Talk:Chaserider

Buses Mid‑importance

	Buses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of buses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusesWikipedia:WikiProject BusesTemplate:WikiProject Busesbus transport
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

West Midlands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Transport Low‑importance

	Transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reinstatement of previous edit

Latest comment: 27 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Midlandsbuses, to set the record straight, I have reinstated my big copyedit from last March which you reverted nearly ten minutes later because I feel the edits I made helped with the integrity of the article (i.e. fixing very jumbled text, adding archive.org links, adding full titles, publishers and access dates) and also cut out some of the 'fancruft' surrounding run-of-the-mill service changes by the operator.

On the latter claim, as user Dudleybus referred to in a previous dispute over removing the timetables, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that, I feel, has meant the removal of the following, for example:

Roadworks diversions reported by the company: "It was announced on 24 October 2025, that following the completion of the Stafford roadworks around Queensville, which meant that services 74, 826, 827 had been disrupted and diverted because of the long term works all services have reverted back to normal line of route."
Unassorted contract information: "In June 2024, saw [sic] the extension of the 63 Cannock to Rugeley via Brereton linking onto Uttoxeter with some journeys subcontracted to Bus Link."
Individual vehicle maintenance and refurbishment for nationwide legislation: "Ongoing fleet upgrades are seeing older vehicles being fitted with Mobitec Audio/Visual Next Stop Announcements to comply with PSVAR legislation."

In response to your edit summary claim of 'It wasn’t broken so please don’t try and fix it!', WP:AINTBROKE can't cover everything, especially concerning dead URLs, jumbled text and reams of non-notable service info; new small route contract gains, maybe, but not renewals, route extensions and diversions. All my intentions were, and still are, are for the general public to pop this article on their devices and get a good feel for the company's origins and operations instead of having it lean too enthusiast-oriented. So, if you could give this edit a chance instead of instantly reverting it this time, I'd appreciate it. Hullian111 (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2026 (UTC)Reply