Talk:List of Melbourne bus routes/Archive 1

Votes for Deletion

• List of Melbourne bus routes - WP is not a timetable -- Stw 16:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete
  • Keep - David Gerard 16:43, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:50, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No worse than any other lists. Maybe we need a List: namespace, though. (Maybe we need to bring back lists for deletion). Anthony DiPierro 16:58, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Useful. Optim 18:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. A list of bus numbers for every city in the world? Do we really want to go there? And who is going to keep them all up-to-date? They are bound always to behind the official web sites. Secretlondon 18:38, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - outdated bus routes will do no one any good. - Texture 18:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - could we possibly have something like this for every city, and would we want it if we could? I say no. Isomorphic 18:49, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Definitely. Going through this list is a great way to see what locations we need to add wiki articles for. It's a lot more useful than other lists, in this regard. Anthony DiPierro 20:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete; outdated info (will certainly be) is worse than no info. Mikkalai 20:08, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep. Outdated info is better than no info. Anthony DiPierro 20:13, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • False info harms by stopping you from further search and by occluding the bandwidth. It is a pain in the neck to sift thru myriads of google hits trying to figure out whom to believe. Mikkalai 20:17, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • So put a date on the info. Wikipedia is full of info that becomes dated. You don't suggest we remove the fact that George W. Bush is the President of the United States, do you?
      • No, outdated info is frequently worse than no info, and this is one of those cases. If someone tries to use this, and it's wrong, they may run into unexpected difficulty in traveling. They may even discover that a bus route they counted on has been discontinued. Isomorphic 20:21, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
        • So put a date on the info. It's still useful in creating an encyclopedia. More so than many of the other lists. Anthony DiPierro 20:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. An article on the city's bus system generally would be fine, though. Everyking 21:24, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list (and yes, this is a case where outdated info is worse than none.) Rossami 22:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, we can always delete it when nobody ever updates it.--Patrick 22:42, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • How will you know? - Texture 22:44, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
      • Just like updates of other articles, you can get an impression from the edit history, and also from sample checks using external links. --Patrick 00:05, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I strongly oppose deletion. We currently have several Wikipedians working on building categories around the Melbourne public transport system (including myself). Between us, I'm sure we can keep it up to date, and it makes for a useful resource for someone who has to use these - like myself. We already have articles for trams and trains, so why not buses too? Moreso, I wish I'd found this earlier. Ambivalenthysteria 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Graham  :) 23:59, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: useless. Give a pointer to the bus system web site if there is one. Disclaimer: I ride the bus a lot (although not a bus in Melbourne). Wile E. Heresiarch 02:07, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Like other lists, the usefulness lies in it linking to other pages. Anthony DiPierro 02:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • And people who may simply want to know which route goes where. Ambivalenthysteria 02:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonencyclopedic. RickK 02:48, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is this nonencyclopedic? How does it differ from the tram and train articles?Ambivalenthysteria 02:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Could be a useful resource for some. I see no compelling reason to delete it. Moncrief 02:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No-one has suggested one single sensible reason to delete this. Wikipedia is full of utterly stupid lists, why on earth do so many people suddenly want to delete a list that is (a) much less stupid than the really dumb ones, and (b) might even be useful for something. Tannin 02:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • "Wikipedia is full of utterly stupid lists" -- good heavens, that's simply depressing. Well, I guess we had better get started erasing them all. We'll start with the list of bus routes in Melbourne. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:23, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. The Real danger is that if it is kept, some future numberbot will figure that the route numbers are culturally-or-mathematically relevant facts about the numbers, and start adding links to this page from all the number pages: List of numbers 8-) AndrewKepert 02:59, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • And after that even more-than-usually ridiculous "reason" to delete, the defence rests its case. Tannin
      • I was amazed when someone added all the US highway numbers to these pages, so Victorian bus route numbers are fair game. You would need a bot to make it truly obnoxious, though!! 8-) AK
        • I have no problem with adding all of the Australian highways, but bus lines are impossible to keep current. It's not like they're going to rebuild highways every day or so. But I do draw the line at streets, though I'm sure Anthony would love to have them. RickK 03:50, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
          • Um, streets aren't in this article. It's simply a list of the routes. And as has been repeatedly stated, we already have several editors willing to work on the Melbourne public transport system articles. If it was listing exact routes with streets, then that may be too difficult to keep track of, but this is not. Therefore, I can't see any reason to delete. Ambivalenthysteria 04:19, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
            • I never said streets were in this article. RickK 04:22, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Yeah, wouldn't want to ruin those wonderfully encyclopedic number pages! Anthony DiPierro 03:17, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • Sorry, after all that I didn't give my real reason, but it is interesting to see the feedback. I think lists of this sort (and most of the number pages) are unencyclopaedic. I get the feeling that many editors here treat WP as a glorified shed (love that page) where they can retreat and while away the hours sorting and classifying rusty screws, stowing them in jam jars and stacking them in neat rows on shelves. I think people should be encouraged to build things in the sheds i.e. create pages with actual content! (Disclaimer: just finished building myself a workshop which I hope to use for some constructive purpose.) -- AndrewKepert 04:21, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, as the original author of this article, there are a few points I'd like to make (they don't all fit in one dot point). I would like to point out that some valid concerns were raised, which I will attempt to respond to. The first point is that this is not a timetable or a list of bus times.

The official Victorian Public Transport website is http://www.victrip.com.au/ . Note their site-map, at http://www.victrip.com.au/tools/sitemap.php, shows that they give little extra info about busses. The search engine doesn't work. Similarly, there is no single company or government agency handling Melbourne's privatized bus network. Take a look at the bus companies linked to at http://www.victrip.com.au/tools/useful_links.php and you'll see that there are quite a number of possible sites where bus routes are listed.

Please note, also, this list is still very much under construction. Under the heading By Route Number the bus routes would be listed in the (Route Number) - (One end suburb) - (The other end suburb) - (suburbs it runs via) - (Bus company) format. The heading Bus Company would list the major bus companies in Melbourne - for example, Invictabus, Ventura, MelbBusLink, Ivanhoe Bus Company, Driver Bus Lines, etc., and the bus lines each company runs. The third heading of By Destination could be a simple list of bus routes that run through various suburbs, as well as nearby train and tram stations.

As such, it would be a useful resource both for users, and people writing future articles.

First off, as articles on Melburnian suburbs are written, the information contained in existing articles on public transport will provide either a place to link to for further information about a particular suburb's public transport situation, or (for suburbs with a major public transport hub) information for a section on it. Secondly, it will encourage articles on the bus companies themselves; or their parent companies.

So the question is, why is it a resource to users? First off (as mentioned earlier), because of the utter inadequacy of the state government's centralized public transport website. Secondly, by linking users interested in travelling to, say, Box Hill (or who know the route number) to the websites of relevant bus companies for up - to - date timetable and route information. Thirdly, to complement other Wikipedia articles like List of Melbourne railway stations or List of Melbourne tram routes.

Further along that train of thought, Melbourne (like Los Angeles) is a spread out metropolitan area, of approximately 3,366,542 people. While its inner suburbs are serviced by its tram network and some suburbs have train lines, no new train lines have been built in decades. This has meant large parts of the city are reliant on its bus network. Is the key part of a large city's public transport infrastructure worthy of an encyclopaedia article?

To the criticism that route numbers will lead to articles on "703" and the mathematical properties of that number, I had no intention of linking the route numbers to anything.

Finally, most of Melbourne's bus routes are reasonably static.

This page has - as stated earlier - significance as a refference tool linking users to more detailed information on a diverse array of bus company websites. As mentioned in previous comment, there is a significant community of users on Wikipedia willing to keep public transport information on here up to date. If it would allay some of the criticism, perhaps the page should be prefaced with a comment along the lines of "This page is intended to link users interested in information on a particular bus route to its relevant website. Users should check relevant bus company websites before making any travel decisions". But please note that this article is still heavily under construction.

Cheers, AJ (AmishThrasher).

Hear hear: as one of those Melburnian wikipedians working on the 'List of..' pages, I think this is a perfectly worthwhile article. Curious though that no-one raised any of these arguments to have the List of Melbourne tram routes page deleted, as it follows exactly the same format with the tram route numbers. I'll add my keep vote. Hypernovean 12:51, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added big bold "For detailed travel information, do not rely solely on this page" warnings to the tram, train, and bus lists. Hypernovean 13:29, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)