The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Most of the keeps are procedural. The remaining ones are less convincing than the deletes. Fram (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 77[edit]

London Buses route 77 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Also nominating:

London Buses route 72 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London Buses route 70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London Buses route 67 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
London Buses route 66 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yet more non-notable London bus-routes, with neither a claim to notability nor any evidence of notability per WP:GNG. They are already included in List of bus routes in London, so there is no need for a merger.

I PRODded these, but the PRODs were contested on the grounds of a pre-existing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. However, there was no discussion there of individual bus routes, other than a few comments such as this wholly unjustified praise for London Buses route 187, an article which offers no evidence at all of the route's notability. One editor is insisting that these articles should be redirected rather than deleted, but 187 is praised as an example of a redirect which was converted back to an article. (Since I AFDed a few other bus routes and drew attention to this, another editor at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport has agreed that 187 is clearly non-notable ... but has also proposed a set of notability criteria significantly looser than WP:GNG).

The editor who removed this PROD also contested a series of PRODs for West Midlands bus routes for which there was no evidence of notability, such as this one this. If WikiProjects don't follow accepted standards of notability, and editors block the use of lightweight deletion mechanisms such as PROD, then inevitably articles gets brought to AFD which should be deleted with less effort from the community.

This nomination is likely to followed promptly by a boilerplate "Procedural keep" from an editor who has disrupted many similar attempts to delete non-notable bus routes, whilst offering no evidence of the notability of the topics. Rather than have this sort of non-notable material retained, or redirected and resurrected like route 187, a consensus here to delete will requires proper scrutiny of notability before it is overturned.

If editors want to keep this article, please can can we have some actual evidence of notability per WP:GNG rather than the repeated cycle of procedural objections which have disrupted other similar AFDs? Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as predicted. And thanks again for clarifying that your aim is to keep the discussions away from AFD, so that you can apply looser criteria than GNG, like you did here.
There's a really really simple way of countering an AFD: provide evidence of notability. And you consistently refuse to do that, preferring instead to block any deletion of a non-notable bus route, because you don't want to apply the community's agreed notability guidelines.
And, of course, you know that there is almost no discussion at that location on the notability of individual routes, but still you repeat the claim that there is. Do you think that repeating an untruth often enough makes it true? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. We also do not need a List of bus routes in London. All we need is an article about the London bus system and at the bottom of that an external link to the official website of the London bus system so that interested persons can find the latest, up to date, most useful information that they need to use the system, or for whatever other reason they are interested. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - I don't really know if any of these routes are notable or not, but it needs to be hashed out in discussions outside of AFD. It's not easy to sort through such mass nominations, and some municipal transit routes are notable. For example, Toronto's transit system runs trams (locally known as streetcars) and includes 501 Queen which was named by National Geographic to its list of the world's top 10 trolley rides.[1] A mass nomination makes it difficult to do adequate research as to what should be kept and what should go. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my mind it meets our sourcing criteria but not our notability criteria. By this, I mean that all information on Wikipedia should be properly sourced. This is. But non-notable topics should not have their own article, but there's no notability threshold of this type (beyond standard Wikipedia editing guidelines) on the content of other articles which relate to the topic whose notability is beyond doubt. It's information, as I said, which I'd actually like to see on Wikipedia. To give one example, a featured article on a suburb of Perth contains detailed information of this nature about bus transport in the suburb. One in particular of the bus routes has at least 6 articles in community newspapers (not cited in the article) but as it better fits in a wider narrative of public transport in the area, it is where it belongs. Orderinchaos 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Orderinchaos. Alzarian16 has done great work sourcing the facts in the route 66 article, and the result is the only bus route article I have seen so far which has sources for all its facts ... but none of those seems to me to amount to substantial coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much why Afd was the single worst place to have this discussion. The basic facts can be sourced for every single route you are trying to delete, in third party reliable and independent sources, using trade/specialist publications, i.e., not stuff you can find in a dumb google search. That's not to mention there are many books on the subject too. Christ, entire books have been written on the detailed history of some routes, vehicles and operations, and by virtue of its nature, the London system is one of the most meticulously documented systems in the world. Whether that meets what you think is substantial coverage, I have no idea, and we at the relevant project certainly have never had the level of interest needed to develop proper guidance on that issue, but as you seem to think even the most famous tourist route in the middle of london has notability issues, and you also made a mistake on number 73, which even the average Londoner knows about, then I don't know where that takes us, especially as by doing this through mass Afd and mass tagging, rather than centralised discussion, you have alienated the very people who know the subject and Wikipedia's rules and regs. I don't have the first clue what anyone is asking for here in terms of significance, and the generalised vagery of the GNG is frankly worthless in that respect for this topic. It's not like bus routes are written about in the news everyday, or are the interest of high scholars, but it is patently just defacto wrong to think that in a place that documents every road, station, school and even temporary footbridges, that bus routes do not have some place aswell, NOTTRAVEL withstanding (I was never a fan of all the travel info guff, you will see that in some of my work on operator articles). All credit to Alzarian16, but I think he is on a hiding to nothing here, most if not all of these articles will clearly now be lost, whether they are ever going to be able to meet some as yet unknown bar of topic specific notability. Anyone wanting to know this info should stick to the London Omnibus society, paying for the privelage of course. The idea that this info is better presented stuffed into regional articles might make sense to some people, but they are frankly looking at this as travel information, and not as what it is treated as in any other serious information source, as matters of historical record. MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infact, thinking about it, you pretty much always have to pay in some form or another if you want to learn anything about the history and operation of bus routes in this country, beyond the basic travel directory info. I can find out more about the latest advances in engineering or physics subjects for free than I can about this stuff, and a source of proper historical info in this field is practically gold-dust compared to such other subjects. I find it hard to believe that would be the case, if this was all JNN. MickMacNee (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, if "a source of proper historical info in this field is practically gold-dust", then it helps to confirm my impression of the lack of notability of the topic.
The number 73 bus is an interesting one. I have lived and worked in London, and at various points either my home or office were on the 73 route, so of course I know it: the 73 is one of about two dozen routes I could describe in detail from memory. However, the fact that I and my friends know that route does not lead me to assume that everyone does, because I have no way of of knowing how representative my experiences (or yours) are of "the average Londoner"; they are wholly subjective. That's one of the reasons why wikipedia doesn't rely on the subjective impressions of editors in determining notability; we look instead for substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. I missed those on the #73, and was happy to promptly withdraw the nomination, but on many other routes there seems to be no one making any remotely plausible claim for notability.
Wikipedia does not have articles on things just because they exist, or because some eager editor has done lots of original research. We have articles because WP:GNG is a consequence of the core policy WP:V: that there should be sufficient coverage in secondary sources to allow the creation of an article which is properly referenced, without original research or synthesis or reliance on hobbyist sites such as http://www.londonbuses.net, which appears to have been the source for much of these articles.
As to the possible alienation of editors working in this field, I'm afraid that there does seem to be a serious WP:OWNership problem in some quarters; WikiProjects do not own articles, and there seems to have been a bit of a walled garden here. One of the reasons that so many non-notable articles have survived so long is that they seem to have been assessed against a notability threshold which simply ignores WP:GNG: see Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What qualifies as a route notable for an article?. Hopefully, the wider scrutiny which the AFDs bring to the topic will not just remove some of the many non-notable topics, but will also help guide the bus project on the community's approach to the notability of bus routes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a walled garden, it is merely a project lacking in interest, which is why editor alienation is the last thing that is going to improve anything. I had no hand in that guideline, and it patently isn't a proper guideline which has undergone any kind of scrutiny, but you are acting as if we have all signed up to it. I don't think I ever even properly read it before, and I declined the invitation to participate in the route project because it doesn't actually interest me that much compared to other related articles. My reference to 'gold dust' was about quality, not scarcity, you totally misread that. You keep banging on about V and GNG, but these Afd's frankly aren't guiding me anywhere, all you are giving me is the generic mantra I know off by heart, but you seem to have no idea what I am on about with regards to the specific subject (and seriously, I am not dumb, I do not measure notability as mere existence in the way you describe, not in the slightest; the number 73 is actually known by a few people bizarrely throught the totally unrelated kids programme of the same name). Like I said, it would be possible to VERIFY every single one of these articles from reliable, independent, third party sources. That is a basic fact that the Wikiproject members already know. Depressingly, we seem to be stuck on the point that somehow, these are just travel guides and directory listings. They aren't. The only reason sites like londonbuses.net are used is as I said, because the real information is not free. (and you would be surprised at the reliability of such hobbysists anyway, they are usually working from their own reliables sources for their 'hobby sites', but that's neither here nor there) Like I said, this whole subject is more than covered in reliable sources, and repeating generic mantras at Afd is not going to square the circle of defining what constitutes significance in this topic, because V does not automatically lede to N, not at all. I could give you book references, journal references, all manner of different sources, then you have to tell me how much coverage is sufficient, or worse, you have to believe the project members when they tell you what in the grand scheme of things is significant. It all depends on how you want to define independent. A simple example - if you classed 'independent' as merely Buses Magazine, then the simple fact is that changes to each and every London bus route is a notable event, operating arrangements is a notable event, entire pieces are devoted to vehicles and operations. This is before we even get into jazzy stuff, like technology demonstrators and other innovations, or the last vehicle type phenomenon, or centenary liveries, etc etc. Significance = mentions in Google news, is not going to cut it, V! GNG! is not going to cut it, not in the least. If that's what is happening here, just delete the lot, Wikipedia simply doesn't deserve to host this content. MickMacNee (talk) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a good citation for route 77. The source also supports the notability of all the other routes in this particular bundle. The point about route 22 is to show that substantial coverage of individual London bus routes is commonplace. It does not seem to be easy to locate them by Google searches as the numbers are not helpful for searching and many sources are offline. Improvement of each one of these articles within the 7 day timescale of AFD is therefore not reasonable when so many are nominated together. The nomination does not satisfy WP:BEFORE because it has been made without proper engagement with the topic - it's just a drive-by (pun deliberate) and there has been no attempt to consider alternatives to deletion such as merger with the other articles about London Transport. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go again, with more of Colonel W's relentless assumption of bad faith. Instead of asking "did you consider merger", or even "why did you not consider merger", he baldly states as fact that "there has been no attempt to consider alternatives".
    That's wrong. I did of course consider merger, and I rejected it.There is already a List of bus routes in London, which sets out the key details of the routes. The extra information in these articles (beyond what's in the list) is either unsourced or referenced to unreliable sources such as hhtp://www.londonbuses.net ... so a merger would involve adding unreferenced material to a well-referenced list.
    The rest of CW's claim involves a bizarre leap: substantial coverage has been found for one out of more than 400 bus routes, so it must be commonplace. Alzerian16, who has put more effort than others it actually trying to clean up and source these articles has repeatedly pointed out that this is not the case, and many of the routes are sparsely documented in secondary sources. Col W has added one ref to route 77, and triumphantly points to it as if it answered everything. But what we actually have is a book on the route system as a whole, which according to Colonel W's reference mentions route 77 only one page. Ruddom's book is one of a series listing the routes, but one mention on one page of a 180-page book is not "significant coverage" per WP:GNG; it's probably more than a list entry, but not much more.
    Ruddom's book does demonstrate, of course, that London bus system as a whole has been well-documented, but that's never been in dispute. Even the buses project agrees that most routes are not notable; only Colonel W seems to believe that they are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found substantial coverage for many of these routes already - sources that I've not cited yet. I'm no rush to add them to the articles immediately because there is no pressing need and I have other things to do. Given that these routes are much the same, establishing a few examples of good sources is sufficient to ascertain the general level of notability. The rest is a matter of laborious research and painstaking editing and we have no deadline for this as we don't get paid. Your relentlessly hostile and negative rants are disruptive in that they are scaring off the volunteer editors who are familiar with the topic and understand its notability. We have several statements that editors are not prepared to work on these articles in such stressful and tiresome circumstances and this activity should please cease before it damages the project further. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here we go yet again: when the evidence is questioned, Colonel W's response is not to engage in reasoned discussion, but to launch into is more personal attacks.
    So I'll try again to return the discussion to the substantive issue: why do you think that a brief ref to route 77 demonstrate its notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should get outside while it's still sunny but, to show I'm not bluffing, I've just added another citation to the route 77 article expanding its detail about the A/B/C route variations and its use of Routemasters. The large work from which this comes contains much information in its 288 pages but it will naturally take time to expand and cite all the relevant articles. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used as a whip to drive such editing work. So, I'm off out now but if I should come across any buses, I will take their pictures for our use and so the project will be well served. More anon... Colonel Warden (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That ref sounds like a very useful resource for expanding the coverage of the Routemaster bus and it would certainly be sufficient to establish notability of the Routemaster if anyone was daft enough to question it. But so far as route 77 is concerned, this looks like another trivial mention which assist in the verification of a minor point, but does not amount to evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources". A synthesis of a set of brief mentions does not establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system is notable. The individual routes are not notable unless you've been holding back on sources. An interested editor has already pointed out that he can't find notability for almost all of them. Aside from another editor's claim that the equivalent of a route name drop proves notability, there is nothing to go on that shows these routes are notable.--Crossmr (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is holding back on sources, they exist and could verify every single article, but there is no point even looking further when at the moment, the definition of what constitutes notability for this specific subject is not being expanded beyond the usual generic buzzwords. What do people expect? A review of the number 98 in Heat magazine? A Newsnight special on the number 44? It's nonsense. Yet people seem to think that that is how you determine what is and is not part of the 'sum of human knowledge', or what defines what independent third parties take note of. This is why it is all still behind a paywall and still primarily in print, because teh internets and its bastard child wikipedia wouldn't have a clue what to do with it, as these Afd's demonstrate. MickMacNee (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of material exists in rare printed books (which are a form of paywall), and is used as a source in wikipedia; one example is the pile of volumes of UK and Irish election results for the last two centuries on which I spent several hundred quid, and many other editors hunt down and use elusive sources. In each case the same criteria apply to notability: we need significant coverage in reliable sources, and we need evidence of it. Comments about "bastard child wikipedia" don't address the fact that no evidence has been produced significant coverage of these topics in reliable sources, just vague assertions that exists somewhere. We might as well say "keep because there is lots of stuff in libraries, but I couldn't be bothered listing it or identifying it because "teh internets and its bastard child wikipedia wouldn't have a clue what to do with it". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you the name of two reliable and independent organisations who document this subject in meticulous detail, week after week, year after year. That is not vague assertion. All I see in return is repetition of the same mantra, without seemingly any recognition that this progresses the debate not one inch. I had no clue at the start of the debate what you think constitutes evidence of significane in this field, and I am still none the wiser. MickMacNee (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's required is the same as the same as in any other field: substantial coverage which directly addresses the topic, and evidence of the existence of such coverage rather than simply saying "there's bound to be some over thattaway".
At the moment, most articles on bus routes are dominated by long splurges of unreferenced, trivial detail of route changes. You objected at ANI to me tagging bus route articles to note the lack of evidence of notability and the reliance on primary sources, but said "in my experience on the topic I would bet £1,000 that 99% of these tags will still be in place in two years". So you want to keep articles which don't assert notability, don't show evidence of notability, and combine a few primary sources with a pile of unreferenced material, and you'd put a lot of money on the problem being unresolved two years from now. What is the basis in either wikipedia policy or in commonsense of keeping such huge swathes of unencylopedic material for another 2 years? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been engaging with the sources and the level of scholarship in them is quite amazing. For example, the latest issue of London Bus Magazine has a long article about bus services in Watford which has much fine detail about route reliability and fare changes for individual routes in years like 1987. There are multiple magazines of this sort with hundreds of issues over time but none of this is online, it seems. I have bought samples of these and a selection of books covering the London area in various ways. The books again have copious amounts of detail about the routes. Then too we have the mass media like Fay Maschler's long article about route 22 in the Standard the other evening or the coverage of route 30 in the 7/7 bomb attacks. Some of this may be online but only for recent years. To get more of the same, one has to get behind paywalls or visit somewhere like the British Library.
So, there's plenty of sources which testify to the notability of these routes - it just takes time, effort and money to compile and cite them. But why? None of this material is BLP or controversial in any way. Demanding that all these article be given more sources right now is neither practical nor reasonable. It takes us away from other work to no good purpose. It alienates and drives off editors and readership. Per Tacitus, "they make a desert and call it peace". Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an excellent source for writing an article on Bus transport in Watford, and I hope someone does that. But scouring those sources for the trivia on each individual route is rather different matter, which I presume is why MickMacNee is prepared too put a lot of money on it never happening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying 'its bound to be there'. I know it is there. I put money those tags not disappearing because on wikipedia, there are not enough people who have a clue about or an interest in the subject to put in the hundreds of hours necessary to work on the articles. And that workload does not go down by insisting articles like Bus routes in Watford would be much better. That is why your tagging is pointless (and the main point there was not the tagging, it was the pointed tagging of every single article, to solve an issue that is better dealt with in a centralised discussion location for what is a single issue. Imagine if someone did that to film articles of a particular genre, if their basic argument was that the genre wasn't notable?). Speaking as someone who is knowledgable of both Wikipedia and this subject, I'd much rather spend my time on other articles. That is not because the information is not notable, it is because the risk of Afd campaigns like this makes me baulk at wasting time on it. The vast majority of contributions to these articles are made by well-meaning but not Wikipedia savvy contributors. I have in the past tried to coach people, steer them clear of recording TRIVIA and creating travel guides, but I and the tiny amount of other editors like me who can do this are being screwed here from both sides. Yes, unreferenced content is bad, but please, don't even pretend that there is not huge swathes of it all over the less viewed topic areas of Wikipedia. Even the articles that are highly notable on this topic are in an utter state, and you want people to scrabble around for this non-urgent issue? I think your comment that things like historical data on routes/vehicles/operations is 'trivia' betrays your lack of understanding of the subject matter, which must give nobody any confidence that it would be worth their time to have an in detail, topic specific discussion of what significance of coverage means to this subject. It may come as a shock to you, but as far as replicating the breadth and depth of many subjects stored in the real world's knowledge banks, Wikipedia sucks hard, and there is an oft-circulated graph that illustrates that fact pretty well. Articles like Bus routes in Watford would be utterly pointless, a wasteful and disorganised way of recording pretty much the exact same information, given that London bus routes range over huge areas of the capital, and what is contained now in one article would have to be spread across god knows how many. Infact, that looks more like advocating breaking WP:NOT#TRAVEL than having route articles; which nicely highlights another oddity of this debate, people cannot genuinely believe that readers would use these individual route articles for their daily travel planning needs, surely. Wikipedia records the prime time schedules of television networks for posterity, meaning I would use Wikipedia to research the history of stations and programming, but that hardly means I would use, or advocate the use of, Wikipedia as a Radio Times though. And without individual route articles to link all of those articles, (as well as operator and vehicle pages), the utility of such articles would be dubious at best, and would be more likely to fester as unreferenced, un-updated and uncared for backwaters of irrelevance. MickMacNee (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, my view is that most bus routes are not notable, but some of them may be. Tagging the articles reminds editors that notability needs to be established, and it includes links to show how it needs to be established. There's nothing pointy about that reminder that articles have identifiable problems which needs fixing, and if I encountered a batch of film articles with the same problem I'd tag them in the same way. Whatever solution arises out of any centralised discussions, the articles will either be merged/deleted or will need to be improved. If they are merged, the tagging is irrelevant and has done no harm; but if they are kept, it helps guide editors. What's not to like?
As to the rest of your comment, I don't know what to make of it. You say that "even the articles that are highly notable on this topic are in an utter state", and I agree ... but you also reject every possible solution. No deletion, no merger, no improvement: just leave them as they are, in an "utter state". And you can't blame the poor quality on AFD: many of these articles have existed in much the same sorry state for years.
My suggestion was not for a Bus routes in Watford article, which would indeed have all the flaws you mention, though an enhanced list such as List of bus routes in the Bronx might work. I suggested instead a Bus transport in Watford, which could chart the history of bus services in the area rather than trying to describe what happened to each route. Themes such as tram replacement, nationalisation, wartime services, decline as car ownership grew, deregulation and privatisation, the development of bus priority measures, etc .. they could all be handled much better in an overview article (or series thereof) than in lots of individual route articles. The WYPTE article is an example of a step in that direction, though it has a lot of room for expansion, and by focusing on the company structure it omits everything before 1974. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I42 (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has more citations than articles which you favour such as Symphony No. 84 (Haydn) which just contains trivial information like the prominence of woodwinds in this work. Haydn wrote so many symphonies that they are numbered like London buses and philistines might likewise urge they they be deleted so that we only have a summary list of works. But de gustibus non est disputandum and so some take great interest on one sort of topic while others exhaustively study the other. We have room enough for all and so I favour a comprehensive coverage of all such well-documented matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an exceptionally apt comparison; why, in the dusk with the light behind them, a Haydn Symphony and a London Bus Route are almost indistinguishable. Eusebeus (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that that comparison is unlikely as that Hadyn symphony is obscure - it doesn't seem that it has been performed in public since its first hearing. In other words, it was a run-of-the-mill potboiler - a makeweight or filler to satisfy Hadyn's contract. Route 77, by contrast is vigorous and active, being used and noticed by thousands of people every day. Both topics are covered in relevant specialist works but, in objective terms, the bus is far more notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOLOL! Why my fair Colonel, if you're in the UK, you could have heard it only a few weeks ago. Fear not, you may acquaint yourself with this fine work at many venues in the future; it's played frequently. Since you seem to have suggested this is a contest: Haydn Symphony v. Bus Route (of which only a few are relevant). Anyway, I admire the spirit, Colonel: don't let knowledge impede argument. (K, let's let this go now- but I'll grant you a Parthian zinger and promise not to respond so you may redeem yourself, tell me I'm so wrong, and generally feel better!) Eusebeus (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reference was this snippet: The Haydn yearbook, vol. 2, p. 124 : " certainly the least known of this set of six ... very seldom played in public ... has it ever been performed...?" Perhaps the piece is better known now but I fancy the bus still has the advantage. Anyway, my general point is that it is better to cultivate our own patches and compete in the excellence of our work, rather than to decry that which we do not understand so well. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category