Difference between revisions of "User talk:Scania"
| Line 32: | Line 32: | ||
Greetings. | Greetings. | ||
I would like to clarify that in removing the rego range headings for several deployment pages, I only did so for those with only a series of ranges that can be placed together in one single deployment list (for example, the Wrights for SMRT Buses are only grouped in one list as they are all SG-plated). In my opinion, these headings are redundant unless there is a differentiation which required multiple deployment lists, such as for Batch 3 Citaros operated by SBS Transit, where there is SBS-plated non-BSEP, SBS-plated BSEP and SG-plated. When there is only one deployment list classified under a heading of a bus company, only the bus company heading is required since the sub-headings are more for multiple lists instead of one single list. Why create an additional heading when the range can be determined either through the specifications, or when the users click on the links to the respective sub-headings under [[Bus Deployments]] page? Cheers. | I would like to clarify that in removing the rego range headings for several deployment pages, I only did so for those with only a series of ranges that can be placed together in one single deployment list (for example, the Wrights for SMRT Buses are only grouped in one list as they are all SG-plated). In my opinion, these headings are redundant unless there is a differentiation which required multiple deployment lists, such as for Batch 3 Citaros operated by SBS Transit, where there is SBS-plated non-BSEP, SBS-plated BSEP and SG-plated. When there is only one deployment list classified under a heading of a bus company, only the bus company heading is required since the sub-headings are more for multiple lists instead of one single list. Why create an additional heading when the range can be determined either through the specifications, or when the users click on the links to the respective companies' sub-headings under [[Bus Deployments]] page? Cheers. | ||
--[[User:ASA1234|ASA1234]] ([[User talk:ASA1234|talk]]) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (SGT) | --[[User:ASA1234|ASA1234]] ([[User talk:ASA1234|talk]]) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (SGT) | ||
Revision as of 18:20, 3 September 2016
With regards to removal of buses on official lay up.
Hi,
I understand that there was such a rule, and I am discussing it with the others on this.
This is because it causes inconvenience later on when the buses come back into service. Hope you understand that, and I hope to get back to you when there is an outcome of the discussion.
--Scania 16:05, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Greetings.
As far as I have been here, there is somewhat an established rule that buses that have already been offcially laid up (not just officially de-registered) tend to be removed from the list in the main deployments page, and their details would be shifted to the non-revenue buses page. That is why I still retained 5026D and 5031M on the page.
However, I acknowledged I haven't been here for some time, so whether such a rule had been changed over the past few months I am not entirely sure. Regardless of whether it is true, I would follow your instructions and let the content stay there as it be.
Cheers.
--ASA1234 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Just to add on, I did a comparison with the MAN deployment pages. The fact is that, SMB3520G, SMB5046X and SMB5082R are all officially laid up as of today in OM. So I would have to remove them from the deployment list as a result since it isn't a mere difference from SMB5026D and SMB5031M that is under unknown stage.
--ASA1234 (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply from my talk page [1]
I believe you were referring to my edit removing Go-Ahead from the Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 3) page. I understand that Go-Ahead was said to receive the Batch 3 Wrights but it was not confirmed at that time and shouldn't be placed there, well, because it was not confirmed. Unless further useful information could be provided (there was only N/A in the Specifications table, N/A in the deployments section and N/A in Buses in depots section).
--SBS3602U (talk | contribs) 18:39, 18 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply to the issue of removing rego range headings for several companies.
Greetings.
I would like to clarify that in removing the rego range headings for several deployment pages, I only did so for those with only a series of ranges that can be placed together in one single deployment list (for example, the Wrights for SMRT Buses are only grouped in one list as they are all SG-plated). In my opinion, these headings are redundant unless there is a differentiation which required multiple deployment lists, such as for Batch 3 Citaros operated by SBS Transit, where there is SBS-plated non-BSEP, SBS-plated BSEP and SG-plated. When there is only one deployment list classified under a heading of a bus company, only the bus company heading is required since the sub-headings are more for multiple lists instead of one single list. Why create an additional heading when the range can be determined either through the specifications, or when the users click on the links to the respective companies' sub-headings under Bus Deployments page? Cheers.