This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AEC Routemaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | AEC Routemaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fixed. Everybody move along now, no galleries to be seen here. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
If I missed any or one of these images was used, please fix this gallery.
For some reason this was removed fro the discussion page. I am proposing that these details be added back to the main article.
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 list above matches the list for Route 9 on [ Enthusiast Page with vehicle list].--- Abd ( talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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 original 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)
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)
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 original research and not appropriate for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.84.74 ( talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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 original 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() |
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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-frame (including engine, steering and front suspension) and a rear "B" steel sub-frame (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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AEC Routemaster article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | AEC Routemaster was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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.
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)
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)
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 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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Fixed. Everybody move along now, no galleries to be seen here. MickMacNee ( talk) 01:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
If I missed any or one of these images was used, please fix this gallery.
For some reason this was removed fro the discussion page. I am proposing that these details be added back to the main article.
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 list above matches the list for Route 9 on [ Enthusiast Page with vehicle list].--- Abd ( talk) 17:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.213.69 ( talk • contribs)
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)
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 original 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)
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)
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 original research and not appropriate for here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.84.74 ( talk) 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
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.
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 original 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
![]() |
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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-frame (including engine, steering and front suspension) and a rear "B" steel sub-frame (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.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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
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)
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)
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)