Template talk:Mobico Group

Template formatting[edit]

This template looks awful! Someone needs to do something about it! Pafcool2 (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with it? Simply south (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well for starter's the colour of the template as a whole is terrible. National Express corporate colours are not yellow, are they? Plus why is the Defunct companies bit in red? As well as the fact that there are some dead links, either create pages, redirect them or take them off the template. There is no need or purpose for them on a navigational template if there's nothing to tell us what it was about! Pafcool2 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just changed the colours of the template to reflect the National Express corporate colours (and make it look better!). I know in the new "Future UK bus companies" section there are some broken links, but I am currently in the process of creating these articles. -- Arriva436 (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, someone changed the colours to a blinding new shade of red and blue, looking even crapper! It has now been put to the bland "normal" background. -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future companies sections[edit]

The "future" bits don't really belong, since they're duplicates of ones already on there under their current name. And the NX articles should be redirects until the name changes - there's no point having two articles about the same thing. --Mr Thant (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you look you will find that only one of the future companies redirects to the current name. This is the "National Express East Anglia" link under future train companies - and it is the one part of the template and future articles I have not done.

The rest of the articles are currently stubs, but will be developed as the name change takes place. You argue that "the NX articles should be redirects until the name changes", but today I have seen the first photo of one of the new TWM buses in the new livery - with the current branding added on for the "showcase" routes - showing the name change is nearly upon us. I think that future products/brands like this need articles as a change approaches to avoid confusion (and if not why was the "future product" tag made?). There are many examples of this on Wikipedia, perhaps the main example being years. There are examples of 2009 etc. all the way - you could argue that "a year" is essentially the same as another year, and that no one really knows what will happen in it.

You also say there's no point in "having two articles about the same thing". Unfortunately they may be similar at the moment, but they will soon change as the "Travel ...s" go into the past tense and history and the "National Express ...s" come into the present tense. One of the reasons that I have chosen to create the articles slightly earlier than the name change is that I sensed the existing "Travel ..." articles were being turned into articles of the current brands. I felt that if this went on for too long, instead of two different articles forming (of what are essentially different companies), a dodgy page move would take place - effectively obliterating all of the information that is on the "Travel ..." articles now.

As for the template - it may as well have the future brands on, as most people will now be aware that the National Express Group is going through major corporate change - and the sections can show them what is emerging out of it.

I'll grant you that the "National Express East Anglia" link probably needs an article (rather than a pointless redirect), but as I didn't put it on there and I am only a bus enthusiast (not trains!), I won't be able to.

I hope you see my points (and wow! I never thought I'd write this much on a talk page!!!!!) Thanks -- Arriva436 (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it there's nothing more to this than a rename. Normal practice would be to have one page about each company, mentioning it used to (or will) have a different name - a relevant example of this in action would be c2c. There's nothing dodgy about moving pages - the company history before the name change can still be dealt with in full. I do get your concern, but I think you're off the mark. --Mr Thant (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was anything dodgy in moving pages, just that in this case I think a lot of information will be lost. You use the example of c2c and say that "company history before the name change can still be dealt with in full". Well, all I can find on the c2c article is this: "It was initially awarded to Prism Rail and was marketed as LTS Rail. Prism Rail was purchased by National Express in September 2000 and the franchise was re-branded as c2c in 2002." - hardly full detail.

If you compare this with the size of the Travel West Midlands page, you can see what the article could be reduced to (i.e. "Started on 26th October 1986, National Express West Midlands was called West Midlands and from September 1996 was called TWM"). This is hardly anything of the detail in the current article, and it can be be retained if a new article is created. An example is the "fares" section. If this was retained and re-worded as "at the time of the change, the fares were.....", it could be used in comparison for National Express West Midlands' fares for many years to come. This could also be said about the "safer travel initiative" section.

A perhaps more widely read example of a new article being created to reflect a new brand is The O2, which of course is the new name of the Millennium Dome, with its own article still. A more bus related article is bus bodies, when a new product is developed the old page simply doesn't get moved, as with Wright Cadet and the new Wright Pulsar. Thanks, -- Arriva436 (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The O2 and Millennium Dome articles were split because there was too much info to fit into one article, and the rename was the logical place to split them. LTS Rail simply doesn't have any history of its own separate from c2c. I've gone ahead and reverted your decision to create new articles, since I think it's better to wait and see than to pre-empt a problem that may or may not exist in the future. --Mr Thant (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. To be honest, I can't be arsed with Wikipedia anymore, too many conflicts and annoying rules. I'm just trusting that you are the one who now keeps everything National Express related up to date!! I shall stick non progressive "non-controversial" edits, and work on my Wiki-project.Arriva436 (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National Express[edit]

I just thougt, as this move involves part of this template, i would mention i have put Nation Express up for WP:RM. See Talk:National Express#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sugesstion[edit]

Why not have a section on the template about the route lists Thanks...Dudleybus (Spake to me!!) ♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠♣♠ (talk) 10:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]