This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London 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.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Tower Transit did not 'gain the contracts of route N550 and N551'. The contracts were won in 2012 during First London period of ownership.[1][2]
Tower Transit commenced operating routes N550 and N551 is a more accurate description of events.Mo7838 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This might be old but the article still says "yet to commence". I would like to ask editors why my edits are being reverted when they are clearly facts.[3][4]Marcnut1996 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a higher level article. Each of the routes has its own wikilinked article where the details can be found. This and similar articles were bogged down by too much of this detailed information already covered in wikilinked articles, hence why rewritten to give a higher level view.
Also the text added is poorly worded: 'with the former already commenced in July 2013' is just bad grammar. Busgb (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If yours is better, please edit the article yourself to show correct facts. You do not stand bad grammar, I do not stand incorrect facts. Please also use at least one of the references that I have attempted to add. Marcnut1996 (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Care to enlighten as to which facts are incorrect? Of the cites provided, 2 are dead so of little value, and a third makes no mention of the changes proposed. You have made an attempt to change, and that's fine but these having been rejected by 3 editors, it is now time to accept the consensus and move on. Busgb (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have been misreading. I didn't see the "had" in "had yet commenced", so I didn't know it refers to the time of handover. But I would like to say that is actually quite misleading, so is there a better way to word it? Marcnut1996 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]