles and the word-for-word use of history from the Engineers Australia website.
Agreed? Good. I will make a start then.
As always: DO NOT REVERT these changes without discussing them.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Have also taken the opportunity to clean up references: removed double references - no need to have two citations both saying the exact same thing; also deleted all references which did not adhere to the correct style (as mentioned above).
A bit more work still needs to be done to fix references and tidy up the writing style. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not have enough time to trawl through the various Wikipedia policies to find exactly which ones have been breached, but somehow I think the above constitutes, at the very least, uncivil behavior (ref: WP:CIVIL) and possibly WP:WikiBullying.
If Mo7838 does not agree with the changes made, then he/she needs to say so and outline the reasons. Consensus will not be achieved by continual threats to revert or to implement an article lock-out. By all means, seek a third opinion or request for comments. I have stated my reasons (above) for making the changes and stand by them: no threats will convince me to change my mind; if anything they have strengthened my opinion that the article will be improved and disputes will be lessened by removing history from the article and just concentrating on ACTION as it currently exists.
And as before, I would also ask that other editors who have contributed to the page in the past (such as Airship (whoops), Bidgee, Nick-D, Vulpini9, Busser, Chaleyer61, Somebody in the WWW and Kommissar todd06) be given an opportunity to express their opinions. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Long time watcher of this page here. I agree that history should be removed. There is far too much to sum up in a paragraph or two and each person will have a different opinion on what parts should be covered. The opportunity remains to refer to historical events in context in the rest of the article but I would suggest to keep it to a passing mention with a citation to further detail. -- Ry305 ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Some further changes which are needed for the article (and will be commenced at a later time) -
(1) Infrastructure needs to mention Major Bus Stops - bus stops with extended platforms and (usually) larger shelters. Some of these may be referred to as Bus Stations, but as they do not have more than two platforms, they don't qualify (IMO). Examples of these major stops include: City West, ANU (Rimmer St/Marcus Clarke St), Gungahlin (two locations), Westfield Belconnen, Barton (National Circuit).
Suggestions welcomed about an alternative name for these types of stops.
(2) Would like article to discuss NXTBUS, the real time passenger information system. Not sure how or where to start, but it is/will be a significant aspect of ACTION's operations.
(3) Would like to include a Gallery section featuring some of the photos from Wikimedia.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There are no longer any Bus Interchanges. ACTION website states there are four main bus stations [17] - but it does not nominate which four! Have had a look at other Public Transport / bus articles, but they give little inspiration. Anyway, thinking of changing Infrastructure outline to
Under the Bus Stations topic, there can be expanded mention of the City + Town Centre stations/stops which operate as transport hubs. Upon reflection, Gunghalin does qualify as a hub since Route 55 departs from there.
Re: NXTBUS. Full implementation may be around April 2014, so article changes should be prepared for release then. Interesting to note that latest media release [18] refers to ANU, Barton, City West and Kippax as "bus stop" with the rest as "bus station". MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can somebody upload a picture of a bus running on Route 56 for a project of mine? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on ACTION. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the name ACTION still used? I can only see references to Transport Canberra (which includes light rail). Maybe the article should be called Buses In Canberra.-- Grahame ( talk) 08:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
As discussed, I have created a new Wikipedia article. This article now has all the details of the range of bus routes that ACTION currently operates in Canberra. This has meant that I have removed all the details about Canberra bus routes (other than the summary) from this article to avoid unnecessary duplication. -- Chaleyer61 ( talk) 09:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Chaleyer - the new article looks good. It provides the details for those who want it. Now what's needed is for the 'Canberra bus routes' article to include Deane's and Transborder services. Also a new category of Bus transport in Canberra would be useful to link these articles together. (Please don't delete the un-created category link again - it would be better to create the category.) I'm going to remove the weekday/weekend headings from the ACTION article since it is no longer required. --Martin 149.135.112.72 ( talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Bidgee, I've removed '(Civic)' from the info box because it is incorrect information - Civic is not a suburb of Canberra. Instead I've added a statement in the Infrastructure section stating that Signage calls it Civic Bus Interchange, however ACTION always refers to it as City Interchange.
I hope this is acceptable to you. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the section on REDEX in the article has been removed - presumably because it is not yet a current service, but only a proposed service.
IMO it is relevant to mention the Chief Minister's announcement in the ACTION article, but not to quote the entire press release. I plan to add a section on the REDEX announcement soon, with a reference to the press release, along with some updates concerning the Belconnen Interchange closure/relocation.
If anyone has strong views about the inclusion of REDEX in the article, please air those views here in the Talk section. MartinL-585 ( talk) 04:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I know that including ticket prices was discussed before and they were removed, but when I was creating a table of all the ticket information it made sense to include the ticket prices in the table rather than just a simple yes or no to denote whether the ticket was available. Since the ACTION ticket structure is fairly simple and only changes annually, this shouldn't be too much trouble to maintain.
I have also colour-coded the table to match the colour of the pre-purchased ticket.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 04:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
User 210.10.129.122 added into the history section that ACTION was "the first operator in Australia to operate Euro V standard engines (2009)". I have removed this claim as I do not believe it is correct. While I will agree that ACTION operated the first Euro V MAN bus, I believe that other bus operators have operated Euro V standard Volvos (B12) prior to ACTION's MAN 18.320
I am happy to be proven wrong, but would like to see a citation for this claim before it is added back. (All the other claimed 'firsts' come from the Canberra's Engineering Heritage article, so no further citations are required for those.) MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
http://www.actbus.net/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=16959 :D -- Airship (whoops) ( talk) 00:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Mo7838: before removing significant content from this page, you should have had the decency to discuss it first. Many other bus operator pages include fleet details, ACTION should not be an exception.
Therefore fleet information has been re-instated, pending such a discussion.
Question for other editors: is the fleet information valid? Is there a better way of providing such information? Perhaps the bus types can be listed without providing a fleet count?
MartinL-585 ( talk) 08:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Many bus operators have fleet lists, unfortunately many of these are outdated. A list may be correct when added but unless maintained, will become obsolete. I have come across plenty where bus types are listed that have long been withdrawn. Upon drilling down the list had not been updated in years. With a fleet of 400, ACTION's is likely to change fairly regularly. An editor may place a list with the intention of maintaining, and may do so for some time, but the reality is we will all leave the wiki building at some stage.
2) IMO a better way is to say 'As at December 2013 the fleet consisted of 123 buses', or 'consisted of 123 Mercedes-Benz, Scania and Volvo buses' and link to a cite. Is easier to maintain as assuming the cite remains, just need to change the date and number.
3) A detailed list is not of interest to the audience at large, so better to maintain elsewhere, eg ACT Bus Wiki. Likewise there is little relevancy to a bus being built in Ireland, having a Euro V engine, air-conditioning, low-floor or a bike rack.
4) Not necessary to wikilink a Toyota Hiace with 2 wikilinks eg, Toyota & Hiace.
5) Not necessary to mention
Qcity Transit etc in the intro and external links. The article is about ACTION, not public transport in the ACT in general. If needed an article like
Public transport in Sydney can be created. Likewise no need for
Custom Coaches and other suppliers in the external links.
Mo7838 (
talk)
11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
1-3} I have always been consistent in why I disliked the information as it was presented. I never said this list was obsolete, just that without maintenance lists do become out of date. I stand by my point that the way it was laid out was cumbersome. It is for these reasons and not me 'not liking the format' as you have asserted.
As stated at the beginning the problem when a detailed list is added, unless maintained it can become out of date and meaningless. Having edited a few hundred of similar articles, often I have found a list that upon drilling down has not been edited for years. Even if the list was old but stated the "fleet consisted of 123 buses as at April 2007" at least the reader would be in a better position to assess its relevance. Unfortunately, as this article did until 23 December, many simply state "fleet consists of 123 buses" with no reference to a date. Yes the reader can play around with the history and work out when last changed, but a bit cumbersome.
Per WP:Fancruft, a detailed list of bus types only appeals to a small audience. With a clickable cite, any reader who is interested is going to able to find the detail there. There is a place for that level of detail, its just not Wikipedia, ACT Bus Wiki is the perfect place. By keeping it as simple as possible it is easier to update for an editor without a detailed knowledge. With only one cite it is a quick job to update.
While you are here and maintaining this page it will be fine, but there will come a time when you decide to move on and within a few years may bare little resemblance to the real picture. And without your detailed knowledge, it will be harder for someone else to pick up and less likely be done, particularly when a new bus type needs to be added.
The table is certainly is a much cleaner way of presenting, but the problem of being harder to maintain remains with 13 types.
5) Agree - all fixed
Mo7838 (
talk)
10:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
So why have I removed "Registrations"? Because (A) it is a level of detail which is not of interest to the audience at large. Bus registration details (or fleet numbers) are not mentioned anywhere else in the article, but can be found on other reference websites; and (B) the information that is shown is incomplete - so it is better to not include it at all.
Why have I removed the mention of Kingston depot? Again, because the information is incomplete/incorrect. If you are going to mention a "maintenance workshop" at Kingston, you need to mention ALL other former ACTION depots and workshops. Better to leave it out and just mention the current locations.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 10:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
When the article’s temporary editing block expires, the following changes are proposed to be made:
Comments and suggestions welcome. Mo7838 ( talk) 01:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, where new citations are provided, they MUST use the cite web (or other) template. There are to be no exceptions to this. MartinL-585 ( talk) 03:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
No going to go into details, changes have been made based on my previous statements. Where content has not been removed or edited does not necessarily imply that I agree with the content as written.
(7) Suggest that Mo7838 needs to learn the difference between livery, logo and corporate colours.
However, main change has been to remove all citations which did not utilize the cite web template. As mentioned above, there are no reasons for not using this template. Refer
WP:Citing sources - "Each article should use the same citation method throughout; if an article already has citations, adopt the method in use or seek consensus on the talk page before changing it".
MartinL-585 (
talk)
02:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So you're happy to throw up style rules when you think others have strayed from them, but are not willing to follow them yourself, Mo7838? It's not that hard to use cite web properly, yet you seem incapable of doing so. Edits reverted again until you are able to comply with quite simple style rules.
Should the citations not be re-instated using the correct format (cite web), then the next step is to remove all information that the citation refers to. Alternatively, the previous version of the article where citations were correctly used will be reinstated. It's NOT my responsibility to make corrections to the citations - it is the responsibility of the editor to make the citations correctly in the first place.
Yes, this is not constructive consensual editing, but I'm not the one who made wholesale changes without consent, nor am I the one who used an incorrect citation method. I'm fairly sure whose house needs to be put in order first! MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
To address the question about content of the article: I have given it much thought and my concerns always come back to history: what to include, what not to include, what is relevant, what is trivial. My conclusion is that it is too hard to strike the right balance between history and current day. There is too much history to cover and to do it properly - (A) may not be possible to find sources and (B) will overwhelm the article.
So, the best solution is to remove all history from the article (except where it is relevant to current day - such as opening dates of depots), and also remove any mention of unconfirmed future events. The same method should be applied to the Qcity transit and Transborder articles. A brief history section should still remain in Public transport in Canberra.
This also overcomes the problem of duplicated content between the articles and the word-for-word use of history from the Engineers Australia website.
Agreed? Good. I will make a start then.
As always: DO NOT REVERT these changes without discussing them.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 00:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Have also taken the opportunity to clean up references: removed double references - no need to have two citations both saying the exact same thing; also deleted all references which did not adhere to the correct style (as mentioned above).
A bit more work still needs to be done to fix references and tidy up the writing style. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I do not have enough time to trawl through the various Wikipedia policies to find exactly which ones have been breached, but somehow I think the above constitutes, at the very least, uncivil behavior (ref: WP:CIVIL) and possibly WP:WikiBullying.
If Mo7838 does not agree with the changes made, then he/she needs to say so and outline the reasons. Consensus will not be achieved by continual threats to revert or to implement an article lock-out. By all means, seek a third opinion or request for comments. I have stated my reasons (above) for making the changes and stand by them: no threats will convince me to change my mind; if anything they have strengthened my opinion that the article will be improved and disputes will be lessened by removing history from the article and just concentrating on ACTION as it currently exists.
And as before, I would also ask that other editors who have contributed to the page in the past (such as Airship (whoops), Bidgee, Nick-D, Vulpini9, Busser, Chaleyer61, Somebody in the WWW and Kommissar todd06) be given an opportunity to express their opinions. MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Long time watcher of this page here. I agree that history should be removed. There is far too much to sum up in a paragraph or two and each person will have a different opinion on what parts should be covered. The opportunity remains to refer to historical events in context in the rest of the article but I would suggest to keep it to a passing mention with a citation to further detail. -- Ry305 ( talk) 03:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Some further changes which are needed for the article (and will be commenced at a later time) -
(1) Infrastructure needs to mention Major Bus Stops - bus stops with extended platforms and (usually) larger shelters. Some of these may be referred to as Bus Stations, but as they do not have more than two platforms, they don't qualify (IMO). Examples of these major stops include: City West, ANU (Rimmer St/Marcus Clarke St), Gungahlin (two locations), Westfield Belconnen, Barton (National Circuit).
Suggestions welcomed about an alternative name for these types of stops.
(2) Would like article to discuss NXTBUS, the real time passenger information system. Not sure how or where to start, but it is/will be a significant aspect of ACTION's operations.
(3) Would like to include a Gallery section featuring some of the photos from Wikimedia.
MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
There are no longer any Bus Interchanges. ACTION website states there are four main bus stations [17] - but it does not nominate which four! Have had a look at other Public Transport / bus articles, but they give little inspiration. Anyway, thinking of changing Infrastructure outline to
Under the Bus Stations topic, there can be expanded mention of the City + Town Centre stations/stops which operate as transport hubs. Upon reflection, Gunghalin does qualify as a hub since Route 55 departs from there.
Re: NXTBUS. Full implementation may be around April 2014, so article changes should be prepared for release then. Interesting to note that latest media release [18] refers to ANU, Barton, City West and Kippax as "bus stop" with the rest as "bus station". MartinL-585 ( talk) 02:25, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can somebody upload a picture of a bus running on Route 56 for a project of mine? -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 17:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on ACTION. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the name ACTION still used? I can only see references to Transport Canberra (which includes light rail). Maybe the article should be called Buses In Canberra.-- Grahame ( talk) 08:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)