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Please post on my user talk page (not my user page) if you want me to delete any outdated / unrelated articles or any unused images existed in sgWiki.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.
Summary of Issues
[Half-Resolved] Redundancy of Tower Transit Bus Deployment By Service
Supernutorcrazy has suggested that the pages for Tower Transit Bus Deployment by Services was redundant as lack of quality information.
SBS3602U suggested that we will wait for a period of time to see if the deployment will be stabilised if not the whole pages and subpages to be deleted.
Request for a dateline before the pages to be deleted.
Comments
Tower Transit deployments for the day is somehow irregular. But I found that the Enviros running on Service 106 are much stablised and certain Wrights on 78, 79 and 143 as well.
Also, I think we can change the title page as Bus Contracting Model Deployment by Service, since there would be Go Ahead coming next month.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2016 (SGT)
[Unsolved] Messy Headers and Format especially with a single model with multiple long headers
Supernutorcrazy had suggested to merged it to a single table with a new columns that represent the operator which operates it and include a sortable table to reduce the need of long headers as the operators who operates the buses may not get it in running order.
However, SBS3602U highlight that if we will to get rid of it and follows Volvo B9TL (Wright Eclipse Gemini 2) (Batch 4) By Registration, it will cause editor to scroll down pretty far and may causes mobile devices to crash while editing. The long section names etc was still messy.
In light of this, it is possible to semi-get rid of it, but limit the number of rows per table to about 200 and also retain certain element like not in running order. (Eg: SBS1Z – SBS23K; SBS3449X – SBS3482Z & SBS3487K – SBS3523P; SG5000E - SG5120S & SG5176G – SG5185E; SG5300P – SG5395R & SG5397K – SG5399E; SG5546Y – SG5555X)
Comments
This page is for experimental purposes. Since these buses would be transferred to the respective operators (such as Go Ahead next month) and some will remain on their respective incumbent operator, this page would be useful especially when those existing bus registration plates might be re-registered to the SG plate in the near future. So this page will be kept for now.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2016 (SGT)
--Johnlyh77, SBS3602U, Supernutorcrazy
Lay up buses in the existing lists
I have observed that lay up buses and buses that are missing but not laid up have been removed from the lists. While it doesn't matter for retiring buses, doing so for types of buses which are nowhere near retirement causes inconvenience for users who need to edit it when the buses are back from repairs/missing. It also causes inconvenience for users who have to check the lifespan expiry page for layup buses. I therefore suggest that layup buses be retained in the lists while only removing deregistered buses, especially when the pages do not have a link to the lifespan expiry page.
--Scania 16:08, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
BCM mess
It will be better bus deployments are classified under their own package wef 1 Sept 2016.
- Bus Contracting Model (BCM) Bus Deployments (E.g. Bukit Merah Bus Package Deployments)
- Listed by Packages - Bus models should not be listed by Batches, will cause more confusion for the editors as well as the community (Taking the SG1691L - SG1699R batch as an example).
- Bus Contracting Model (BCM) by Services (E.g. Bukit Merah Bus Package Deployments by Service)
- Listed by Packages - Increasing order of services, be it a Trunk, Feeder, Express or NightRider/NiteOwl service in a page instead of the current version.
- Bus Contracting Model (BCM) from Depots
- Listed by Services from all Packages.
- Bus Contracting Model (BCM) Spare Buses
- Listed by Packages. This is to help make editing easier when it comes to a change in operator for any package (E.g. By just simply changing the operator logo). --SMB315C
- Did you mean anything like in [1]
- Anyway, I believe that you were user "SMB1341U" in this wiki? It is greatly appreciated if you could help clean up the BCM mess in sgWiki as you do have some good ideas :)
- As mentioned earlier:
- "- Bus models should not be listed by Batches, will cause more confusion for the editors as well as the community (Taking the SG1691L - SG1699R batch as an example)."
- SMRT did not order any other Citaro buses and they come in with SBST's Batch 3 specifications (except for some minor changes like the Priority Seats notice and more), and not SMRT's "Batch 3 Citaro specifications". Same applies for the Volvo B9TL buses.
- Thanks.
- --SMB315C
Suggestion for GCM:
Change the front page to show all 4 companies, consolidate the 3 companies' "Deployments by service" main pages into 1, the sub pages will also need a change in the ranges of services covered by the subpages. If the company utilises a flexible deployment, then there is no need for a spare buses page, and this can also be reflected in the respective "Deployments by Service" sub pages. A new page "Bus Deployment by Package" could be created, similar to the style of the "Deployments by Depot" pages, and maybe optionally with links to each service's deployments. (though it may be get too huge and slow for editing)
Eg.
Bus Deployments
SBS Transit
SBS Transit Bus Deployments
SBS Transit Bus Deployments from Depots
SBS Transit Spare Buses
SMRT
SMRT Bus Deployments
SMRT Bus Deployments from Depots
SBS Transit Spare Buses
TT
TT Bus Deployments
TT Bus Deployments from Depots
GA
GA Bus Deployments
GA Bus Deployments from Depots
Bus Deployment by Package
Bus Deployments by Service
--Scania 16:38, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
I have created a page listing the packages, feel free to improve it.
Bus Deployments by Package
--Scania 17:17, 13 August 2016 (SGT)
Suggestion for BCM
Instead of spiting seperate operator into different pages as aboved, and in light of users not synchronising information across multiple pages. I would suggest that for the Main Page:
Bus Deployment
Bus Deployments
Bus Deployments by Package
Bus Deployments by Service
* Removed all SMRT and SBS Transit Information and merged into BCM wef of 1 September 2016.
As for Former Deployment, I would suggest it to be deleted as the information are pretty outdated as no users except the regulars would update that page to keep a list of former deployment.
* This does not applies to deregistered buses as it took the last deployment before deregistered.
-Supernutorcrazy 14 Aug 2016, 08:44 (SGT)
I would go with user Scania's suggestion for bus deployment pages for each operator and have Bus Contracting Model (BCM) Bus Deployments deleted. This would show the full revenue fleet of the operators.
Bus Deployments by Package could replace:
- SMRT Bus Deployments from Depots
- SBS Transit Bus Deployments from Depots
- Bus Contracting Model (BCM) Bus Deployments from Depots
Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro Batch issues
As for the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro Batch Identification Problem, I would suggest the SBS Transit Batch to change from Batch 1 --> Batch 2 etc. (Increment of Batch by 1), with SMRT Batch takes Batch 1 purely, as all buses under BCM will undergo "Refurbishment" with standardise interior fitting sooner or later, similar to the mock-up DD.
--Supernutorcrazy
For the Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro mess, there is a need to clear the conflict as Bus Deployments by Service pages may look like this in the future:-
Service example (7 buses)
SMB136C SMB141L SMB188C
3 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (1 Demonstrator / 1 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2)SG1691L SG1699R SBS6000L SBS6001J SBS6444P
5 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (2 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2 / 2 Batch 3)
And this of course doesn't make sense. There are 2 ways I could think of:-
- I wouldn't recommend this as in the worst case scenario, these buses may be re-registered to the SG-prefix plate.
- SMRT Citaros to use Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 1 & 2)
- SBST spec Citaros to use Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 3) (former B1), Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 4) (former B2) and Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (Batch 5) (former B3)
I would recommend this more, though it may take some time for the community to adjust to which pages they were in the past. To solve this problem, we could have notices above the pages informing visitors.
Opinions are welcome.
Regards.
--SBS3602U (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2016 (SGT)
Citaro suggestion
It could be as such:
Citaro (SMRT spec)
Citaro (SBS Transit Spec B1)
Citaro (SBS Transit Spec B1)
Citaro (SBS Transit Spec B3)
--Scania 17:22, 15 August 2016 (SGT)
With regards to the Citaros, I think that the title naming should remain as such, like Batch 1, Batch 2, Batch 3 etc.
For the case of the classification of an example of a Citaro with SBST specification Batch 1, this can be applied to the respective "Specifications" table of the bus deployment list. This can distinguish the specifications on the table itself rather than placing it as a title of a bus deployment page list.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2016 (SGT)
- However, the problem with the conflicting Batch names still occur and bus deployments by service pages may face problems should a service have both SMRT-spec and SBS-spec Citaros like in the example above (will just put it here for convenience)
Service example (8 buses)
SMB136C SMB141L SMB188C
3 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (1 Demonstrator / 1 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2)SG1691L SG1699R SBS6000L SBS6001J SBS6444P
5 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (2 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2 / 2 Batch 3)
Therefore, I feel that the page names still need to change.
--SBS3602U (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 August 2016 (SGT)
For the case of that scenario as highlighted, may I suggest that the bus deployment pages of the respective Citaros be distinguished in terms of the specifications that every SBST/SMRT Citaros has it.
Which means for instance "Batch 1 (SBST spec)" for Citaros with Batch 1 SBS Transit specifications can be used as such.
--Apex-LW'21 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2016 (SGT)
Re: Reply No. 4 [2]
I feel that it may look weird with SBS-spec / SMRT-spec included when it is listed in the Bus Deployments by Service pages:
Service example (8 buses)
SMB136C SMB141L SMB188C
3 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SMRT-Spec) (1 Demonstrator / 1 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2)SG1691L SG1699R SBS6000L SBS6001J SBS6444P
5 Mercedes-Benz O530 Citaro (SBST-Spec) (2 Batch 1 / 1 Batch 2 / 2 Batch 3)
Both solutions have their bad points. Hence, this is more of a preference issue.
- Have SMRT-Spec/SBST-Spec in the page titles
- May look weird as a page title itself and when listed in deployments by service pages as it is a little too long.
- SMRT spec Citaros to use (Batch 1 & 2), SBST spec Citaros to use (Batch 3) (Batch 4) (Batch 5)
- May cause confusion with the visitors and editors.
Of course, I'm not one to decide how the wiki should turn out (the way I like it) and just stating my point of view on the suggestions. As this issue is more towards preferences, I'd like it if we could get more opinions from the community or the editors here :)
Regards.
--SBS3602U (talk | contribs) 16:45, 18 August 2016 (SGT)
Question of reference about overall Batches 2 & 3 of all Citaros.
Greetings.
I have taken note of the ongoing discussions with some of the more actively contributing users in here, with regards to the labeling of Citaros. While I currently do not have any ideas for that, but I would like to pose a question of reference to you all.
While SMB149R to SMB188C was classified as "SMRT - Batch 2" which also means that it is the second batch of the Citaros, and that SBS6000L to SBS6285G are classified as "Batch 3" (overall in the suggestion of the other users), in actual, SBS6000L was registered much earlier in April 2011 as compared to SMB149R which was registered in October 2011. In my view, there is a confusion as to whether there was a specific rule; in which the first bus of a particular batch (in this case the SBST's Batch 1) had to be registered earlier, to constitute an overall earlier batch than another batch (the SMRT's Batch 2) which first bus was registered later? If there is such a rule, shouldn't SBS6000L to SBS6285G be labelled as overall Batch 2 and SMB149R to SMB188C be labelled as overall Batch 3?