Talk:OC Transpo routes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Hi I've been working on a draft sort of template for individual articles on OC Transpo routes. Any comments? Obviously feel free to edit the template, add routes, etc.

Cheers Republicofnewfoundland 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That is long to do though, but I can help to do some portion, but that will be done gradually.--JForget 02:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Colours

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says: "It is also almost never a good idea to use other style changes, such as font family or color."

I do not see any good reason to use coloured text here, and it makes the text more difficult to read. I think that the colours should be removed. Ground Zero | t 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Since no justification has been provided for deviating from the Wikipedia Manual of Style here, I will remove the colour-coding within a couple of days. Ground Zero | t 20:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyways, as I gradually create pages for each route, it will turn blue due to the code I've wrote, so the colors will go gradually.--JForget 20:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Since you are no longer creating pages for individual routes, the colours are not turning to blue. Can we remove them now in accordance with the reocmmendations in the Manual of Style? Ground Zero | t 00:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. It's better like that, it facilitates the navigation.. --Deenoe 00:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This continues to be a problem. Let me be clear: using colours, and particularly the pale colours chosen here, makes the article more difficult for sight-impaired people to read. Virtually every other article in Wikipedia makes do without putting text in colours. There is no reason why the navigation of this article is any more difficult without coloured text than any other article. This is an easy article to navigate: there are headings and lists. The addition of colour does not make it significantly easier for sight-unimpaired people, while making it more difficult for sight-impaired people. Surely someone else must care about this! Ground Zero | t 17:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's really not a question of CARING or not. We could, if we want to keep colours, create another cell to the left, with the colours currently in the route, and remove the headings colours. --Deenoe 18:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
... like elections tables. That sounds like a great plan to me. Ground Zero | t 20:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, great compromise, I'll do it ;) --Deenoe 20:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have started with the first table.. PLEASE GIVE INPUT BEFORE I CONTINUE. See here. --Deenoe 20:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It looks great. Thanks, Deenoe. I'll try to work on other parts when I have a bit more time. Regards, Ground Zero | t 13:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I'm on it ;) --Deenoe 21:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done, I am a table master ;) --Deenoe 21:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Very nice work! I tip my hat to you , good sir and/or madam! Ground Zero | t 00:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Good sir ;) And it wasn't a big work.. I know this table like my pocket.. --Deenoe 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Utility of Routes

Obviously, someone put some pages up for deletion here. I just want to remind to the member that all black, red and green routes must be kept as it gives important info on our transit system (even if there are schedules printed). --JForget 01:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It gives no important info, that's why I nominated it --Deenoe 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables

JForget proposed in AfD that we should tables of circuit, like for London routes, so I did it. There is the Green routes left, School routes left and I'll be done ;) --Deenoe 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm a little confused, but If there is a related section all nominated for deletion, there should be better notice/warning placed onto this site Bacl-presby 19:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the ROUTES articles that I proposed for the deletion. Not the OC Transpo Routes. That's why I am creating tables that say Start and End in the table. --Deenoe 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So....you are proposing to delete the routes that republicofnewfoundland did en masse on June 16/17 and then disappeared from wiki contributions?? Bacl-presby 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yuppers. I am proposing to delere every route article EXCEPT for routes 95, 96, 97, replacing the articles by simple, clean looking tables that I passed all day to do :p Even if Consensus goes on Keep the Tables gives a better look to the article IMO. --Deenoe 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete? I understand a blt better, but again ask for more input by other members of the ottawa project... Bacl-presby 20:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I already put a entry on Wikiproject Ottawa's Talkpage about it. --Deenoe 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it took me quite a time BUUUUT! I'm done the tables :D Enjoy. --Deenoe 21:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Someone said I should possibly add a column for each route, that gives a link to the schedule of the route in question. What do you think? --Deenoe 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the link at the bottom should be okay. Only will probably have to be updated at each schedule. Beside the URL doesn't when clicking a route, so [[1]] will stay the same after clicking for exampel route 149. --JForget 19:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

When you're a big geek like me, you know how to get to the Schedule itself :p --Deenoe 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Now that the transitway routes are posted, perhaps 1-20; some of which can be traced back to STREETCAR routes, can be attempted!! Good luck!!

Id on't get what you mean... --Deenoe 19:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Routes 1-20 were parts of or were former Streetcar routes in Ottawa before they became bus routes; likewise, some other routes (example 85) have their "history", perhaps with different numberings (in the mid-70's when OC Transpo started, 85 was Route 61...)

Bacl-presby 00:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Mhhh.. About the former Streetcars... it should be treated in an article about the tramway or the streetcars. --Deenoe 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea

Perhaps I could make tables in the stations article to list the routes that goes by that station... --Deenoe 02:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping History!

I think once this page is completed we could and should place a date at the top. From this date to this date. The bus schedules change all the time. And then make a new page (copy paste) for new bookings. Or perhaps we should just put a date indicating when a root was removed. Actually a combination of both? The idea is to keep history right! --CyclePat 05:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Meh... I don't see really the point, at the rate the bus routes changes.. And there is a date at the end of the tables saying Effective since September 3rd, 2006. --Deenoe 11:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scanning!

Why don't we just scan the darn pamflets they give? Add a link to the photo or a small image! --CyclePat 05:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual route pages

I saw that on Augest 11th of 2006 that the individual route pages were deleted because they were "not a timetable". Well why not bring them back and put info that isn't found on the OC Transpo site on them? There is defiantly not enough info on the route pages. It would be neat to have a page like the 95 page for every main route in Ottawa. I don't get why you guys deleted them in the first place. It just doesn't make any sense at all. I am a fanatic of route History and one page just doesn't cut it for me. It has zero route history. --Rts legend freak 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who proposed deletion.
The articles in their current form (on deletion) were totally UN-notable. No information on history what so ever, and if I'm correct, at the time, nobody expressed a will to actually rewrite all articles to be Wikipedia-notable. As the current form, the articles were only giving the informations the table I created does, for the exception of a rough route and sometimes transfer routes. These articles were just poorly written for most and in my opinion, (and I'm a OC Transpo and Bus Fan), but having individual route pages is totally ridiculous and not encyclopedic. Remember, Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, and unfortunately we have to get down to the rules of what this implies. I strongly oppose to the return of the route articles. --Deenoe 00:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
One question related to the thread: Should the 101 be split from the 95 article? It will be classified as a 7-day BRT and Orleans-Kanata route and would likely be an article similar to the 3 Transitway routes. Also it looks to be more notable then some of the London bus routes articles, some of them being complete silly and they still managed to survive Afd (twice), despite the very non-notablity of some. --JForget 02:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)