This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofbuses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofConnecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut
This template is within the scope ofWikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofNew York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
Seems pointless to include all these operators (Dattco, Collins, etc), most of whom are too insignificant to have their own Wikipedia pages, and are not of interest to the average person.Mirza Ahmed (talk)08:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I debate the "insignificance" of the operators - the general state of the Connecticut transit agency articles has been (until somewhat recently) quite poor. Any of the listed operators would certainly meet the notability guidelines if their articlesdid exist, but as of yet, they do not. As for their interest to the "average reader" though, you're probably right in that they are "behind-the-scenes" for the most part - and hence, not of interest to most.Artsistra (talk)00:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of CT Transit's operators ran their own branded bus services before becoming part of the CT Transit brand aside from Collins and North East Transportation (and the latterdoes have its own article). 30 years ago companies like Dattco ran comprehensive commuter bus service (which they still do - it's just part of the CT Transit brand now) and others like New Britain Transportation operated city bus systems larger and better-reported on than some which do have articles (likeEnfield,NECTD, orNWCTD). If you really don't believe me I *can* find sources if you'd like some proof.Artsistra (talk)20:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If they were formerly independent operators, I'm fine listing them there. They'll be notable enough for an article, or at least a section of a list. (We can probably also have a row for the currently operating private intercity bus companies like Peter Pan.) But we don't need a separate row for contract operators, and any that never operated scheduled service under their own brand aren't going to be relevant to link from this template.Pi.1415926535 (talk)21:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. I support this idea! So, if I'm interpreting your suggestions correctly, it would include the removal of contract operators as their own section, listing the formerly independent ones in "former operators" (I'd assume), and adding a section for intercity bus companies? Just want to make sure before any changes are made!Artsistra (talk)03:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Irecently reverted two edits byNewsjunkiect (talk ·contribs), mostly because they were edits by a blocked sock editing in an area proximate to what they were blocked for. They complained at their Talk page, stating that their "additions were article-supported", and that my revert "restore[d] inaccurate text to the navbox". My revert restoredPi.1415926535's earlier revision1277670142 of 00:49, 26 February 2025. I am not averse to undoing my revert if there is a sound basis for it, but I have no idea what they meant by either of those comments, and since then, they have been indeffed. Do you see any reason the revert should be undone? I am unfamiliar with this template and topic and have no preference for the outcome, and would defer to those editors who are regulars here and have better knowledge of it. While on the topic, you might also look atthis revert of mine atCT Transit Hartford for the same reason. Thanks,Mathglot (talk)01:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot: I think we can keep it the way it is. I don't know what they were trying to do with their edits, but it wasn't an improvement. (Listing proposed extensions of existing services as if they were entirely new lines is misleading.)Pi.1415926535 (talk)01:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
