Talk:Coast Mountain Bus Company

Images

I currently have several images, and I think they are better than the current ones. I have a image of a refurbished Orion V, and since most of them are going through refurbishment, I think the current image should be replaced. What do other people think? https://www.flickr.com/photos/ultrabuizel10/37036351910/in/dateposted-public/

Also, I think we should have a section for images of community shuttles.

double decker pilot

@Saltn'Pepper: I don't want to step on your toes here but I'm thinking we should not be including the double decker vehicles here as they are on loan and for a very temporary time period. They aren't part of the regular fleet, they are going away at a set time, and if we keep them listed here, I think it needs to be in a separate section to really make the distinction clear.

It's great you've included references/citations, though: the rest of this page makes me cry given it's often completely unsourced content. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

All right. I do think the double deckers should be listed here as they are part of the CMBC fleet, just won't be part of the fleet for very long though. But yes, I can see that it might be clearer if we have the double deckers separated from the regular fleet. —Saltn'Pepper (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think the double decker pilot should be listed with the main bus fleet. Since we're on topic of the fleet, should the fleet section be spun off into its own article? It would really help clean up the article as I feel it's too cluttered. Northwest (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have seperated the double-decker buses into their own dedicated section. right beneath the regular fleet section. —Saltn'Pepper (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

As for spinning off the fleet parts into another article, I don't think there's a justification for it as articles should be split based on WP:SPLIT. I don't think the fleet details on their own are notable or different enough to warrant it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought since TTC bus fleet had its own article it would be warranted, but it's much larger. Perhaps a collapsible table would be best. Northwest (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I think if we do have enough photos and such, we should make the batches of buses have their own fleet page. RealBuizel10 (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Community Shuttle fleet

I'm a bit confused about the Community Shuttle fleet here. There are some units that are operated by First Transit and are shown here, and there are others that aren't. For example, 17501–17569 are a 50/50 split between being operated by CMBC and First Transit. 17501–17548 are oeprated by CMBC and 17549–17569 are operared by First Transit. All the units from this particular batch are shown, regardless if they're operated by CMBC or not. Yet units like S1321, S1322–S1325 that are operated by First Transit aren't even shown here.
So should we include the other units that are operated by First Transit, as the units themselves are owned by TransLink, or should we remove all units because they aren't operated and maintained by CMBC. —Saltn'Pepper (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

17501-17505 aren't operated by CMBC. They are WVMT Arboc units. I do think First Transit units should be shown here. RealBuizel10 (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent improperly sourced additions (Feb 2024)

Have warned Emma0mb about their recent improperly sourced additions. You cannot rely on photos on Flickr and "insider" knowledge to add details to this or any other Wikipedia article. All additions need to be sourced to fact-checked reliable sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The original numbering segment is completely unsourced and provably wrong from reliable sources, such as the claim that all xx000 units are XDE60s being shown incorrect from the many pictures of xx000 units that aren't XDE60s. I'm just trying to be bold and am adjusting my contributions according to the messages you and Exp691 and included.

Due to the nature of this article, there aren't really any published sources for a lot of things, so in my opinion, it would be better to outright remove these sections than to keep them out of date and incorrect.

As for insider info, at most only the detail about the bike racks, could be insider info. Even then it's not like it's a secret and I'd maybe consider it original research, as I found that detail out myself and not from others.

If you have a better idea for how to source details regarding unit numbers, I'd love to hear it and I will go through this article by hand and mark a source for every little detail. Otherwise, I don't understand the insistence to have completely unsourced, incorrect sections over a section with correct details but non-ideal sources. Emma0mb ^talk 20:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to remove any unsourced sections... I would definitely support that. It's debatable this article should exist at all (at least with the level of extreme bus-fan detail it has) since it's in essence a guide and we are WP:NOTAGUIDE. But you don't fix things by adding in new/updated info that isn't properly sourced. That's replacing one issue (being unsourced) with another (being improperly sourced). —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Would it make sense to spin off all the bus details into a separate page akin to SkyTrain (Vancouver) rolling stock and have this page focus more on the company/operations? Emma0mb ^talk 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

If so, I'd be happy to rewrite both with decent citations; granted, not a lot of published sources on bus fleets so that might take a bit unless a media outlet decides to publish a story about the entire TransLink fleet. Emma0mb ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

made an example of what I think a separate fleet page could look like. I would like to know people's thoughts on it so I don't spend time writing it, only for it to end up on AfD User:Emma0mb/sandbox/TransLink Bus Fleet Emma0mb ^talk 01:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References