This page is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport articles
MOS:SANDWICH is hopelessly outdated and quite frankly should be ignored. It dates to an era where the average screen was much smaller, when browsers didn't adapt well to window sizes, and when mobile devices simply didn't exist. Left-aligned images opposite an infobox aren't a problem any more.
That said, when there's an infobox, there doesn't need to be any other images in the lede section. For a stub article like this with no sectioning, that means there's no need for the left-aligned image - especially since it doesn't provide anything not already present in the infobox image. The image can be re-added if the article is ever lengthened to have sections.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
04:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
My only justification for having a rear image on the left is that cars have front and rear images so why shouldn't buses ? (of course I appreciate car articles are longer but Kermelei also had a problem with galleries existing
[1] so galleries apparently can't be used which is why we're now at this sandwiching issue)
Using
Alexander ALX200 as a example - If we were to right align the image it would be trailing under the infobox and on longer articles can squash references and create huge amounts of whitespace so in that respect this way works better,
Some may say "Well, we have commons" to which I'd say you shouldn't need to go to a different website for basic information (it should all be on one page). I appreciate SANDWICH is an issue but we can't please everyone.
I have removed the image from ALX100 as concur that image wasn't needed as it wasn't a rear image and there wasn't any difference between that and the infobox image. Thanks, –
Davey2010Talk13:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think Sandwich is totally enforcable - if I make my screen narrower, pictures often un-sandwich themselves. A gallery always works, as long as there are valid reasons for including additional photos. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
The issue isn't having rears of buses per se, the issue is that because articles like
Alexander ALX200,
Alexander ALX300 and
Alexander ALX500 are short, they are not long enough to accommodate more than one image.
If the rears of these buses were notable and thus there was text in the article, there would be a case for illustrating by way of a gallery as permitted by
WP:IG. But as they aren't, all being run of the mill with a flat panel, number box, window and tail lights. Unsurprisingly they gain no mention in the text.
Despite Davey2010's insistence that I
have a problem with galleries existing and
have an agenda I don't, I just edit within the confines of Wikipedia’s policies rather than trying to find ways to get around them. The fact is that many of these bus articles have excessive images that contravene multiples policies. It was discussed extensively at
Talk:Dennis Dart earlier in the year where Davey came up with all sorts of excuses as to why the policy should be ignored, no one agreed and despite continued protesting, the policy was enforced. If editors really want to add an infinite number of images, then commons is the place for that.
Kermelei (
talk)
01:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I really don't think its worth trying to bring this issue up time and time again. What, this kicked off back in June or July? I was of a similar opinion to yours, but I've decided to agree and disagree and see what happens - I don't want to look like I'm claiming 'ownership' of an article, anyway - and even if some of the articles are rather stubbish, I do agree that if conventional cars have front and rear shots in their articles, e.g. the
Vauxhall Cavalier page, why can't buses? The Cavalier doesn't have a photo of every trim variant, at least, just pre and post-facelift.
My main concern is whether the article itself is navigable enough for non-enthusiasts/non-experts on buses. Without wanting to sound biased as I'd worked on the article quite a lot over last year, I think layouts like on
Wright Eclipse Gemini might be a good way forward if enough information can be found for the type to fill the page out beyond the infobox.
Hullian111 (
talk)
11:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Ah damn, so that's how it is? Unfortunately, I don't think I have anything for a Fleetline on file, but I might be able to rustle up a few photographs of preserved Leyland Atlantean rears, if that is what you're looking for.
Hullian111 (
talk)
17:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I've found
this image of a Fleetline and Atlantean side by side; conveniently, both have Northern Counties bodywork, so above the engine cover they're seen to be very similar. Some more Fleetline rears:
Greater Manchester 8001;
Lancashire United 6990;
Southend 233 - note that Commons seem to put all of them into the Leyland categories even though some were built with Daimler badges before production was moved from Coventry. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
19:53, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply
If I may, regarding Fleetline rear ends, though I haven't found one with an open engine bay (and someone not stood in front of it), typing "Daimler Fleetline" into Commons without quotes has yielded this
preserved Park Royal-bodied WMPTE example, which even features a Daimler badge! The good thing about it is that it is taken on an angle that really highlights the 'bustle' effect, so with a bit of cropping, I think that would make a good fit. If not, there's a
preserved NCME-bodied Teeside example that could work, too.
Hullian111 (
talk)
10:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply
There is nothing wrong with having images of rears of buses where there is some context and room to accommodate. For example different variations as with the Atlantean or Fleetline as mentioned, or something unique, e.g. the rear platform of a
Borismaster, but just illustrating the rear of a bus for the sake of it as at
Alexander ALX300 is pointless, particularly when it goes against policy. Much like people, every bus has a rear, but they are rarely notable. The aforementioned Vauxhall Cavalier article is a much larger article, so therefore can easily accommodate the four images it has, albeit their placement was causing sandwiching, which has since been fixed.
Kermelei (
talk)
04:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)reply