Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Welshleprechaun (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 10 May 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Metro system

The edit war over explaining that this isn't a rail-based system was not only very tedious, but also completely pointless. The opening sentence of the article clearly states that this is a bus-based system. I fail to see why any explanation of this is necessary--and certainly not in a hatnote: that's not their intended purpose at all. --RFBailey (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

As I've explained, the vast majority of articles titled X Metro will be metro systems. This is not. It's a bus route. All I'm doing is explaining that. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead already explains that it's a BRT system, so further repetition is unnecessary and looks like an attempt to "make a point". This argument was settled in February last year, so I fail to see what's going to be achieved by re-opening it- please see WP:POINT. Pondle (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The point is that it's not a metro system. Please stop being so unconstructive. And it was not settled, I still maintain the point. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I direct you to User_talk:Welshleprechaun/Archive2#Swansea_Metro. Please stop disrupting the page by perpetuating an old argument, or I'll have to take this further. Pondle (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus to be broken! Take it further, I still maintain this information is justified. Omitting the information is misleading readers and I'm starting to think that's your intention. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)