Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buses

Second opinion needed

Just wondering if anyone here would think the potential redirect Westpoint Bus Interchange to Westpoint Blacktown#Car park and transport would be considered too ambiguous. A Google search for me only results in the Bus Interchange at Westpoint Blacktown in Sydney, but I was looking for bus stops at any other places called Westpoint around the world to make sure.

Just wondering if anyone thinks that it could be confused with the bus stop for the Westpoint Arena in the UK, but as far as I'm aware it wouldn't be called by Westpoint Bus Interchange. Thanks and please ping me, Fork99 (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023 Venice bus crash#Requested move 4 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023 Venice bus crash#Requested move 4 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Stagecoach in Hull

The article Stagecoach in Hull has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to Kingston upon Hull City Transport. If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Hullian111 (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Images

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)

MOS:SANDWICH is hopelessly outdated and quite frankly should be ignored.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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)