text:
1989–1992 Rugby League World Cup

The 1989–1992 Rugby League World Cup (sometimes shortened to 1992 Rugby League World Cup) was the tenth staging of the Rugby League World Cup, and continued to use the three-year format, stretching across the years 1989 to 1992. As with the 1985–1988 World Cup, teams played each other on a home-and-away basis. These matches were fitted into the normal international programme of three-match test series between the nations, with a pre-designated match from each series counting as the World Cup fixture. The tournament culminated in the 1992 Rugby League World Cup final.

The matches went strictly to form, with Australia undefeated and certain to claim a world cup final berth as early as 1991. France and Papua New Guinea were uncompetitive, leading to a straight fight between New Zealand and Great Britain for the right to meet the Kangaroos in the final. In the event the Lions were able to just edge out the Kiwis on points difference.

As they had done in 1988, Australia had won the right to host the World Cup final. However, with the potential for a much larger attendance, the Australian Rugby League agreed to allow Great Britain to host the game at the 82,000 capacity Wembley Stadium in London. The final was a surprisingly close affair, with Great Britain leading with only 12 minutes to go. The game's only try was then scored by centre Steve Renouf in his international debut for the Kangaroos and Australia were able to claim their fourth consecutive World Cup title before a world record international rugby league attendance of 73,631.

Final
The World Cup final was played at Wembley Stadium in London.

1989
The first match of the 1989–1992 World Cup was also the 3rd test of the 1989 Trans-Tasman Test series which was won 3–0 by Australia

1990
This match was also the 3rd and deciding test of the 1990 Ashes series.

1991
This match was also the 3rd and deciding test of the 1991 Trans-Tasman series.

Australian winger Willie Carne crossed for a hat trick of tries in Port Moresby.

1992
In addition to being an allocated World Cup match, this was the third, deciding test of the 1992 Ashes series. This six-point margin of defeat meant that New Zealand would need to beat Papua New Guinea by 109 points in the following match to prevent a Great Britain-Australia World Cup final in October.

Final
This match set a new world record attendance for a rugby league international of 73,631, beating the previous record of 70,204 set at the Sydney Cricket Ground during the 1932 Ashes series. As they had done in 1988, Australia won the right to host the World Cup final. However, in the interests of rugby league, and the potential for a much larger attendance since at the time Lang Park in Brisbane could only hold 33,000, and the Sydney Football Stadium could only seat 42,000, the ARL agreed to Great Britain hosting the final at the 82,000 capacity Wembley.

Unlike 1988 when Australia had agreed to let New Zealand host the Final at Eden Park in Auckland due to dwindling international attendances in Australia, the international game had become popular again over the next four years (mainly due to much improved performances by Great Britain and New Zealand) and there was a good chance of sell-out crowd in either Brisbane or Sydney for the game. However, the potential for an attendance at Wembley that would be almost or more than double the size that could be seen in Australia, and the potential exposure from playing the game at one of the world's most iconic stadiums, could not be ignored.

Both coaches picked experienced teams, with only Australian's Tim Brasher (fullback) and Steve Renouf (centre) making their international debut in the game. With incumbent fullback Andrew Ettingshausen unavailable through injury, Australian coach Bob Fulton preferred utility outside back Brasher over Newcastle Knights fullback Brad Godden due to Brasher's previous big game experience having played in Balmain's 1989 Grand Final loss as well as making his State of Origin debut earlier in the year. Fulton also chose seven members from the Brisbane Broncos 1992 Winfield Cup premiership winning team including exciting centre Renouf. Lions coach Mal Reilly chose to retain Garry Schofield as captain despite the presence of Ellery Hanley in the team. He also went with pace on the wings with Martin Offiah and St. Helens flyer Alan Hunte.

The hard-fought final was a one-try affair, with Great Britain leading 6–4 with only 12 minutes remaining. The only try of the match was then set up by Australian replacement back Kevin Walters, who, with a clever cut-out pass, put his Broncos teammate Steve Renouf into a gap not covered by replacement Lions centre John Devereux. Renouf, in his debut test for Australia, then raced 20 metres to score in the corner. Otherwise, the two teams' kickers (Mal Meninga and Deryck Fox) were called upon to score most of the points, including Meninga's pressure sideline conversion of Renouf's try. The rain started pouring in the second half and Australia was able to hold Great Britain out and maintain their lead until the final siren.

Australia's triumph saw them win their fourth World Cup in a row after winning the previous cups in 1975, 1977 and 1988. It also ended a mini-hoodoo for the Kangaroos at London's Wembley Stadium. Australia had previously left the arena 21–12 losers in 1973, and the 1990 Kangaroos were outplayed by Great Britain 19–12, but when it mattered most this time around Australia proved themselves as worthy World Cup champions.

The match was telecast live late at night throughout Australia on the Nine Network, with commentary provided by Ray Warren, Peter Sterling and Paul Vautin, with sideline comments from Chris Bombolas. The game broke Australia's midnight-to-dawn television ratings record which was set a year earlier by the rugby union's 1991 Rugby World Cup final.

Try scorers

 * 7

 * 🇦🇺 Mal Meninga

 * 5

 * 🇦🇺 Willie Carne
 * 🇦🇺 Brad Mackay
 * 🇬🇧 Martin Offiah
 * 🇬🇧 Garry Schofield
 * 🇳🇿 Richie Blackmore
 * 🇳🇿 Dave Watson

 * 4

 * 🇦🇺 Laurie Daley
 * 🇦🇺 Andrew Ettingshausen

 * 3

 * 🇦🇺 Bradley Clyde
 * 🇦🇺 Dale Shearer
 * 🇳🇿 Tony Kemp

 * 2

 * 🇦🇺 Graham Mackay
 * 🇦🇺 Mark McGaw
 * 🇦🇺 Rod Wishart
 * 🇫🇷 Jean-Marc Garcia
 * 🇫🇷 Cyril Pons
 * 🇬🇧 Denis Betts
 * 🇬🇧 Paul Eastwood
 * 🇬🇧 Shaun Edwards
 * 🇬🇧 Carl Gibson
 * 🇬🇧 Michael Jackson
 * 🇬🇧 Paul Moriarty
 * 🇬🇧 Andy Platt
 * 🇬🇧 Daryl Powell
 * 🇳🇿 Dean Clark
 * 🇳🇿 Sam Panapa
 * 🇳🇿 Kelly Shelford
 * 🇵🇬 Stanley Haru
 * 🇵🇬 Jack Uradok

 * 1

 * 🇦🇺 Greg Alexander
 * 🇦🇺 Gary Belcher
 * 🇦🇺 Ben Elias
 * 🇦🇺 Brad Fittler
 * 🇦🇺 Peter Jackson
 * 🇦🇺 Chris Johns
 * 🇦🇺 Michael O'Connor
 * 🇦🇺 Steve Renouf
 * 🇦🇺 Steve Roach
 * 🇦🇺 Mark Sargent
 * 🇦🇺 Steve Walters
 * 🇫🇷 Christophe Auroy
 * 🇫🇷 Denis Biénès
 * 🇫🇷 Christophe Bonnafous
 * 🇫🇷 Patrick Entat
 * 🇫🇷 David Despin
 * 🇫🇷 Daniel Divet
 * 🇫🇷 Gilles Dumas
 * 🇫🇷 David Fraisse
 * 🇫🇷 Daniel Verdès
 * 🇬🇧 Martin Dermott
 * 🇬🇧 Paul Dixon
 * 🇬🇧 Karl Fairbank
 * 🇬🇧 Deryck Fox
 * 🇬🇧 Bobbie Goulding
 * 🇬🇧 Les Holliday
 * 🇬🇧 Alan Hunte
 * 🇬🇧 Paul Newlove
 * 🇬🇧 Roy Powell
 * 🇬🇧 Anthony Sullivan
 * 🇬🇧 Alan Tait
 * 🇳🇿 Dean Bell
 * 🇳🇿 Mark Elia
 * 🇳🇿 Gary Freeman
 * 🇳🇿 Clayton Friend
 * 🇳🇿 Gavin Hill
 * 🇳🇿 Sean Hoppe
 * 🇳🇿 Kevin Iro
 * 🇳🇿 Mike Kuiti
 * 🇳🇿 Dean Lonergan
 * 🇳🇿 Duane Mann
 * 🇳🇿 Jarrod McCracken
 * 🇳🇿 Gary Mercer
 * 🇳🇿 Tawera Nikau
 * 🇳🇿 Matthew Ridge
 * 🇳🇿 Brent Stuart
 * 🇳🇿 Darrell Williams
 * 🇵🇬 Sauna Babago
 * 🇵🇬 Aquila Emil
 * 🇵🇬 Paul Gela
 * 🇵🇬 Chris Itam
 * 🇵🇬 August Joseph
 * 🇵🇬 James Naipo
 * 🇵🇬 Gigmai Ongugo
 * 🇵🇬 Opoe Soga
 * 🇵🇬 Goie Waine

title: 1989–1992 Rugby League World Cup


text:
Talk:Bus

Spelling

 * "Busses" is sometimes used

Incorrectly, I think. Must check Fowler. What do US guides say? Then again, We're Not A Dictionary. We could just delete that bit entirely -- Tarquin 11:00, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I can see no excuse for "busses" but it scores 430,000 google hits (i.e. mostly this type of bus) so obviously a lot of people use it. Shantavira 18:19, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * I found an American Merriam-Webster dictionary that recommends it as an alternative spelling, mostly to prevent people from pronouncing it as SAMPA bjuz".Ez.-FZ 13:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression that busses is British and buses in the American derivative. Could be wrong, don't know how to verify (incidentally, I was looking at Wikipedia to see if anyone here had verified... so thanks, big help team. =)

Illustration: there are several lithographs by Honore Daumier that are in the public domain that would help make points now in "History" subsection. Wetman 21:31, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Why this obsession with how it is spelt in the US (wherever that is!). How it is spelt in the majority of the big wide world is more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.228.61 (talk • contribs) In spanish the word and pronountiation is buses, an example: arriendo de buses

No, in the U.S. we use "busses" too. "Buses" is read like "Fuses" and seems quite silly. 205.243.23.212 (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)dtrimm

Gas - gases, walrus - walruses, atlas - atlases, their is no excuse to claim that busses is the plural of bus; busses is the plural of buss - ie a sloppy kiss.

buses are the safest
I read an interesting newspaper article about buses recently:

 * "the [US] National Transportation Safety Board decided ... not to recommend seat belts in school buses.

 * The board also recommended that buses be equipped with data recorders starting Jan. 1, 2003. ...

 * School bus design is closely regulated ... Motor coaches -- the type of bus used by Greyhound -- have no occupant protection standards.

 * Regardless, school buses and motor coaches are considered the safest forms of transportation on the road. On average, nine people are killed each year in school buses, and four die in motor coaches. Roughly 42 000 are killed annually in car and truck accidents."

 * -- Glen Johnson, Associated Press, 1999 Sept. 22

EditHint: Mention some of these facts in the article.

--DavidCary 17:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have no clue how to fix this, but all the "edit" buttons in the article are in one line, like {edit} {edit} {edit} and looks kinda bad. -- Josh

satellite bus?
If something were written about Satellite Bus(s)es, should it have its own entry, or go in Electrical bus (or even Computer bus )? -FZ 13:51, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

reversion of changes by 213.51.209.230
I've reverted the changes by 213.51.209.230, which describe an articulated bus thus:

 * Articulated buses consist of a standard length bus fitted with a tow hitch and a trailer. The trailer part is connected to the front part with a rubber accordion section.

With the exception of the accordian bit, this sounds more like a description of a bus+trailer combination, as widely used in Germany in the 1950s and, I believe, still used in some eastern european countries. It may be that some apparantly articulated buses are configured this way, but it certainly isn't the normal form. The most common form of modern articulated bus (eg. the MercedesBenz Citaros used in London) actually has the engine in the rear section, which can hardly therefore be described as a trailer. And obviously such a configuration requires something other than a tow-hitch. -- Chris j wood 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This sounds like speculation. Sources? (The assumptions that homelessness is caused by urban housing shortages, that such shortages exist, and that many homeless people ride buses all need substantiation.)

Homelessness and buses in the U.S.
Because of a variety of factors, housing shortages have become a chronic problem in most large American cities since the 1970s. The result has been an epidemic of homelessness. With no place to go, the homeless often end up riding around aimlessly on public buses, which offer advantages like temperature control, security, and comfort.

Unfortunately, the presence of homeless people strongly reduces the attractiveness of bus transit to other riders, due to factors like odor, hygiene, panhandling, crowding, etc.

I don't see why that passage should have been taken out. Have you ever actually commuted regularly on a typical big city bus? I use buses four days of the week and I've seen everything, including homeless people urinating in the bus.

--Coolcaesar 08:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like the passage has some relevance, but its needs quite a bit of POV cleanup. First off, I can see no reason to limit discussion to the U.S. or to homeless passengers. The real issue is that people don't like sharing space with strangers - in particular strangers who are different from themselves. Then it can be seen as a more general issue contrasting public transport vs private transport such as the car. In fact, come to think of it, the whole issue is probably much better addressed on the public transport page where there is already some comment. -- Solipsist 11:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure; I've seen plenty of bizarre things on public transport, but I'm hesitent to extrapolate a trend from any of them. I agree with Solipsist (oh, the irony) that the treatment in public transport is better. jdb ❋ 21:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Fine. I concede that public transport is probably the best point to address the issue in detail (and it should addressed in detail). I'll have to think about it and do a little research before I go and elaborate on it in that article, though. As written, public transport only addresses the issue of homeless people sleeping on public transport rather than the odor, hygiene, public health, or security issues, which I would argue are major disincentives for people to ride public transit---have you had the pleasure of sitting next to a fragrant homeless person lately?  I also concede that Solipsist is probably right to generalize the issue to the broader problem of how many people don't like sharing personal space with strangers.

--Coolcaesar 09:11, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DD in US?

 * However, several experimental uses of double decker buses have not proved them to be practical in U.S. operations other than for sightseeing groups.

I'm curious as to why DD buses haven't caught on in the U.S. except as sightseeing buses -- esp. on heavily-trafficked routes. Can anyone expand upon this? 140.247.60.206 05:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but my best guess is that most American cities tend to have much longer and wider streets than in Europe, so if a bus line becomes really popular, then the local transit agency will simply add more buses or switch to extra-long articulated buses.

Also, Americans simply don't ride buses as much as in other countries because we have cheap gas (we don't tax it as much) and most of our cities are not laid out well for efficient bus use.

As for inner-city neighborhoods where buses are more popular, a major problem is that many such cities, like Los Angeles, are nearly bankrupt and cannot afford to put their electrical and phone wires underground. The result is that their skies are cluttered with old lines which are just barely high enough for trucks and ordinary buses to pass underneath. A double-decker bus plowing through those lines would create an enormous mess and cause massive service outages.

Finally, I think another reason is that our courts are very plaintiff-friendly. Our public transit agencies get sued every day by people who are run over by bus drivers, people who trip and fall on the bus, people who trip and fall getting on or off the bus, people who are robbed on the bus, people who are arrested by the police because they refuse to pay the bus driver, etc. Adding double-decker buses would result in having to defend against lawsuits from people who fell down the stairs because the driver braked suddenly. However, sightseeing companies are probably able to use such buses because they are not public agencies, have more control over who can board, and can simply jack up prices to cover the cost of their liability insurance. --Coolcaesar 17:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Interesting -- thanks. jdb ❋ (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As a bus operator, I would say: the height of the signs and such is the main cause. A regular single-decker coach is about 11 ft and 6 inches tall. Most bridges and overpasses are right about 13 feet and some inches. That leaves practically NO ROOM for a second deck.

 * I make that 18 'and some' inches spare - how much extra room do you want?! 62.6.252.139 (talk) 11:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Davis, California makes extensive use of double-deckers. Twinxor t 02:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * DD buses can be down to 4 m high, that is 13 ft 2 in. But then tall people can't stand upright on the lowest deck. --BIL (talk) 18:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Table Bus types and typical numbers
There should be categorization by size, by use, and by propulsion/energy type.
 * I agree. And they should mention typical numbers of passengers, total, standing and nr of seats, weights of the bus without passengers and weight of a full bus, typical consumption and emissions, operating costs, ... . Thx for all the info below. I think it can be taken up in the portal page. Below an assist. Please help bringing it to the next level --SvenAERTS (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Buses are generally diesel, but there are CNG and electric buses available. Hybrid diesel/electric buses may be avialable soon.

Bus sizes can vary from minibus (about 14 to 20 people) to mid-sized bus (26-35) to maxi-bus (up to 42-seats) baby coach (32-40) to coach (42-49) to XL coach (55 to 61) passengers. Double-deckers and/or articulated buses are counted in a different category.

microbus -- basically a converted van with extra high-ceilings, there offer walk-in high-back chair seating.

minibus -- generally converted from heavy-duty van or truck platforms, they offer greater carrying capacity than full-size vans at the cost of wider width. They can be ordered in a variety of seating configurations, but usually seat about 18-24 plus some luggage space. Available with perimeter seating (all seats with back against the walls) or forward-facing seating (normal).

mid-sized bus -- built on mid-sized truck platforms, these buses offer greater carrying capacity (often up to 35-seats and some luggage space). They could be front or rear-engined.

maxi-bus -- built on large truck platforms, these buses offer up to 42 seats without the investment of a full-sized coach. Sometimes these are known as mid-sized buses. Usually front-engined.

baby-coach -- built on shortened version of a standard coach, these have only 2 axles instead of the three on a standard coach, with reduced seating capacity, but retains the underneath luggage space. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.

coach -- standard coach in the US is 40 foot long and seats 42-50 people, with underneath luggage space, and has three axles: front, drive, and tag. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.

XL coach -- 45 foot version of standard coach, these represent the longest length coach allowed on highways without special permits. The extra length allows installation of extra seats, resulting in up to 62 seats. Not permitted on all roads. Check your state highway restrictions. Usually rear-engined to reduce cabin noise.

Buses are generally divided into three use types: tour/intercity bus, transit bus, and school bus.

Tour/intercity buses have luggage space placed under the main cabin. They can achieve high speeds and are more comfortable on the highways with air-suspensions over long distances.

Transit buses are designed for intracity use with lots of starts and stops. Their top speed is lower, and latest models have lower floors and multiple entry-ways, and NO luggage space. They often have a combination of perimeter and forward-facing seating to maximize the amount of standing space available.

School bus, in the US, can sit up to 70+ people with narrow bench seating, and has required set of rear escape doors and such.

the los angeles bus image is not showing up. 169.244.143.115 16:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

US bias
This article is extremely biased towards the US - in fact, less than a passing mention is made of buses in other countries through the whole article. --Stevefarrell 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Then by all means, be bold and make it less so! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

 * I couldn't agree more. In the U.S., the mentality is "I need my personal car, you should ride a bus". Why not tell us more about buses elsewhere? Vaoverland 22:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Article improvements
I added some info about various types of bus service such as local, intercity/interstate, shuttle, school, tour and charter. The wording of my additions could possibly use some improvements but i feel it's a decent start at least. I do think their should be a separate section on the specific types bus vehicles such as transit, coach, shuttle, mini-busses, double-decker, etc.. Also we should provide more info on the types of fuels/power sources currently used in busses including diesel /bio-diesel, electric, bio-fuels (ethanol, etc), hydrogen, etc. Also the types of amenities available fancier coach style busses (such as those used by touring musicians). These include lavatories, satellite TV, sleeping facilities, and other RV-like amenities. --Cab88 11:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Buses
Why is it "buses" rather than "busses"? "buses" should rhyme with "abuses". 64.192.106.146 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

For the same reason it is atlases, walruses, gases, hippopotamuses - that's how you form an english plural of a word that ends in an 's'! 86.170.220.119 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In which language? 68.122.41.103 23:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

And "cough" should rhyme with "through"?

Since "bus" is abbreviated from the Latin "omnibus", surely the plural should be "bi", abbreviated from the Latin "omnibi"...58.136.112.9 03:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice (presumable ironic) point but not really correct since "omnibus" is not a Latin nominative singular noun like "populus" (where plural is indeed populi) but rather ablative case (formed by appending -ibus). 203.255.186.134 03:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Motor coach
Seems to me that the entry at Coach (vehicle) should be merged into this article, or at the very least the two articles should clearly reference one another.--Lordkinbote 19:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Lead photo
The 1895 bus is cool historically, but maybe the article would be better served by a more contemporary photo, which is more representative of bus service today. Twinxor t 18:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Good idea. I've implemented it.  I left the historic bus photo on the page, but moved it down a little.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to say the title of the historic depiction of the interior of an early 19th century omnibus is not by David Scott, and it is not early 19th century, it is late 19th century. The picture is by George William Joy, was created in 1895 (hence late 19th century), and entitled "The Bayswater Omnibus". More information about George William Joy is at George W. Joy. The link to the gallery where it is held is correct, and leads to the Museum of London. I have corrected 'early' to 'late'. However, the attribution of the picture needs to be changed. I am happy for others to change it based on the information I have provided here, as I am not that confident to do it correctly. Jyoti Woodhouse (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

 * Your reasoning seems right to me. I have corrected the formatting of your link to G.W.Joy - hope that's alright.  Stepho  talk 10:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Leave the gallery!
Someone deleted the gallery so i put it back. It's nice and could help to diminish that non-international point of view feeling of the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.98.17.25 (talk • contribs).

 * Correct. I took it out the first time, and have removed it again.  The reason I took it out is because the gallery is somewhat unsightly, and because the whole thing is now duplicated on Commons and linked on the article.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Types of buses
I have moved the section below from the article page to here because it largely overlaps with 'Types of bus service' and is completely unsourced. -- Donald Albury 12:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Buses comes in many shapes and sizes, each optimized for its own specific niche. They are usually diesel-powered, though more recently fuel cell, CNG, and hybrid power sources are becoming available. In general, there are three types of buses: transit buses, school buses, and touring coaches. Transit buses are designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, urban operation, and few amenities. Most city transit buses are of the transit type. Transit buses tend to have low floors, no luggage space, lots of standing room, and two or more doors, often double-width doors. Transit buses can be single deck or double deck, anywhere from a mini shuttle of 10 people (basically a large van) all the way to 120-seat double-deckers or 140-seat articulated "trailer" coaches. School buses are also designed for frequent stops, low overall speed, and urban operation. It has virtually NO amenities, except those mandated by law, such as rear escape door. The seats are also tighter and only central corridor is available, no standing. As a result, school buses often seat 60-80 children in a 40-ft long coach. School buses can vary from small 10-passenger wheel-chair lift minibuses all the way to 40-ft long school buses capable of fitting in 70+ children. Touring coaches, finally, are designed for long distance runs with luxury. They are designed for highway cruising and often come with reclining seats, footrests, video systems, PA systems, private AC outlet, and so on, as well as a lot of luggage space under the main cabin. US DOT limits maximum length of a single vehicle to 45 ft long, and 102 inches wide, and that is the dimension of most touring coaches. Touring coaches in US vary from 12-pax minicoaches to 24-seater minibuses to mid-size buses (28-42 pax) to 30-ft long baby coaches, 40-ft long coaches, and 45-ft long maxi-coaches.

 * I respectfully disagree. The "types of service" section is more important, but it properly says little about types of hardware.  The bus type section should be restored, perhaps pruned to a bullet list, with a link for each physical type that has its own article, and a short definition for any type that does not. -- Jim.henderson 18:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That was probably me who did the original change, and looks like I did it *again*. :-) While I agree that "types of service" is important, there is NO discussion at all on the types of hardware, as Jim pointed out. We'll probably have to separate into two sections, "Bus Service Markets" and "Bus Size Subtypes". --Kschang77 07:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually left the SAME comments WAY up on the top under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bus#The_bus_types_aren.27t_quite_right -- Kschang77 07:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Mini and midi are good additions, though their paragraphs are perhaps a bit long and their details might profitably be relegated to linked articles. Some of the motor coach additions definitely ought to be in the linked article instead.  And "dualies" are used without being defined.  I do not propose to define them here, but in that case this isn't where to use them, either.  When a subject is big, then one article shouldn't try to cover it all.  Buses are not as big as Medicine or India, but their article should only attempt to present and outline the topic, with links to the specifics.  Balance and selectiveness are major parts of an editor's job.  Completeness is not what it's about.
 * Jim.henderson 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Citation Re 1824 Bus in Salford
Sorry not sure how to add these in as references but here are the citations requested: http://www.petergould.co.uk/local_transport_history/fleetlists/manchester1.htm http://www.gmts.co.uk/history/history.html http://www.manchester.gov.uk/people/special/student06/index.htm http://www.scripophily.net/macaco18.html Also in this document: GREATER MANCHESTER TRANSPORT SOCIETY Museum of Transport, Manchester : service since 1824. GMTS / TPC, 1990 ISBN 0 86317 153 2

I hope that satisfies the questioner. Best wishes, Mark —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mapmark (talk • contribs) 13:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I added the link to gmts.co.uk accordingly. Hassocks5489 13:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Hassocks5489 - I've recently learnt about the "ref" button too so next time I should be able to do it meself! :-)

Far too many pictures of articulated buses
So i'm taking it upon myself to upload and add a picture of a single deck midibus. Backifran

 * We only have two photos of artics on there, so I don't know if that's "far too many", but I do think your photo idea is a good, solid one. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there was three before.. the one on the top right, the one described "bendybus" and a poor quality photo of several in a line in a US city.

 * Two bendys are perhaps slightly too many; one double decker is exactly right and so is one shot of several parked intercity coaches. One midi is also the right number.  I see no exterior of the most common modern "standard" size bus, however, like the M1 I rode two hours ago up Madison Avenue in New York.  Jim.henderson 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

 * [[Image:Leyland Lynx Mk.II Cardiff Bus.JPG|thumb]] Like that image?, I wouldn't insert that one but that bus seats 49 plus 12 or so standing.. it's a Leyland Lynx. Although a more modern one would perhaps be appropriate, as I went on that very bus two days ago and the driver claimed it was a 'sack of shit'. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Backifran (talk • contribs) 15:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Nothing wrong with using a good, informative picture of a bad bus. Much better than a bad, messy picture of a good bus.  Jim.henderson 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

 * I put the picture of the leyland lynx up, but thought after i'd done so that this picture of a Volvo B10M would have been better - [[Image:Stagecoach Western Volvo B10M.JPG|thumb|right|250px]]::

And what about this one? I think something from latin america will be nice, and there is no bi-articulated photo yet...

biarticulated bus from Bogota Colombia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.217.218.2 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Modern articulated bus
I think its a bad idea to be able to edit a page like this but it certainly isn't the normal form. The most common form of modern articulated bus (eg. the MercedesBenz Citaros used in London) actually has the engine in the rear section, which can hardly therefore be described as a trailer. And obviously such a configuration requires something other than a tow-hitch. -- Chris j wood 23:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My brother told me to ask you guys on here. Tomorrow Im starting a book report and I MUST know something about transportation involving buses. If you help me, I'll tell you my grade and help you if you need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnnathan (talk • contribs) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Please add useful link (Ozebus.com.au)
Ok, so I can't add this useful link because it's against the conflict of interest provisions. However I respectfully request that it be considered to add to this page, as it is the main portal to the Australian Bus Industry: www.ozebus.com.au The site contains useful content, resources, ppt presentations, links, forums, and academic papers. For more info, please contact admin@bic.asn.au Ozebus (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Ozebus

 * Not a chance... SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Hello Ozebus. I've added a follow-up about how to usefully add content to Wikipedia (rather than just website links) at the User_talk:Ozebus page. Hope it's useful! —Sladen (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

A Chilean bus company http://www.puntotrip.cl. I hope this link is useful. This company have several buses and is one of the most importants of his country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.164.9.24 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not an advertising service. We cannot promote one bus company over other bus companies.  Stepho  talk 23:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

History correction
In the book _Buses, Trolleys and Trams_, by Charles Stuart Dunbar (reference: http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=621345954), the date given for Stanislas Baudry's activities in Nantes was 1823, not 1826. Could someone please find an alternate citation (preferably not from the 1911 Britannica) for the latter date? Dmacgr 22 (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, French Wikipedia has an article stub for "Stanislas Baudry", but said stub lacks any sources or citations. While I can translate it, an independent source would be preferable. Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also added a reference to an early experiment with public transport (web page also cited) dated 1662. The web-page in question is cited in the French Wikipedia article for "omnibus", which is separate from the French Wikipedia article for "autobus" or bus. Should the same separation be done to the English articles? Dmacgr 22 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I found this reference in Nantes web page: Rodrigue, Dr. Jean-Paul. "Omnibus, Paris Late 19th century" Hofstra_University for Stanislas Baudry's activities. And also why it was called "omnibus". Apparently the name of the terminus gave him the idea. The site is http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch6en/conc6en/omni.html Added 23rd Oct 2009

Tram photo
Why is there a photo of a tram on the bus page? Biscuittin (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You know, you've got a point. The image in question has been removed.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Combination Bus/Truck
In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). --85.22.7.146 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 * I dunno, I have heard of Kombibuss, I think in Bill Bryson's "Neither Here Nor There" when he travelled to Uppsala on a bus that was basically a freight vehicle with some seats attached :). But we don't have them here so I am not sure I am qualified to add it. I would just add it as Kombibuss.

SimonTrew (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Greyhound called them a “cargo combo”, while in Western Canada they were a “bruck”. Useddenim (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

add 1 IW please
wuu:公共汽车

Max Capacity 200
The intro says "generally 8 to 200 passengers". I accept that "generally" implies that sometimes they are outside this range, no doubt there is some Guinness World Record of 450 people squeezing onto a Routemaster or something, but isn't 200 a bit high? I'd say 80-- that is the most I have seen in the UK. Perhaps 100 as a margin. Again, the "generally" does not exclude it being outside these limits. I don't think bendy buses etc tend to have more capacity because of statutory limites etc, though no doubt this varies from place to place. But surely 200 is a bit on the steep side. SimonTrew (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

 * BTW my reason for asking is there have been two edits to this number today, to 250 then 300, which I have reverted. (Half expecting 350 later.) But going back quite a way through the history I can't find a number other than 200 for upper limit, so not sure if it has been changed without discussion before. SimonTrew (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * was just attempting to add reference to it being 300, see http://news.jongo.com/articles/07/0315/9180/OTE4MAmXAYhbF0.html Fraggle81 (talk) 16:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * Ah I didn't see the reference, brlliant. Yeah, I still would maybe disagree they are "generally" that size, it's a bit like saying people are "generally" 2'6" to 8'11.1", but at least there's a ref now and we can discuss within that, great. SimonTrew (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

 * I've reworked the statement to be narrower and simpler. Piano non troppo (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prams and strollers in buses
What about prams and strollers in buses?.--Nopetro (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Too many inline images
We seem to have too many pictures on this article, as the right side of the screen is almost solidly pictures. It's crowded right now, you see. I plan on cleaning this up over the weekend to make it appear less crowded and a little more elegant. This will involve removing all the images, and then placing images again from a clean-sheet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I didn't see this because I clicked new section, but yeah you're right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsum Miner (talk • contribs) 13:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Doing this now... removing all the images and going clean-sheet. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

 * And done. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pictures
I think there are way to many pics in this article. I was going to move the horsedrawn one so its looks better with the history section but theres just no room to move it! Does it really need a zillion pictures of different colors? Thanks.

 * You're right, and corrected again. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a picture of a few buses in each continent won't be a problem. So I've added a photo from India -Polytope4d (talk) 16:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

A load more content
I have just added a load of additional content removed from the bus manufacturing article which I think should focus more on the manufacturers and less of the vehicles. It has also added a load of additional images. Feel free to work with the new content and we may need to consider a split if the article is now getting too long. PeterEastern (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't understand your logic at all. You are suggesting the article now needs splitting, yet that is precisely because you've just totally unbalanced it with this import of content from 'bus manufacturing'. We now have just one single paragraph on types, alongside pages of content about independent front suspensions, body and chassis considerations and engine positioning etc etc. If you thought that this article was light on this info, you should have summarised it here, and kept the detail at bus manufacturing. If you think 'bus manufacturing' should only be about companies, which I can's see the logic of, then judging by what you have imported here, what you probably should of done is move what you took out of that article and put into another child article, such as bus design, and summarised that here. Infact, the Bus manufacturing article now looks completly pointless, it has no real focus at all. Why should the info about identification or rebuilds even be in there now? I am also generally concerned that in these big rewrites, you seem to lose little details, such as now there is no mention of designs needing to meet a tilt test, which seemed to dissappear in this edit. MickMacNee (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Not to mention that they also just undid a lot of work I did in clearing out a lot of images. I'm inclined to revert it all, honestly, for the reasons you mentioned, since this seems an ill-conceived shuffle of content.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Apologies, I have been working across a lot of articles recently and possibly was too quick here. If my edits are considered to be counter-productive I will not be offended by a revert while we discuss and explore any possible changes; indeed it may be more appropriate for me to do the revert myself to make it clear that there are no hard feelings. I would suggest however that we take the opportunity to review the roles of the two articles briefly and do a clean-up at the same time? My motivation was the get all the content about the vehicles themselves into one place and about the manufacturing of buses in another, together with design issues if relevant to manufacturing. I feel that the bus manufacturing is currently pretty weak because most of the previous content related to the design of vehicles rather than manufacturing. I recently did significant work on the Yellow Coach Manufacturing Company and there is a lot more to add about the way these companies and manufacturing techniques evolved over time. PeterEastern (talk) 09:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Add list of buses
Here is a proposed list of buses with photographs for addition to the article. Please see discussion in the next section about whether this should be in this article or a split one... There are many kinds of bus, such as minibuses, Double decker buses, bendy bus, single deckers and more.
 * Single Deckers
 * Plaxton Centro
 * Dennis Dart
 * Optare
 * Plaxton Primo
 * Leyland-MCW Olympic
 * Wrightbus
 * Mercedes O530 Citaro
 * Double Deckers
 * Leyland Olympian
 * Volvo Olympian
 * Wrightbus
 * Coaches
 * Volvo B7R

And associated images:
 * thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus in White. This bus is shorter than the [[Plaxton Centro]]]
 * thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Optare bus in unfinished livery. There are new Optare buses to this day.]
 * thumb|alt=Example alt text|A Plaxton Primo bus. This bus is quite new. It is shorter than the [[Plaxton Centro or some Dennis Darts]]]

Split into 'list of buses' article
It has been proposed that the new 'list of buses' section be split out into a new article. This section is to discuss the merits of creating such an article.

The initial request was placed on a individual contributors talk to which the contributor responded: ''I think you should bring this up on the appropriate talk page, and get consensus there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)-- 85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)''
 * Why? This list seems quite unnecessary in a general bus article.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

 * My view is that a list of buses does not belong in this article, but that it could make a good separate article if people which to develop it - I support the split as long as there are people who which to develop it and stop it becoming a huge photo-library. PeterEastern (talk) 13:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with adding List of buses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.88.17 (talk) 12:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Why not add list of buses?--85.12.88.17 (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There seems to be general agreement that a list of buses would not be appropriate in a general article about 'buses'. See elsewhere on this talk page for other discussions on the matter mainly in response to questions from your IP address. I would again encourage you to set up a proper user profile if you which to engage in discussion on what should and should not be in an article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * List of buses is a good idea. 213.107.74.132 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Support I think a separate article List of buses would expand to include details, and would serve visitors. The existence of such a list here at Bus has been challenged. The more editors try to expand the list, the more likely it will be challenged here and removed. Breaking away seems natural. I suggest we start it. I suspect it will expand nicely and quickly. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Actually, I don't see any opposes. I will boldly start it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose. This seems to already be covered by Template:Buses.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Template:buses is for different bus formats (double decker, low floor etc) rather than for individual makes and models. Possibly makes and models should be in a category? Personally I don't mind much where it goes or what form it takes, but I don't want a huge list of buses in this article and the article is much cleaner without it. PeterEastern (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

13 Jan 2011 edits
This edit has reverted a number of recent changes and additions to the article without apparent justification. Could the editor please register with a user name and talk about their motivation for the edit here. If the intention was just to add back the list of buses (which I suggest needs to be in a separate article) and that the other changes a mistake then I suggest that someone needs to repair the article - which I am happy to do. PeterEastern (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the IP address used for these edits has been blocked in the past having got into disputes. If this isn't the same person then it is an even better reason to get a user name. PeterEastern (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the talk page associated with the IP address used for these edit more thoroughly and teh damage done by the edits I have now reverted the changes from the article. PeterEastern (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that 85.12.88.17 has again added the list of buses section to this article and made other changes without any discussion as has been requested here and also on his talk page. The disputed changes have again been reverted pending discussion. I also note that no-one has offered to support the development of the suggested separate article as requested above which suggests that the logical outcome will be to leave the content out of Wikipedia entirely. PeterEastern (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Battery-powered buses
Added in this line:

"Nowadays, electric buses often carry their own battery, which is sometimes recharged on stops/stations in order to keep the size of the battery small/lightweight."

I added this in since on-stop battery recharging seems to become more and more popular; btw I wonder whether witricity (no-battery) powered buses exist; ie via electromagnetic induction lines in the road itself.

91.182.214.13 (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No Horse Drawn Vehicles?
If this article is about all buses, why isn't there any mention or pictures of horse drawn omnibuses? 92.20.167.93 (talk) 06:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Find reliable sources for it, and write about it! SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added a bit more about horse-buses and was surprised to find that there apparently isn't an article in Wikipedia on horse-buses. Personally I think there should be one for this important early form of bus as there are articles about virtually every other form of bus. I would also recommend including a single image of a horsebus as the first photo in the history section of this article. Personally I like this photo of a double-decker horse and motorbus in Paris in 1907-191 is good, or possibly the Stockholm photo which has just been deleted from this article. PeterEastern (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Motor bus and Rigid bus
Not sure how these fit into the scheme of things. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Buses are safe for children and all kinds of people they are not just used for children to go to school they are used for old people to get around if they have a hard time getting around or for people to get to different cities or to different states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.45.242 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Austrian registered Setra S 400-serie coach (reg. IM-BUS 5), Tyrol Tour|File
Hi, I was wondering if this image of a personalized bus registration plate would be fit for the gallery. Lotje (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Triple decker bus
"In the 1930s Italy designed the world's only triple decker bus" - certainly not true. See Knight Bus. Two were converted for the Harry Potter movies. 137.147.53.111 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs to be changed to "only running triple decker bus" for added clarity. Including fictional/movie prop busses does not seem appropriate in this context. 21 April 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.209.195 (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

First gasoline bus was invented in Germany
First gasoline bus were invented in Germany. Germany423 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Buses in Australia
I have added three buses that were in Australia. I have decided to put them in the collections because i did not want the pictures to go to waste so I decided to post them.

Regards, Nim

EurovisionNim (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

photo
Do you agree to add this photo? Azbukareja (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110930181821/http://news.jongo.com/articles/07/0315/9180/OTE4MAmXAYhbF0.html to http://news.jongo.com/articles/07/0315/9180/OTE4MAmXAYhbF0.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Modification as railway vehicles
What on Earth is the 'Modification as railway vehicles' about? It looks like it was cut and paste from government regulations from some unidentified country. Why can't German buses be modified as railway vehicles? I'm all for deleting the entire section - or at least reducing it down to a single paragraph giving the general concept and links to some examples such as the Galloping Goose (railcar).  Stepho  talk 08:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Yes, I just read the article and was scratching my head on how you would modify a bus to be a rail vehicle. If such a thing exists it would be fascinating to see some photos. Nevertheless, unless this portion is updated it should be deleted until their is more info on the topic of busses as rail vehicles. User:Franzeva

 * In the first half of the 20th century, small railway lines would sometimes take a bus or truck, replace the road wheels with train wheels and lock the steering solid. Cheap and easy. Railbus covers this type (although the term also overlaps the self propelled railcar). The most well known example of a railbus is the Galloping Goose (railcar).  Stepho  talk 22:36, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

half-cabs
I was reading articles on older half-cab double-decker buses like the Leyland Titan (front-engined double-decker). I was interested in when and why half-cabs came about and when and why they then disappeared. But this article has no mention of them at all. Does anybody have an information about them? Thanks.  Stepho  talk 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121035613/http://cityofchesapeake.net/services/depart/fire/bus.shtml to http://cityofchesapeake.net/services/depart/fire/bus.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020819/http://www.winnipeg.ca/fps/Services/Operations/MIRV.stm to http://www.winnipeg.ca/fps/Services/Operations/MIRV.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Coach (bus) into Bus

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see it that Coach (bus) be merged into this article so I'm starting a section here to discuss the proposal. There's one comment about it at Talk:Coach (bus) but I'm adding my two cents here since this is where the merge proposal template links. Mortee (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I don't see much reason to merge in the coach article but not the other Bus or Transit bus and if we merge all of them it would be far too long. There's overlap, of course, but the coach article has more in it than I think would make sense here. I don't feel very strongly about it either way but would prefer not to see a merge. Mortee (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. The article Coach (bus) doesnt have any inline references in the lead section. And nowhere else except history section. Looks like essay written by a lone author. Crashed greek (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I do agree that Coach (bus) is in need of sources (through the article), it is an article about a fairly distinct type of bus. To merge this and a number of other similar bus articles in here would make the main bus article extremely long.  What really needs to happen the most is some improvement on the coach bus article.  --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per SteveCof00. While I would agree that coaches are not distinct from ordinary buses, apart from being designed for longer journeys, Merging all the articles into one would produce a reader's nightmare. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · [//xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/?username=PhilipTerryGraham&project=en.wikipedia.org count]) 13:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose' per above - Merging everything to one article is IMHO disruptive, Whilst sources are an issue we should find sources not just merge everything. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018
I would like to add in the "Tourism" paragraph, a sentence regarding where you can buy bus tickets to visit Europe (i.e. companies' websites and multi-company sites). Here it is "You can buy your tickets to visit the UK by bus on the companies’ websites but also on “multi-company” websites." Marquenm (talk) 07:39, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Also see the policy on external links. — KuyaBriBri Talk 13:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If we add one company then we are unfairly biasing readers away from other companies, therefore we would have to add all companies. And then do the same for all countries. That's a lot of work when the reader can simply type it into a web search engine.  Stepho  talk 23:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of images
Hey, I have overlooked at a lot of the bus images and was wondering because there are unnecessary low quality images, would u like them to be replaced with higher quality images? – I can also scope through any good quality images on Commons to replace the low quality ones.

Would that be alright? Wikipedia aims to have high quality images so I suggest looking for some when I'm out -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 09:16, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

 * To a point, it would be a good idea to update the images on the page with higher-quality images. However, the historical images used at the beginning of the article, by their nature, are largely irreplaceable, so it is best to keep those as-is (unless there are free-use images that can be used in the same context).   --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, there are some empty section of bus articles, can I add some images please to illustrate those? -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 07:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

 * Having compared both revisions (before and after) I can definetely say after is a lot better, What images were you planning on replacing tho?,
 * I personally would say only:
 * File:LT 471 (LTZ 1471) Arriva London New Routemaster (19522859218).jpg (top)
 * File:Ride On 5312 at Glenmont.jpg (Bus)
 * File:Historic Center of Quito - World Heritage Site by UNESCO - Photo 093.JPG (Bus)
 * File:Testspiel gegen FC Bayern München 03.JPG (Bus)
 * File:2013 in Bonn. BYD ebus (electrical bus). Bus facing left 1. Spielvogel.JPG (Bus)
 * need to be replaced, They look okay at full size but not so much as thumbnails - I would say there are better ones that could be used. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:52, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Airport bus section
Removed some low quality images – May I add some images for the relevant sections of the article, such as Airport bus under Private charter buses, cheers -- Eurovision Nim (talk to me)(see my edits) 04:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

"Likely to turn over", etc
In the history section, it makes claims such as "the steam omnibus was less likely to overturn than horse-drawn coaches", and other claims, without giving any explanation of why that should be. It seems entirely POV explaining why steam omnibuses were a worderful thing that were crushed by a non-progressive government, etc, etc. I could easily believe that a steam omnibus is less likely to turn over than a coach, if I were told that it's because the weight of the boiler was mounted down low; otherwise the wheels are the same size, it is just as tall and it seems to suggest that it travels a lot faster, therefore it ought to turn over more easily. More importantly, if that was written objectively, the writer would be forced to add that the steam omnibus is also perhaps 100 times more likely to suddenly explode than the average coach, is far more expensive to build, sets things on fire with the sparks from its stack (this was a huge problem with rail locomotives, so don't try to tell me it wasn't an issue with road ones as well!). It is certainly possible that a steam omnibus could travel faster than a horse-coach, but seeing as how the main limitation on the speed of horse-coaches was the appallingly rutted, muddy, rocky, rough roads they traveled on, I don't see how a steam coach could do much better without causing severe discomfort and/or injury to the occupants. There is a real reason why trains ran on rails, and why this was the dominant form of transport for a hundred years. The roads were pitiful, rails are smooth. Even when the ICE came into use, most early transport didn't exceed 15mph at best, until they spent some money to improve the roads. Considering this, and the fact that even if you used steam to propel a vehicle, in that era you were still riding on wooden wheels, and using blocks of wood and hand-levers pressed against the wheel treads to slow down or stop (or dragging heavy chains, or "drags" behind you when going down long grades, like coaches did), I doubt the claim that the 5/10mph speed limit was an unreasonable unkindness by a hostile government, it was probably an honest attempt to set reasonable limits. I doubt very many people ever tried to drive a steam omnibus faster than 10mph, and it wasn't safe to travel faster than 5mph through the average town, due to livestock, people in the road, bad brakes, etc. Horse-carriages were required to walk through populated areas, an no-one suggests that this is because the government was hostile to coaches. They certainly didn't hinder railroad building very much (intentionally), so I highly doubt this implied claim that a hostile government sabotaged the steam coach, and that they'd have had highways full of them bombing along at 50mph by 1870, if only the government had been a little nicer. The whole concept had serious problems, and died a natural death. Railroads simply were much more logical and reasonable than steam road transport back then, as hard as it is for modern road-obessed minds to think of it.

64.222.158.24 (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 * You seem to have about 10 points, all lumped together. Could you choose one for the current discussion? The others can be dealt with, one at a time, after that.  Stepho  talk 07:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Adding an Advantages/Disadvantages section?
Looking at the page for Trams: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tram#Advantages and Trolleybuses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolleybus#Advantages that I have linked to, both have quite extensive sections laying out their respective advantages and disadvantages. Perhaps this page would benefit from a section like this being added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.95.33 (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

 * Sounds good. Of course, claims must be backed up with supporting references.  Stepho  talk 14:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph "Name"
Could someone please exchange "his" for "Baudry's" in the sentence "His transport scheme was a huge success", since otherwise it seems as if the pronoun refers to Omnès, which makes no sense in the wider context of the paragraph. It is really confusing to read, but I can't amend it myself since it is semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.221.132 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021
Please review reference 2 for factual accuracy. 101.175.20.253 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Everything seems okay Run n Fly (talk) 16:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

"Urtne" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Urtne. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023
"Add to basic description of 'Coach' to include: they do not cater for standing passengers" J45on8199 (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

 * @J45on8199 ✅ The edit request was completed. Thank you for your contribution!
 * Have a nice day, NotAGenious (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Seating codes
Various sources give bus seating codes. For example [this page] shows codes such as 'H29/23D' and 'B55F'. It would be useful to explain these somewhere in Wikipedia. After some searching I found [this forum] - see 17 Feb 2015 CatfordCat's post. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

 * I think those are not industry standard codes but just codes that are for that web site only - or possibly a bus fan thing. They explain them here: https://www.buslistsontheweb.co.uk/index.htm?https://www.buslistsontheweb.co.uk/menu.asp?type=Codes  Stepho  talk 13:40, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Bus


text:
Talk:Phonemic orthography

True alphabets
Georgian language claims that there are 14 true alphabets. Anyone know what they are?

 * Sounds like a nonsense claim to me... Morwen 23:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet
How can International Phonetic Alphabet be used as an example of a phonemic alphabet? Don't you see the phonemic x phonetic conflict mentioned later in the article?

 * You can do this by using IPA characters in order to write the phonemes of the language. Roman orthography is practically useless for a lot of languages, and the IPA is a good starting point for a phonemic orthography. Sure, it's primarily a phonetic alphabet, but that doesn't mean it can't be used as a phonemic alphabet by omitting some features. thefamouseccles

 * Quite. The requirements of a phonemic orthography are basically a subset of those for a phonetic orthography . -- Q Chris (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rename to: phonemic and phonetic orthography
The article seems to talk equally much on both topics (phonemic and phonetic orthographies). Perhaps rename (and restructure) it to cover both notions?--Imz 06:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interlingua
How can Interlingua be considered phonemic when the sound [f] can be spelled "f" or "ph", the sound [r] "r" or "rh", the sound [t] "t" or "th", the "c" can be read [k] or [ts], the "ch" can be read [k] or [ʃ], the [k] can be spelled "c", "q" or "ch", the "g" can be read [g] or [ʒ], the "j" can be read [ʒ] or [j], the [ts] can be spelled "c" or "t", the "w" can be read [w] or [v]?

 * That characterization of Interlingua is highly misleading. It includes pronunciations that occur only in foreign words ("w" as [w] or [v]), pronunciations that are not generally accepted ("j" as [j]), and repeats one complaint three time in different variations ("ch" as [k] or [ʃ], [k] as "c", "q" or "ch", [ts] as "c" or "t"). Interlingua has a few exceptions to phonemicity, but so does Finnish, which is listed as having good phonemic correspondence.

 * Here is a more accurate representation of Interlingua's letters and sounds. There are also the digraphs ph, th, and rh, but they have one sound as well.

 * a one sound
 * b one sound
 * c two sounds
 * d one sound
 * e one sound
 * f one sound
 * g two sounds
 * h one sound
 * i basically one sound, can be a semi-consonant
 * j one sound
 * k one sound
 * l one sound
 * m one sound
 * n one sound
 * o one sound
 * p one sound
 * q one sound
 * r one sound
 * s basically one sound
 * t marginally two sounds
 * u basically one sound, can be a semi-consonant
 * v one sound
 * w rare
 * x basically one sound
 * y one sound
 * z one sound

 * I listed Interlingua as having "a good grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence", not as being phonemic. 66.68.174.245 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

 * You realize of course that you have weakened the definition of phonemic orthography to make it just mean predictable pronunciation based on spelling without also implying the opposite. Now one can claim that French has a phonemic orthography, which I don't think is the intention. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think there are different terms for languages where there is a predictable pronunciation based on spelling (e.g. French) and languages where there is a predictable spelling based on sound (I believe Arabic is like this). I can't remember what they are though. Does anyone know? -- Q Chris 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I removed Interlingua, it is a bad example of phonemic orthography.Cameron Nedland 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

cot/caught merger
For an example of the difficulty in creating a phonemic alphabet for English, the cot/caught merger is probably a better example. Bad/lad split seems to affect less than 10 words, but the caught/cot merger affects a huge chunk of the English language, and is also a lot more recognizable to language enthusiasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.27.154 (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish
I don't feel confident enough to edit the article directly without discussion, but as a native Spanish speaker (from Spain, not Latin-America) I'm under the impression that Spanish has more than a good "grapheme-to-phoneme" correspondence, and yet it's not included in the list, which is pretty stricking to me, mostly considering other more minoritary languages, such as Basque (euskara), Finnish, Sanskrit, or even constructed languages that very little people speak at all.

I didn't edit the article myself because I can't prove Spanish would be comparable to them in "grapheme-to-phoneme" terms with more than my own experience as a native speaker, but I would like someone to tell me about this and justify, if possible, why it is not included as I believe it should be.

 * Yeah, I think it has a pretty good correspondance too. The only reason I would think that it didn't would be because of silent h, the variation in usage of x (sometimes it's, sometimes it's ), and the letters c and z which both represent the same thing.  In yeismo dialects ll and y also cover the same phonemic territory and seseo dialects merge the sound of c/z with s.
 * The neat thing about Spanish is that when you see a word spelled, you know exactly how it's pronounced. It's a little different the other way around--that is, when you hear it you may not spell it correctly-- but instances of the latter are not very common.  If Spanish doesn't fit into the category, this sort of thing, I think, can be put into the article. Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  18:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't consider yeismo and seseo (and ceceo in certain parts of Andalucia) real dialects but more like divergent accents. An educated person, even if he speaks with such accents, is aware of which is the correct and canonical pronunciation, which is what matters here, is it?

 * Of course, there are a few divergences that ARE part of the official orthography, namely:
 * H is mute when it's written alone and has a sound when accompained of C (CH).
 * C sounds like Z when in front of E and I (CE, CI) and like K when in fron of A, O and U (CA, CO, CU). Z always sounds the same, but it's not commonly used with E or I, where the use of C is the norm.
 * Then again, to have the sound of K with E and I, you must use QUE and QUI, and here U becomes mute. KE and KI also exist but...
 * K is an imported character used mostly for imported foreign words and in most cases it is considered correct to replace it with QU (like in "kilo", that can also be written "quilo", which considered more "native" to Spanish). This does not apply for purely foreing words, which are not regulated by Spanish orthography, of course xD.

 * The rest of the differences are due to regional accents, and while socially recognized and accepted (and, of course, studied), they are by no means CORRECT according to the canon, so I don't think they should be taken into account for this matter. But I'm not aware of the criterion that is followed, so I may well be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.60.137.253 (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * While I'm not so dismissive of nonstandard dialects, your emphasis on standard pronunciation is pretty appropriate in this case, I think. I'd forgotten about c/k/qu... that makes it even less phonemic.  I guess that despite Spanish's predictable spelling system, it is not really "phonemic."  Heck, Irish and French have predictable spelling but they're not considered phonemic.  Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I guess you're right then, but still, I would like to know what makes the listed languages so much more phonemic in comparison to Castilian (the "original" Spanish, if you please xD). Apart from the listed "inconsistencies" the rest of the characters are allways pronounced the same way, regardless of anything else, with a 1:1 character-to-sound correpondence.
 * So, how much more phonemic are the other languages listed?

 * The Devanagari script was designed to represent the sounds of Sanskrit exactly. Prior to the existence of a writing system Mantras were passed on orally, with great care being taken to ensure the sound was reproduced exactly. The Devanagari script (and other Bhrami scripts) were designed to do the same. Pronunciation was scientifically studied in the [Taittiriya Upanishad], which meant that devanagri is not only a Phonemic orthography for Sanskrit, but the also the alphabetical order corresponds to the mouth shape and position of the tongue in the mouth, you can feel you tongue move forward as you produce the consonants of each class in order. Devanagari is also used for other languages such as Hindi, but it is not quite a Phonemic orthography (though it is pretty good) because of sound convergences and sounds introduced from languages other than sanskrit which do not have unique representations. -- Q Chris 07:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It's interesting that Devanagari script, thanks for the info!
 * Anyway, I just remembered yet another Spanish orthographic rule that concerns character R, which has two sounds, one being like Japanese's RA RI RU RE RO, which is "soft", and another stronger sound.
 * -When writen at the start of the word it has the "strong" sound, allways.
 * -And "soft" when written in the middle of a word, except when preceded by N.
 * -Then again, if you need to achieve the "strong" sound in the middle of a word, you need to use the digraph "RR".

 * I feel rather stupid for having forgotten this one xD. Now, definitelly, there are no more.
 * Of course this makes Spanish haven an even less phonetic orthography. When I started this I was focused on the aspect that vowels never change their sounds or combine to create new ones (except for the use of QU), and apparently forgot a few other aspects that mainly concern some consonants. Ah well... It's all clear now.

Wrong example

 * Phonemicity may be preserved either by nativizing the loanword's pronunciation (for example, ski is pronounced [ski] in Italian, rather than [ʃi] as in the original Norwegian word)

This example is completely wrong, the word is pronounced [ʃi] in Italian, and for this reason it has seen its spelling changed from ski ("k" isn't used in Italian anyway) to sci ("sc" is how we usually spell the sound [ʃ]). Lupo Azzurro (talk) 16:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The English pronunciation is the result of spelling pronunciation, so it doesn't illustrate the point. I believe there's a better example mentioned at Russian phonology:
 * "шофёр (from French chauffeur) was pronounced in the early twentieth century but is now pronounced ."
 * I'll change the article accordingly. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of your fascism example. <sc> is [ʃ] in a number of English words, notably a bunch ending in -science and its relatives, as well as a number of Italian loanwords such as crescendo. Certainly this isn't the pronunciation one ordinarily expects for <sc>, but there are so many cases of it that I don't think this is the best example of irregular spelling. (But if we do keep this example, then [sk] should be changed to just [s], as the latter is much more common before <i>; and the wording needs to be rephrased a bit so as not to imply that fascism is an Italian word: the Italian etymon is fascismo.) —Ruakh TALK 23:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I guess we can't really make a good case for spellings from most loanwords... into English.  How about fajita?  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  23:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I think fajita works better. :-) —Ruakh TALK 01:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fajita isn't really a loan word, though.. it's more like pseudospanish. It would mean "little skirt" (though I don't think that construction is ever actually used in Spanish), and was coined by English-speaking Texans in the 1960s. Named so because fajitas were made using skirt steak. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm the one who added the original ski example, so sorry about the mistake. However, I don't like the subsequent changes. The paragraph was meant to answer the question "How does a language with a (more-or-less) phonemic orthography handle loanwords", by giving examples for each of three options: Therefore: Ideally we should have 3 different languages, each with a phonemic orthography, where one language tends to use strategy #1 for loanwords, one uses #2, and one #3; and then quote examples for each. If we must use English, it could be the source for the loanwords. Of course, nothing is as clearcut as this ideal, but English is so far from it that the paragraph has nothing to do with phonemic orthography and belongs instead in the loanword article.jnestorius(talk) 10:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) preserve the foreign spelling and the foreign pronunciation, thus compromising phonemicity of orthography by introducing "irregular" spellings
 * 2) preserve the foreign spelling and phonemicity, by nativizing the pronunciation
 * 3) preserve the foreign pronunciation and phonemicity, by nativizing the spelling
 * Using English examples misses the point, because English manifestly does not have a phonemic orthography, so the question does not arise. Any of the three options may be applied in a given case.
 * Using Russian misses the point, because spelling cannot be preserved when you're changing alphabets.
 * The Iraq example, where [q] become [k], is also a red herring: this is not a "spelling pronunciation" so much as a nearest-phoneme approximation, as with [h] for [x] in the fajita example. An interesting phenomenon, but unrelated to spelling.

grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence
It says grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence, which is the usual when talking about the very correspondence. However, it is trully a grapheme-to-(allophone or phoneme) correspondence, isn't it? Take this example (which is from the allophone page): cat v table - those t's are different phonemes, but the same allophone. Because the everyday description is going to be this more common name grapheme-to-phoneme, I think we should keep it; but we should also link out to a separate page that defines it, or if not then at least handle the ambiguity here where it occurs. —  r obbiemuﬃn  page talk 13:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You've got it backwards. the cat/table example shows the same phoneme but different allophones.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  00:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Yes I do have it backwards!  :)  Ok, I've made a backup of this eternally confusing fact to my page... may I delete this section now? —  r obbiemuﬃn  page  talk 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean this section in the talk page? There's no reason to delete it.  Other editors may make the same mistake.  — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Korean
Hi,

Since there's been a bit of a revert war over using Korean as an example, I thought I'd throw my two bits in. Hangul is morphophonemic, not phonemic. That is, while it restricts itself to phonemic distinctions, it does not simply transcribe words according to their pronunciation, but according to their morphology. We have a bit of this in English with -s. This is pronounced either /s/, as in cats and walks, or /z/, as in dogs and goes, but in all cases it given the same spelling, conflating those two phonemes. German and Russian do the same kind of thing with final stops. For example, German Bad is pronounced /bat/; the /d/ only shows up with a following vowel, as in Baden /baden/. Turkish, on the other hand, is purely phonemic: 'to do' is spelled etmek, as it is pronounced, even though morphologically that first consonant is a dee, as can be seen in ederim 'I do'. (This is just off the top of my head. If the examples are wrong, the principle is still sound.) Hangul is like German here rather than Turkish. It used to be phonemic, but that was changed when the modern orthography was established in the 19th-20th centuries. See Hangul. kwami (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you very much. You clear up the thing with the intelligible examples. --Caspian blue (talk) 01:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

More systematic list of languages with regular spelling
The present list of languages with "a good grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence", is a little arbitrary. I understand it just wants to give some examples, but I feel it would be nice/interesting/useful to make it more systematic. That is, I would like to make a list of languages with excellent, good, fair (etc) levels of regularity in the spelling system. Unfortunately I'm also afraid this could arise endless flame wars over which language is "best"... I'd give it a try, anyway.
 * Such a presentation should be based on sources, not only to adhere to our standards but also to prevent such flame wars. — Æµ§œš¹  [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]  18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to get some sources for this list. According to my feeling Dutch (my native) would fit here as well, but i have not found any source for it (i have not found any for the already listed languages either)Nicob1984 (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Japanese
Should Japanese be considered to have phonemic orthography? The Hiragana and Katakana syllabaries have a virtually 100% grapheme-to-phoneme correspondence. This of course is completely turned on its head when throwing in Kanji... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneeka2 (talk • contribs) 11:58, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I think so, mostly. (if you ignore kanji, like you said). I would say hiragana orthography is 99% phonemic, though (は/わ and お/を being the most notable exceptions). Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Greek
I am a native Greek speaker and I think that modern Greek is phonemic orthography. I can't prove this against other languages, so I don't bother editing the article, but I really believe that Greek is an almost perfect example of phonemic orthography, in the sense that you can easily write the words only by hearing the language, and vise versa, just knowing the list of graphemes that correspond to phonemes. When you write the words from the sounds, you will make orthographic mistakes (because vowel phonemes have multiple orthographic realizations), but by reading the (orthographically wrong)words again, you get the same sounds. Only one minor exception I am aware of, and this is probably form degeneration of the language. I could be wrong, I am not a glossologist but I will be really surprised if modern Greek is really not phonemic orthography and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.69.157.214 (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * You point out the problem yourself: you can't know how to write a word just from hearing it.
 * The classical language was better, but not perfect: there was no way to distinguish long and short a, i, or u. — kwami (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

 * But we do list Spanish, which also has that problem: given a written word, you can usually pronounce it correctly based on fairly general rules (with some exceptions, such as jeep, septiembre, and subrayar), but given a spoken word, you cannot consistently determine the correct spelling. —Ruakh TALK 21:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

 * How so? (Leaving aside foreign loans and proper names, which will often be irregular.) — kwami (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

 * There are a number of letters that are homophonous in various positions, including: g/j and c/z before e or i; b/v; and, in many dialects, s/z. Also, h is silent. And a number of pairs of homophones are distinguished by one being written with a redundant accent mark, such as tu/tú, mi/mí, que/qué, cuando/cuándo, como/cómo, de/dé, and este/éste. (Actually, a few of those examples, notably cuando/cuándo and este/éste, might actually be considered cases where a single word is written with an accent in some uses and without one in other uses; but regardless, the spelling differences don't correspond to pronunciation differences.) —Ruakh TALK 21:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes, the h and redundant accent, definitely. There's also the letter x, which is not predictable. B/v are distinguished in some areas, and that was considered correct into into the 20th century. But je, ji, ze, zi are mostly found in proper names and in loans; they're no more common than k is, and k is considered a foreign letter. So it can be seen as a slightly decayed phonemic system. Greek, however, was slightly defective from the get-go. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

 * Wrong. Je and ji, unlike ze and zi, are found in many Spanish words: ejemplo, mujer, crujir, jinete, etc. Burzuchius (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Expanded version
I just expanded and rewrote this article by combining the information existing on this same topic from a number of different articles. Information has been taken from: I now intend to revise those articles by writing the appropriate sections as summaries, with a link to this article as the full exposition. Victor Yus (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * grapheme
 * phoneme
 * morphophonology
 * alphabet
 * orthography

Modern orthography
The movement represented at shwa.org has a phonemic orthography including gait. This modern system may stand up to the rigors that defeat traditional orthographies in phonemic representation. Opinions on this example would be appreciated.Rgdboer (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone's hobby recreation of IPA with a whole lot of symbols that would need to be learned. Complete orthographies are useless for normal writing, how many people realise that when they say "pin" the p is aspirated but is "spin" it isn't? -- Q Chris (talk) 08:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Peter Cyrus is the moving force behind the Shwascript. He has participated in a long-running discussion on Yahoo user-group "conlang". There are about 331 messages concerning the script or its suitability as a topic for the group. To read them go to conlang and search "shwa".Rgdboer (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another modern phonemic orthography is teascript by Herman Miller. He says it is based on Tengwar of J.R.R Tolkien. In this case there is a movement; however, linguist comment on the phonemics is wanted.Rgdboer (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Malay word for "to spell"
In this page, it's said that language that have phomenic orthography doesn't have separate word for "to spell". But in Malay, at least Indonesian, have a word "mengeja" with same meaning. Malay alphabet is nearly phomenic, with exception the word that is from loanword, like "bank", and also have no separate word for e schwa and front e. — Christian Irwan (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

 * You could always ask, "how do you write it?", which would be the same thing. We should never claim a language has no word for s.t. unless we have a very good source.  — kwami (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Exclusive -ed spelling of the past tense morpheme
In the morphophonemic features section, it states that the English past tense morpheme is written -ed regardless of whether it is pronounced as /d/, /t/ or /ɪd/. I don't believe this to be strictly true, as in British English the words spelt, spilt, smelt, learnt etc are perfectly valid spellings. Also, AFAIK the past tense forms of feel, lean and sweep are always felt, lent and swept. Granted, there are some words "spelt"-ed regardless of regional variation, such as kicked, tossed (although I believe these two both had now obsolete -t forms: kickt and tost) and brushed, the statement still seems to be inaccurate. Thoughts?  Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 22:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 * 'lent' is past tense of 'lend'; I think lean is always 'leaned' in past tense, but not sure. You're completely correct, though. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ideal phonemic orthography
"In an ideal phonemic orthography, there would be a complete one-to-one correspondence."

I beleave the article misses the fact that Serbian language using the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet developed by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić is the only one which has this perfect "one-to-one correspondence". The Serbian Cyrillic alphaber was adopted by late 19 century and was created by Karadzic on the principle of "write as you speak and read as it is written". The alphabet consists of 30 letters each one corresponding to a different sound, and allways that sound, regardless of the letter combinations. Also, it has no diacritics neither hard/soft signs as other Cyrillic alphabets do. Practically most people in former Yugoslavia know this uniqueness of the Serbian language and alphabet, possibly no one came here to add that information simply because they missed this article. FkpCascais (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

From kilburn101: I agree with the above comment. Serbian Cyrillic does have a perfect isomorphism between phoneme and letter. I speak and read a little Serbian and, so, am rather familiar with the spelling system and its (short) history. There are other alphabetic orthographies that are said to be as perfect (or nearly so): Finnish and Turkish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilburn101 (talk • contribs) 20:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

phonetic words
some words are spelled  and here are some examples; basin- bäsín anamorph-

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cf6f:9560:80dc:a9f0:1d42:eda0 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

This section sounds like Serbo-Croatian language dos not have ideal phonemic orthography
"A disputed example of an ideally phonemic orthography is Serbo-Croatian language. In its alphabet (Latin as well as Serbian Cyrillic alphabet), there are 30 graphemes, each uniquely corresponding to one of the phonemes. This seemingly perfect yet simple phonemic orthography was achieved in the 19th century,"

Disputed by whom? And why seemingly perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.114.196 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

English
How would English be classified in terms of "phonemic orthography"? Is English spelling be regarded by linguists as mostly phonemic, somewhat phonemic, or barely phonemic? And phonetic spelling redirects to this page. Do we want to clarify the difference here between "phonemic" and "phonetic" for nonexpert readers? Wolfdog (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The English orthography is barely phonemic: sounds and letters disagree very much.Burzuchius (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, when it comes to vowels (though even in that case there are just as many regular spellings as there are exceptions to them). On the other hand, consonants are much more regular. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So it sounds like "semi-phonemic" would be the justifiable term. How about the term "phonetic"? I'm not sure I'm clear about the shades of meaning differing orthographies that are phonetic vs. phonemic. Wolfdog (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To me, calling English orthography "semi-phonemic" is a bit of an overkill, but only because there are dozens if not hundreds of exceptions to otherwise fairly regular and fairly consistent spellings of vowels. But we should quit speculating and find a source if we want to put this into the article. I can see that it's full of WP:OR already but that's no excuse.

 * I challenge anyone to find an orthography that represents allophones of a language that has at least a moderate amount of them (there are exceptions though, Polish and Russian orthographies have a separate symbol for that is convincingly analyzed as an allophone of  after hard consonants, but that's just one allophone). I think that we should forget about the term "phonetic orthography" (unless scholars use it); if anything, equate it with "phonemic orthography" and assume that the writer ignores the difference between phonemes and allophones (either deliberately or simply out of ignorance). Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you just said, but -- haha -- are you saying that the "overkill" of "semi-phonetic" is that English, in all honesty, is "fairly phonemic" or "fairly not phonemic"? I assume by your double usage of "fairly" that you mean the former. (And, regardless, I don't intend on quoting you without citations, so: No worries.) Wolfdog (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the fact that there are no one-to-one phoneme-grapheme correspondences, English vowels have a fairly regular spelling. It's the exceptions that cause a headache, not necessarily the multitude of possible spellings of one vowel. Those can be learned. Mr KEBAB (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Breton shouldn't be on the list
Hang on, why is Breton on the list? It doesn't even have a standardized form and its pronounciation varies 76.157.162.44 (talk) 04:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Phonemic orthography