Jump to content

Talk:List of bus routes in Melbourne

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

Untitled

[edit]

VFD vote archived: see Talk:List of Melbourne bus routes/Archive 1

Great article

[edit]

I wish to thank everyone who worked on this article. It's great and very interesting. I would like to see more like this. Optim 15:30, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy

[edit]

Where is the information for these coming from? It seems to me that the National Bus section clashes entirely with http://www.nationalbus.com.au/national.html, which doesn't seem like a good sign. Ambivalenthysteria 12:57, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it's been coming from, but the city's bus routes are listed at VicTrip. I ought to compare what's here with what's there, and fill in the gaps while I'm at it. It would take some time though. See here
Another thing, it appears that the archive above is in the encyclopedia namespace, not the talk namespace. Is there anything special to moving across namespaces or not; so it can be put in its place?
TPK 14:13, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

entry syntax

[edit]

This question is related to disambiguation of the term "Upfield" on this page.

What is the syntax used for an entry like this below? 

531 - Coburg North - Upfield - Broadmeadows

Obviously the first item is the route number, the last is the operator, but what about the other two? 

Route # - ???? - ???? - Operator

Thanks for clarifying this. I would suppose at this point that Upfield should be revised to Upfield, but I await your input before making that change.

Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, from what I can tell it's a list of suburbs, sometimes train stations. I'll get my Melway and check it out. Josh Parris#: 11:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So silly of me. Anyways, the map says the 540 and 531 terminate at the train station. Josh Parris#: 11:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Melbourne Buses

[edit]

Wouldn't this whole section be a lot more suitable at Buses in Melbourne instead? It's also incredibly negative - while there's a long, long way to go, it's still the only form of PT in some areas. invincible 08:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this section because it only focuses about the lack of service levels and its apparent uselessness (though I beg to differ, a lot of routes are suffering from a lack of capacity) and this article isn't the right place for them anyway. The section has since been renamed to "Melbourne Buses" but it's the same content. invincible 11:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the text removed:

Unlike Melbourne's train and tram networks, which are operated by one company each, Melbourne's bus network is operated by a multitude of private companies. These range from small firms with one or two routes to large organisations that run several dozen.

Apart from some outer area and airport services, bus companies participate in the integrated Metcard ticketing system and receive operating subsidies from the State Government.

Compared to the world-famous tram system, and the suburban electrified rail system that penetrates outer suburbia, buses in Melbourne are very much an afterthought, despite being the only public transport that is within walking distance of about 60% of the population.

The average Melbourne bus route operates every forty minutes and stops before 7:00pm weekdays. Most routes operate approximately hourly on Saturdays. Despite trading hours being de-regulated in the 1990s, only about a quarter of bus routes operate on Sundays and evenings.

It is common for buses every 30 minutes to 'feed' trains running every 20 minutes. Thus connections between buses and trains are more a happy coincidence than because of service planning. Passengers arriving by train are often better off walking home than waiting for the bus, contributing to low patronage. Unlike trams, bus routes tend to be circuitous and passenger information at stops is often missing or inaccurate.

These attributes have made buses a 'mode of last resort', and, except on the few routes that do run frequently, provide a 'social security' type service used mainly by those without a car.

Some improvements have recently been made to bus services in Melbourne. These include extra Sunday services on some routes, route extensions to new estates and three 'SmartBus' routes serving major roads. However until improvements are forthcoming on the majority of routes, most residents will continue to have a long wait for the bus and will prefer other transport modes.

invincible 12:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It looks like a revamp of the metlinkmelbourne.com.au website has broken all links 

http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/timetables/timetable_options.php?type=bus&id=MTB237

is now: 

http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/line/view/2071

There doesn't appear to be any correlation between the route number and the URL. Alternatively, all links can be fixed quickly by using the search page: 

http://www.metlinkmelbourne.com.au/metlink/quicksearch?searchText=237

My recommendation is that all links are fixed by using the search page (one edit, search and replace), and then everyone can help by replacing the link to the search with the direct link. Jayvdb 08:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: ready-to-go

[edit]

I have produced a template that's fairly easy to use, that will generate the appropriate link automatically. The template is Template:MetlinkBus, and the instructions for its use are on that page. The good thing about doing it this way is that if Metlink change their links again, it's basically just a search-and-replace to fix it all. I'll start correcting the links using this template now; if there are any problems feel free to let me know. --Evan C (Talk) 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be seprate articles

[edit]

Shouldn't there be seprate articles for each route like the trams and trains?--Adammw 23:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For each individual route? I don't see why, perhaps aside from the SmartBus routes. There are a lot more bus routes than there are train lines and tram routes. Most would be little more than a route description, anyway. --Evan C (Talk) 05:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna fix it up...

[edit]

I plan to do a bit of work on this page, giving every route a link where possible, and having one constant format for the whole article. Please excuse anything that looks half done, I WILL get around to fixing it, whenever I can... Kiwichris1709 (talk) 13:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All routes are now in a table. The next step is to provide links for all routes, and find any missing routes.

Bus route separate articles

[edit]

Im not if this has already been discussed, but is it worth creating separate articles for each bus route? Davido321 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conventions seem to be railway lines and stations can have their own, light rail systems are the same (eg: the Sydney Light Rail), major bus interchanges might slip in, the Melbourne tram routes have but they are a bit dubious.
Trams routes have been written about in a number of books about the Melbourne tramways, as well as tram enthusiast books. I believe there are a few books about bus companies from Melbourne, and perhaps some articles in enthusiast magazines, but I think they fail the notability argument.
Anyway, who can you write about a bus route? The tram route articles are pretty crap at the moment, but that is just because someone needs to go though Destination City or one of the other tram books and add some history. At best it is just an exact duplicate of the Metlink page on it, and perhaps a few factoids from media releases. Wongm (talk) 10:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you in part but for instance the route 530 bus route recently underwent quite a major change to its travel plan and timetable. Meltink contains information about the new travel plan but no information about the old one for those who may be interested. Also, some of the tram route articles are quite detailed and have additional information that's not already on the Metlink website, I think they are a good source. Davido321 (talk) 12:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that the idea of separate articles would not be ideal, given that over time bus routes will become redundant, with new routes popping up and changes to destinations, new deviations, making it extremely difficult to manage and correct these individual articles.
Tram and train routes on the otherhand, don't encounter the same grievances, as the number of routes to create these individual articles are lower in comparison to the total number of bus routes. Trains and trams are essentially fixed PT systems, meaning that you would not expect any frequent changes required for the articles in comparison to bus routes. If anything, if you want to reflect changes to bus routes, it might be a better approach to address these on the respective bus operator articles. I'm in the process of creating a template modelled on the ones used on the Brisbane Translink, to better reflect the origin, destination, various locations serviced by the bus route, days operated... However, looks like I will need help simplifying the Via section to better reflect the locations serviced by the routes. Also, by the looks of the current Beta Route Timetables used by Metlink as of today, if anyone wants to help, it might make this task easier. --Huyie (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Is it worth tiding up this page with a new metlink template to make it easier to keep to date linked timetables, or keep them in tables as is to date, where routes can be modified, with new timetables not getting relinked from the MetlinkBus templates. I originally set it up as a table thinking it would make it clearer, but now realizing changes to timetable links become harder to monitor, and when new routes appear/disappear, it becomes a pain to work out what needs to be adjusted. --Huyie (talk) 14:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of Melbourne bus routes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Melbourne bus routes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Major Significant Updates made

[edit]

Hello Wikipedians

I've decided to finally update the entire page, because it had not been updated since 2007 or earlier. Here's my mini log:

  • All 'Metlink' terminology removed and replaced with PTV
  • Updates to over 30+ services (routes)
  • Verifying accuracy of notes, and consistency among the entire page
  • Major update to (previously known as) Nightrider with new Night Network, called Night Bus, including associated pages, and service information
  • Frequency column added, to eventually gather information on all services
  • Overhaul of the back-end formatting and data with service information
  • Updating missing information / blanks
  • Updating broken links
  • Adding new updated images of bus company fleet photos, eventually gaining all companies

The major update of the page started from December 2015, and is likely to end around April-May of 2016.

For those wondering, i am a user of Melbourne buses, and a Victorian resident.

Thanks BrillOBuffalo (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Routes

[edit]

Some of these routes no longer exist, especially since the introduction of the Regional Rail Link. As a result some of the automatic link through metlink no longer works. http://ptv.vic.gov.au/june21timetablechanges/bus-network/wyndham/

Should we put it into a list of former routes or just delete them? I like to archive them into a list for historical purposes. 110.22.236.11 (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an encyclopaedia past routes are no more or less relevant than existing ones. This is not a guide.Charles (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on List of Melbourne bus routes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Melbourne bus routes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on List of Melbourne bus routes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of routes by bus company

[edit]

I propose we get rid of this section. This is meaningless as not many people are interested in which routes are operated by individual operators and either way that information is already available alongside every route. Ajf773 (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This also serves as a rough geographical grouping of bus routes, one I would personally find useful. You can see that the numerical sequencing is not related to company routes. It has taken some effort to do this grouping, I see no point in removing it. Teraplane (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There has been a hatnote on this article for some time about the possible incorrect use of external links. There are hundreds such external links in this article which are mainly created by template Template:PTVBus or its predecessor Template:MetlinkBus. These templates have now been removed from all other articles where external links have been replaced by references. This leaves this article as the only one using these templates. However it is felt that replacing all external links by references in this article would create an excessive number of references - many hundreds. What should we do about this? see [1]

This is also the only article listed with an incorrect parameter in [2] but because the links are not listed in the article I have not been able to find which route contains the error. Any assistance here would be appreciated.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say just go ahead and change them - I think WP:BOLD applies here. I made a very rough count, and it would be about 450 references. There are plenty of precedents for that number of references in an article (for example see the Barack Obama article, which has 510 references). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should avoid posting links of bus schedules or timetables as Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. One external link covering every single route in Melbourne should be all that is needed. Ajf773 (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajf773: I think having one reference for each route would be useful for the purpose of verification, though - it proves that the route actually exists, without readers having to search PTV's website for it themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Specific references for each route (or group of routes, i.e. 802/804/862 trio) makes sense in the context of Wiki, since the references act as hyperlinks, users have access to search functions like Ctrl+F, and as things change it will be easier to convert individual references to waybackmachine links. If there was a way to subdivide the reference section that would be worth considering (i.e. one list for primary, a second list for details/minor), but as far as I know it isn't an option with the current code. Anothersignalman (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would. But the whole purpose of Wikipedia isn't a bus timetable or guide. It's an encyclopedia. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_bus_routes_in_Melbourne&oldid=1208215826"