User talk:Apex-LW'21
Welcome to my talk page!
Please post on my user talk page (not my user page) if you want me to delete any outdated / unrelated articles or any unused images existed in sgWiki. Also, please provide the links to the uploaded images (if any) when requesting to delete the articles.
I will review the pages first before I will delete, but however, should any of the pages that requires cleanup or is sufficiently related, it will not be deleted, unless there is a reason to believe that the article is the above-mentioned. Pages (including its talk page of a current page) which are blanked out, unanswered or remained for a certain prolonged period will be deleted in the event of any routine house-keeping or cleanup in sgWiki.
If your account is mistakenly banned due to posting of false or unrelated information, etc, please ask the administrator who had originally banned you by writing on the user's talk page to appeal, unless if you are mistakenly banned by me. If an information is mistakenly marked as false statement, you had to clarify with the administrator and provide justification that the information is true and accurate. However, the decision will be made by the administrator and the decision of the appeal is final, after the investigation is complete.
Do note that the successful appeal of the ban (only for those accounts banned by me) can only be done once. Once the ban appeal is successful, you are to comply with the sgWiki Guidelines. Appeals for repeated bans will not be considered.
The appeal procedures will also apply to the warning points imposed to the account.
If any articles or uploaded photos are deleted by mistake, please use my talk page to appeal. Please note that any deleted articles/photos will be subjected to further review and decision. This appeal only applies to articles/photos that were previously deleted by me. If you wish to appeal on any articles/photos that were previously existed in sgWiki that were deleted by any other administrators, please write on the respective talk pages.
Any accounts that are in severe violation of the rules as stated on the sgWiki Guidebook will not be unbanned. Please ensure that all edits and articles are complied with the sgWiki Guidelines.
If your account is being affected by any Autoblock function caused by the user being blocked for spam advertising, etc, please use my talk page so that I can remove the Autoblock.
For any Captcha issues, please refer to the administrator 'Jason' by writing on his talk page.
For bus-related pages, if you find any mistakes in any pages (only those edited by me), please use my talk page to point out the mistakes and clarify with me. I will make the necessary corrections as soon as possible.
Add link
Hi! Apex-LW'21
I had a few friends and i often visit SMRT and SBS Transit (SgWiki), when press the link is link to Deployments and we have to scroll up to see the Specifications. This is not very practical. Most user outside perfer to see Specifications than Deployments, to understand different between each brand of buses. About the ( http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_O530_Citaro ) add a link to Specifications would be better so that don't need to scroll up to see.
Example: This website: (http://sgwiki.com/wiki/Bus_Contracting_Model_(BCM)_Bus_Deployments) I didn't add any link to their Specifications, if you are a bus lover and want to see the Specifications, you only have a option to press the Deployments and then Scroll all the way up to see. This is very very far and not practical. Hope for your understanding. Thanks you.
Sincerely, Johnlyh77
Good Evening,
One of the ways that I can do is to link up the existing particular bus models (currently without having any links) on the respective bus deployment pages, to the Specifications section.
Please let me know if my suggestion to this is fine.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 18:10, 24 July 2016 (SGT)
Tower Transit
Single-deckers
| Bus model | Registration no. | WAB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| MAN NL323F | SMRT (Batch 1) | SMB3001M – SMB3034T | 
|
| SMRT (Batch 2) | SMB3035R – SMB3051T, SMB3053M – SMB3074C & SMB3084Z | ||
Is this look better? By press the batch will go to their Specifications
Sincerely Johnlyh77
This one looks fine with me. But remove the 'SMRT' part in the column. --Apex-LW'21 (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2016 (SGT)
Can i highlight production batch from which Company in this way?
Single-deckers
| Bus model | Registration no. | WAB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| * MAN NL323F | (Batch 1) | SMB3001M – SMB3034T |
|
| (Batch 2) | SMB3035R – SMB3051T, SMB3053M – SMB3074C & SMB3084Z | ||
Legend
- * Production batch is from SMRT.
--Johnlyh77 (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2016 (SGT)
Reply to the suggestion
Single-deckers
| Bus model | Registration no. | WAB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| * MAN NL323F | Batch 1 | SMB3001M – SMB3034T |
|
| Batch 2 | SMB3035R – SMB3051T, SMB3053M – SMB3074C & SMB3084Z | ||
This one is much better. It's best not to put the (SMRT) part, because either way it confuses others.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2016 (SGT)
- Pardon me, but I don't think it's a good idea to indicate the bus model's operator as BCM has made it in such a way that there is no such thing as "SMRT MAN NL323F (Batch 2)" anymore since all bus assets belong to LTA.
In fact 'MAN NL323F (Batch 2)' is appropriate, since all buses are now under the LTA's assets.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2016 (SGT)
- Can i use same similar display on SMRT Deployment to rectify at especially Mercedes-Benz O530 Citraro. As it look Batch 3 is from SMRT itself.
Single-deckers
| Bus model | Registration no. | WAB | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro | Demonstrator | SMB136C |
|
| Batch 1 | SMB139U – SMB148T | ||
| Batch 2 | SMB149R – SMB188C | ||
| * Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro | Batch 3 | SG1691L – SG1699R | |
Legend
- * Production batch is from SBS Transit.
As SBS3602U reject my post.
--Johnlyh77 (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2016 (SGT)
- I second user SBS3602U to not to include any indication for it. Furthermore, it was not purchased under any operators for those fleet. In fact, it was purchased by operator but LTA brought all of it from the operator directly. Therefore, I felt that the legend is redundant.
- Secondly I would like to feedback, to make it neater, it is possible for those fleet under the same model but different operators should have their deployment tables merged, with additional columns denote the operator details like Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 4) By Registration for easier references rather than a whole chunk of long "section names". (Inclusive of sorting)
- Lastly, I would like to point out that the pages under Tower Transit Bus Deployments by Service was pretty redundant as none of it had perms buses plying on it or it was yet to determined. If the former is the case, I would suggest it to be deleted, or up to 3 pages to merged all of it with only the quantity of bus deployed and the type of it (Single Decker and Double Decker).
- Thank & Regards
- --Supernutorcrazy (talk) 19:57 7 August 2016 (SGT)
Having thought about that 'bus model's operator' problem again, user Johnlyh77 might be right on the point that having the different batches of the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro on SMRT Bus Deployments might possibly cause confusion and also conflict.
If we were to split the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro page into to pages by batches, it would conflict with the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro pages operated largely by SBS Transit – Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 1) & Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 2).
This of course, isn't a problem now as we have the 2 batches of the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro operated by SMRT merged into one page. But to prevent further confusion, I would recommend we have an indication of which operator had originally purchased that bus model (before LTA bought it from them).
We won't have to worry about this conflict if a bus model is originally bought solely by LTA, as we should understand 'Batch 1' or 'Batch 2' refers to the ones bought by LTA (since only LTA bought it).
Hence, I recommend we indicate the original purchaser of bus models that are bought by 2 different operators that have batch conflicts (in this case, the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro pages) in both Bus Deployments and bus models pages
| Bus model | Registration no. | Originally purchased by | WAB | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro | Demonstrator | SMB136C | Template:SMRT Buses |
|
| Batch 1 | SMB139U – SMB148T | |||
| Batch 2 | SMB149R – SMB188C | |||
| Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro | Batch 3 | SG1691L – SG1699R | Template:SBS Transit | |
Regarding the second issue highlited by Supernutorcrazy, I agree that the long sections names are really messy, but I do not think that we should completely get rid of them like in the By Registration page(s). Editing in the Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 4) By Registration is really tedious as we would have to scroll down reaaalllyy far. At times even, it will cause lag, and sometimes, crash when editing from mobile devices (which most people do).
Regarding the third issue, I believe that we should wait till Tower Transit's bus deployment stablises. But if it doesn't for too long, then we should have the Deployments by Service pages deleted.