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
Although Middlesex does not exist anymore, many suburbs and surrounding settlements do still use Middlesex as their postal county in their address. This also includes Enfield. Also to point out, Potters Bar actually is still in Hertfordshire and is not part of London. It is a seperate town. Simply south13:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact Potters Bar is neither in Hertfordshire nor "London" (I presume you mean Greater London, as London is miles away), but in the traditional county of Middlesex, however it is administered as part of Hertfordshire. Middlesex does exist, just not as any form of local governance. Surprised that someone who claims to be local does not know all this! 91.85.182.231 (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since the June round of deletions this article has lost << Willesden (AC): Willesden garage operates 98, 260, 302, 460, 24-hour routes 6 and 52, and night route N98. >> Also its history and list of current bus types. Why? 217.155.200.241 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In line with recent edits on East London (bus company) and Selkent, I'm looking at potentially building up a bank of citations that'll help get the sections on garages reinstated. Compared to other ex-LBL company pages, this is really lacking in content, but even if I think deleting the whole thing was slightly overzealous, I understand it was due the lack of sourced content and sporadic edits for routes allocated to said garages.
The question is, though, what revision history should I work from? There's been so many back-and-forth reverts/rewrite attempts over the years that I can't keep track of them all. This revision from 17 September 2014 seems to be the better one not overly affected by WP:FANCRUFT, however the information would be nearly ten years out of date if I simply revert and work from there. Maybe to help develop a new set of sections, a controlled sandbox draft might work better in this case? Hullian111 (talk) 11:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Taking a retrospective look into scanned and unscanned magazine archives, my Metroline articles I can reference from are looking quite sparse. At the very least, I can cite the CDG purchase from a 2000 issue of Buses, and the Alperton and Potter's Bar paras under 'History' could easily be moved into their own appropriate sections when reinstated, but other than that? Looks like this could be a drawn-out affair without any other decent sources available. Kind of seeing why there's been a consensus to blank them out now. Hullian111 (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]