Talk:FTR (bus)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The criticisms have all been made (and having travelled on the things, I can bear them out), but without sources they are unverifiable, and qualify as original research. We don't want to give Yorkshire First the opportunity to portray Wikipedia as a soapbox for dissatisfied passengers, so can someone please find references? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have added some content from a trade publication and tried to wikify the rest of it. I have also amended the Leeds section which I believe was factually incorrect. I don't believe that Metro have made any decision on this yet (Metro published a tender invitation in August 24th edition of LTT saying "no costs or timescales are available").Jezzerk 19:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.firstgroup.com/ftr/faq/index.php states "The vehicle can carry 53 seated passengers and 47 standing." If someone could find data on the old buses we might be able to verify one point at least, but I am having difficulty finding any data on the exact length of the buses. --Karina_Tv 09:34, 21 June 2006

According to the First York fleet list, http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/yorkhumber/york/history/historyindex.php, the Wright Eclipse Fusion (bendy buses) seats 56, the standard Eclipse (single) seats 41 and the Alexander ALX400 (double decker) seats 76. There is no information on the standing capacity.

It is also worth remembering that the bendy buses didn't operate on the ex number 4 (now ftr) route, so the claim that the ftr seats less than its predecessor isn't strictly true.

I am also doubtful whether this article should remain an anti ftr forum. Mdcollins1984 12:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Swansea 2 Criticisms removed for discussion and/or verification 3 'ftr' seating capacity 4 Meaningless paragraph 5 This article requires extensive work 6 Title 7 Contested move request 8 Requested move 8.1 Survey 8.2 Discussion 8.3 A sampling of usage

Swansea

The service is expected to start in late 2008, nott 2007 according to http://www.swansea.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=10765

Criticisms removed for discussion and/or verification

• Despite being 100% longer than their predecessors, the ftr buses can seat only one more person. ^{[citation needed]}

...See above - this is not true.

• The length of the buses frequently leads to problems navigating York's often narrow and twisting streets, despite the jointed nature of the buses.

...But the original bendy buses still work and have done so. The ftr is based on the same chassis, the Volvo B7LA

• The 'Emergency door open' buttons are frequently mistaken by passengers as the correct way to open the back doors.

... they are clearly marked 'EMERGENCY USE ONLY' and are clearly visible. Is this therefore the fault of the bus or passengers? Mdcollins1984 13:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

They are clearly marked but that has not stopped many passengers pressing them thinking that's the correct way to open the doors. It's clearly mostly the passengers' fault but IMHO the point is that it's a mistake they might not have made had the doors been designed better. --Jmptdc 11:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the critisms don't have sources and are entirely original research. Probably done by the members of the facebook group (which is hardly relavent to the topic)

-What is the source of this comment then? 'Probably' is not a valid critism (dc505)

Yet they have a right to their opinions and views. As do you. So not irrelevant, but a useful perception.

• First Group advertised ticketing with the ftr as being easy, with 'm-tickets' being available to buy and download using a mobile phone, and pre-paid barcode tickets also being available from paypoints. Despite the trial period having been in operation for several months, these systems have still not yet been put into operation. First have given no indication of when, or even if, these pre-paid tickets will become available.

Removed, both these payment methods are fully operational, as far as I'm aware. I've certainly had no trouble obtaining tickets from paypoints. DezSP 17:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree, i also deleted the following criticism and added it here for discussion, as it has no citation or source and seems to be either rumour or a slander :- Now cited

• Many users have experienced problems when dealing with First staff, particularly the 'pilot', who is often accused of being rude to members of the public, and even throwing them off the bus. This has been considered a particular problem because many students or tourists visiting York for the first time will be put off the city by such behaviour. (see Evening post, Nouse, Vision, YSTV).

I think it should also be perhaps mentioned that alot of the critism maybe a result of technophobia and negative reporting by the media. --Neon white 15:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

'ftr' seating capacity

On the contrary of the capacity of the 'ftr' seating 53. I can tell you they seat 42 (although since some of the corner seats are not 'legal' seats under the regulations they 'officially seat 37). The staple single decker with First York is the B7L which is 12m long and seats 41. They have 5 or 6 B7RLEs which seat 43 and are the same length. The reason for the difference in seating between the two single deckers is the engine layout at the rear. The statement in the length of the 'ftr' being 100% longer than a single decker is incorrect. The 'ftr' is 18.75m and a typical single decker is 12m, so it is around 50% longer.

Meaningless paragraph

"The vehicles have been designed to make refubishment straightforward to freshen their appeal every few years. FirstGroup's record has not been impressive when it comes to maintaining the appearance of its existing fleet of conventional buses." This paragraph has no logic within this topic, it matters not on the type of bus. But when they are refurbished/repainted. -- Matthew Forth 88.109.123.206 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This article requires extensive work

Whilst some aspects of this article are well done, the criticism section is very poor. I am aware this article was either started (or at least extensively edited) by a Facebook group claiming to hate the ftr but it is still important to retain balance. I propose these changes for a start:

"A Facebook group "I Hate The New Bus Society" has been formed, which now has over 840 members, with the aim of increasing awareness of problems with the buses and taking action against some of the problems. This contrasts to the 'ftr's might not be perfect but i don't hate them' group, which has only 16 members."

This is ridiculous. There are many valid criticisms that can be levelled at the service but the membership of Facebook groups is surely not one of them. This should be deleted.

The rest of the criticism section contains unverified claims and weasel words. For example, "Some have commented that ..." should go unless it can be cited. Similarly "The bus often fails to stop at the correct bus stop ..." is unverified and therefore out of place here. The ftr has been plagued with technical problems, can nobody find a reference?

In the 'support' section, *every* point is rebutted. They all follow the formula of <Grudging acceptance of a point> followed by <BUT some reason why this is still a criticism in disguise>. The nature of a bus service is that few people are going to come out with verifiable praise. If it is not there, don't make it up. Delete it and if the criticism section were written more fairly then the reader can make their own mind up about the service without need for a 'support' section.

I will leave it a while to see how people respond before making these changes. Thanks. 12:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• To allow a shorter boarding and alighting time the bus should have at least 3 doors, as it is common with articulated buses, and may not only one ticket machine. Because the driver is not controlling the tickets boarding should be allowed at all doors like at trams.

Surely this isn't a valid point? 28/4/07

Title

Per our guidelines (WP:NC, WP:MOS, WP:MOSTM), ftr is not an appropriate article title unless there is no reasonable alternative. {{lowercase}} is for the exception, not the rule. 81.104.175.145 10:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Contested move request

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 06:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Ftr → FTR (bus) — WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL, proposal uncontested for 4 weeks. —81.104.175.145 23:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not uncontroversial, and 81.104.175.145 is aware of that. (Personal attack removed) Crazysuit 04:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the community does not repose consensus in our page naming guidelines? If so, then your discussion needs to go to WP:MOSTM, not here. 81.104.175.145 13:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not move. There is nothing wrong with the present title. Why overcomplicate things? And anyway, FTR is not just a bus, it is a transit system designed to provide a "futuristic" bus service. This means FTR (bus) would not be an appropriate title. --Jorvik 10:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

There is something wrong with the present title, in that it's in the wrong case. FTR is a dab page, and this article is about an articulated bus (that's all it is), so '(bus)' is an appropriate disambiguating tag. 81.104.175.145 13:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick perusal of the official site http://www.goftr.com/ as well as of coverage in the BBC, seems to show consistent usage of lower case "ftr" rather than all caps "FTR". "Ftr" is used at the beginning of sentences. older ≠ wiser 13:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read WP:MOSTM? 81.104.175.145 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I went bold and moved the page, some people seem to be trying to make a point by objecting here. The manual of style is crystal clear on this issue. SalaSkan 14:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your boldness looks more like WP:POINT. WP:MOSTM says nothing about using a fully capitalized name when that is NOT what is the common name for the entity. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I got you confused with the anonymous IP. But the point still stands, that the fully capitalized FTR does not appear to be in common use and there is nothing clear in WP:MOSTM that would indicate using FTR in preference to ftr or Ftr. older ≠ wiser 16:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What about "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment"? In standard English, we capitalise trademarks and abbreviations in general. SalaSkan 17:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the standard English capitalization rule to turn a name into all capitals when that is not the name? I'm unfamiliar with any rule that says to capitalize trademarks. In fact WP:MOSTM uses REALTOR as an example in which it is very specifically NOT capitalized, even though the trademark is actually capitalized. All caps implies that it is an acronym, which it is not. older ≠ wiser 17:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The example you have given supports a move, in that REALTOR is a non-standard form. Similarly "ftr", being three letters rather than a single word, is a non-standard form. Unless anyone has some evidence of it being read aloud as /ˈfʌtəɹ/. 81.104.175.145 19:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". The "trademark owner" (in this case, First Group) encourages people to render it as "ftr". We should not follow that, but rather the standard "FTR". End of discussion. Can we move it back please? 81.104.175.145 19:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems a rather peculiar reading of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). The guideline says under General Rules:

• Capitalize trademarks, as with proper names. -- This is mixed case capitalization -- "as with proper names" -- NOT all caps.

Under the section Trademarks which begin with a lowercase letter,

• Trademarks rendered without any capitals are always capitalized' and then gives as examples how various lower-case trademarks should be rendered using mixed case capitalization.

Mixed or non-capitalization says:

• For personal names, capitalize normally within the article, but include the lowercase spelling within the lead. For the article title, follow the lead of outside sources and use the most common spelling and capitalization, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. For example, if The New York Times and USA Today routinely capitalize the name, use the same style here on Wikipedia. If the situation is ambiguous, capitalize normally. -- nothing here to imply all caps should be used.

Of course, those are style guides for using the term within the article. For naming convention, at Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise, we have the convention:

• Follow standard English text formatting for article names that are trademarks. Items in full or partial uppercase (such as Invader ZIM) should have standard capitalisation (Invader Zim). -- That clearly recommends using mixed case as with a proper noun, not all caps.

So to sum up, there is no support that I can see in the naming conventions or manual of style for presenting an all-lower case trademark as all caps. older ≠ wiser 20:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You obviously missed it before, so I'll make it bigger here. The example you have given supports a move, in that REALTOR is a non-standard form. Similarly "ftr", being read as three separate letters rather than a single word, is a non-standard form. Unless anyone has some evidence of it being read aloud as /ˈfʌtəɹ/. There. Happy? 81.104.175.145 20:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That is YOUR interpretation of that -- and I see it as clearly mistaken. Comparing REALTOR and ftr is mistaken. There is nothing in the guidelines that says or implies that if the trademark is not pronounceable it should be presented in all caps. The guideline suggests using mixed case as with a proper noun (with exceptions for well-known trademarks). older ≠ wiser 20:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, the entirety of your argument is basically "stfu your wrong"? The guideline says "no special treatment" - the all lowercasing of FTR is First's "special treatment", which we do not follow. Do you have any counterexamples of unpronounceables that we have rendered in lowercase? 81.104.175.145 20:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, basically I'm saying that I think your reading of the guidelines is mistaken. If you want to take that as meaning "stfu", that is again your own idiosyncratic interpretation. If you really think FTR (bus) is a better name for the article, then go ahead and make a normal proposal WP:RM. Honestly, I really don't care all that much one way or the other, but based on what I see in the guidelines there is no support for changing the presentation of an all-lower-case trademark into all caps. If after discussion, there is consensus that this is how it should be, then the guidelines should be modified accordingly. older ≠ wiser 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, was that you that used the "delete" button to get your way in a dispute to which you are clearly party? 81.104.175.145 20:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah. What of it? You inappropriately moved the article even though you knew the move was was contestedSorry, User:Salaskan moved the page and you moments later edited the redirect, thereby preventing anyone from moving the page back over the redirect without deleting first. I restored the status quo. older ≠ wiser 20:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a problem with Categorizing redirects? You restored the status quo contrary to the consensus position (which clearly does not support an all-lowercase form for this title). You're also clearly involved in the debate so should not have used any of the top buttons apart from "edit this page". 81.104.175.145 21:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that category being added to pages that have been moved appropriately. That was not the case here. The move was clearly contested and everyone involved knew that (although you seem to be in denial about it). Prior to the move, there were three different editors objecting to the move. To say there was consensus is complete nonsense. Restoring status quo after an inappropriate move is not an abuse of admin powers, IMO. Now if I did so repeatedly or contrary to consensus, that would be a different matter, but that is not the case here. As I said before, if you want the article moved, then propose the move and let there be a wider discussion on the matter. That is precisely what should have happened after your "uncontroversial" move was first contested. older ≠ wiser 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to note that this talk page contains no evidence whatsoever of any such objection. Even my initial proposal that the title was unsuitable went unanswered. All that existed is one user who didn't like the idea of someone moving their article. That's all. That is the entirety of the objection that was lodged. Worth noting that it has now been moved to the capitalized form by other users three times, while in each case the reversion has been with reference to the original objection, which was utterly empty and without reason. 81.104.175.145 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

<<==back to left margin

Evidence that the move was clearly contested:

1. 10:44, June 2, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 adds request under the section Title on this talk page. [1]
2. 17:46, June 3, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 adds request on WP:RM to move from Ftr to FTR [2]
3. 18:15, June 3, 2007 -- 67.68.152.186 contests the move [3]
4. 18:21, June 3, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 replies [4]
5. 22:18, June 3, 2007 -- Anthony Appleyard moves the article from Ftr to FTR [5]
6. 22:20, June 3, 2007 -- Anthony Appleyard clears request from WP:RM [6]
7. 00:43, June 4, 2007 -- Crazysuit moves FTR back to Ftr over redirect. [7] and makes minor edit to the redirect at FTR
8. 03:10, June 4, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 re-adds request to move Ftr to FTR to WP:RM [8] claiming without providing any evidence that move back was against consensus -- this despite the objections of 67.68.152.186 and Crazysuit and no explicit support expressed in support of the move
9. 03:45, June 4, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 adds {{db-move}} to FTR (deletion log for FTR)
10. 04:22, June 4, 2007 -- NawlinWiki deletes FTR citing CSD g6 (deletion log for FTR)
11. 16:49, June 4, 2007 -- Anthony Appleyard again moves Ftr to FTR [9]
12. 16:50, June 4, 2007 -- Anthony Appleyard removes the request from WP:RM [10]
13. 18:22, June 4, 2007 -- Crazysuit enters a complaint about Anthony Appleyard on WP:AN/I [11]
14. 18:24, June 4, 2007 -- J.smith sagely inquires whether Crazysuit has asked Anthony about the moves [12]
15. 18:24, June 4, 2007 -- The Evil Spartan moves FTR back to Ftr with edit summary: not an uncontroversial move: placing as such as WP:RM was deceptive [13]
16. 18:25, June 4, 2007 -- The Evil Spartan notes on WP:AN/I that he moved the articles back [14]
17. 18:28, June 4, 2007 -- The Evil Spartan asks Anthony Appleyard about the page moves on his talk page [15]
18. 22:34, June 4, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 responds at WP:AN/I
19. 22:39, June 4, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 responds to The Evil Spartan's comments on Anthony Appleyard's talk page, telling Anthony to "Please ignore the above" and claims that the moves were supported by "by wider community consensus" even though to date not one single editor has explicitly supported the move.
20. 04:56, June 26, 2007 -- Jayvdb changes FTR from a redirect into a disambiguation page [16]
21. 23:52, July 1, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 adds move request for Ftr to FTR (bus) under Uncontroversial proposals on WP:RM [17]
22. 04:21, July 2, 2007 -- Crazysuit moves request to Incomplete and contested proposals and adds objections [18]
23. 06:55, July 2, 2007 -- Stemonitis moves Crazysuit's comments from WP:RM to this page [19] but leaves the entry under Incomplete and contested proposals
24. 10:26, July 2, 2007 -- Jorvik added an objection to the move on this page [20]
25. 13:27, July 5, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 removes some of Crazysuit's comments on this talk page, claiming it was a personal attack, also provides a misleading interpretation of Crazysuit's remaining comments and replies to Jorvik [21]
26. 13:28, July 5, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 moves request from Incomplete and contested proposals to Uncontroversial proposals on WP:RM, without any explanation other than to reiterate the misleading interpretation of Crazysuit's remaining comments [22]
27. 13:54, July 5, 2007 -- Bkonrad (older≠wiser, that's me) objects to the move on this talk page [23]
28. 13:55, July 5, 2007 -- Bkonrad (older≠wiser, that's me) moves request back to Incomplete and contested proposals on WP:RM
29. 14:02, July 5, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 provides an exceptionally flipant response on WP:RM, disparaging objections as being from a single disgruntled editor [24]
30. 14:07, July 5, 2007 -- Bkonrad (older≠wiser, that's me) points out on WP:RM that there are at least three editors objecting to the move (and as yet, not one explicitly expressing support for the move)
31. 14:10, July 5, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 gives another flippant response to my comments on this talk page [25]
32. 14:32, July 5, 2007 -- Salaskan moves Ftr to FTR (bus) citing WP:MOSTM, even though there is nothing there that explicitly supports the move [26]

    Comment by Salaskan: There is something in WP:MOSTM that explicitly supports the move, if you had read it you would've noticed it. SalaSkan 12:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

    Why do you assume that I haven't? Can you point out precisely what part of the guideline covers changing an all-lower-case trademark into all capitals? You made essentially the same baseless comment above "In standard English, we capitalise trademarks and abbreviations in general." -- and I ask again where can this so-called rule be found? There is nothing, NOTHING, in the guideline that explicitly suggests that all-lower-case trademarks should be presented as all capitals. older ≠ wiser 16:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

33. 14:33, July 5, 2007 -- Salaskan justifies move on the talk page citing WP:BOLD, implying some inkling that the move was not uncontroversial [27]
34. 14:47, July 5, 2007 -- 81.104.175.145 edits the redirect at [[Ftr]
35. 15:36, July 5, 2007 -- Stemonitis moves all comments from WP:RM to this page [28]
36. 16:03, July 5, 2007 -- Bkonrad (older≠wiser, that's me) moves FTR (bus) back to Ftr
37. 16:05, July 5, 2007 -- Bkonrad (older≠wiser, that's me) objects to Salaskan's WP:BOLD justification [29]

From here the subsequent exchanges that I'm aware of are all on this page. From the first round of moves at the beginning of June, there were objections to the move and it should not have been moved as uncontroversial. Since that time, there have been additional objections raised to the proposed move and there is no way that this should be considered as uncontroversial.

As I have suggested before, if you want to see this moved then make a regular proposal to move at WP:RM and have a more general discussion -- in particular soliciting input from contributors at the various guideline and convention pages that have been cited to see if we can arrive at some clarification about what guidance if any is applicable in this situation. older ≠ wiser 02:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Further comments from WP:RM

Moving back to uncontroversial. The suggestion that the page title was inappropriate stood unopposed for 4 weeks, and it appears User:Crazysuit is trying to make a point by suggesting that our guidelines do not enjoy community support. 81.104.175.145 13:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is very clearly NOT uncontroversial. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

One user whose only real reason for disagreeing is because they apparently don't like me does not make it "controversial". 81.104.175.145 14:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are at least three editors objecting to the move -- it is in any case not uncontroversial by any standard. older ≠ wiser 14:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither opposing nor supporting the move at this stage, but I do reject the idea that it's uncontroversial. It should go through the regular process of a poll. MWOT Andrewa 21:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Andrewa, therefore I will set up a poll below.--Jorvik 10:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move