Jump to content

Talk:The Bus Collective

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 01:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A bus similar to the one that you can sleep in
A bus similar to the one that you can sleep in

Moved to mainspace by S5A-0043 (talk). Self-nominated at 12:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Bus Collective; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Looks good. ALT0 goes hard. Regards, IceWelder [] 10:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LTG

[edit]

@Justanothersgwikieditor, regarding the LTG source, I checked in on RSN, @Thryduulf said "if "The Bus Collective" is notable (this does not go any way towards establishing that and I've not investigated any further) then it might be usable to verify some factual information if there is no better source for it." I gave the source the benefit of the doubt on that basis, so perhaps we can discuss a bit more over here? S5A-0043Talk 04:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@S5A-0043, the discussion is very clear over there that it is essentially a blog and not to be used. Banks had mentioned specifically 'If this is the only source for a statement, then that statement should not be included in a Wikipedia article'. Brachy08 and ZKang had also mentioned not to use it as it is an unreliable source. You are specifically picking out Thryduulf's remarks here to support your stand when there are three other editors speaking against it. You are effectively forum shopping and canvassing when there is a clear consensus on the usage. I see Thryduulf on the fence when there are 3 other editors against it.
I have reviewed the article and passed NPP on the basis of other secondary sources granting it notability. We cannot grant a source as reliable or to be used just because an article is notable. This is putting the cart before the horse. Also, based on the facebook comment by the company, LTG had trespassed and took photo (self evidence of crime) of the interior (note facebook post enter the interior of the buses as there are private property). In fact, this criminal act probably make it even unreliable and probably crippled LTG at any steps of getting of it to pass as a reliable source.
The livery being stripped is trivial since it is a decommissioned bus and it is common to have decommissioned properties to strip off its existing livery by prior or new owners. The trivial fact of the livery being stripped should not be in the article in the first place. JASWE (talk) 05:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair, I accept that. S5A-0043Talk 05:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]