This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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

Good evening,

I would like to discuss the value of the parallel stopping services that are referenced in the route articles and whether these should potentially be removed.

I understand why this information is included for clarity and completeness. However, in-practice, this has the potential to cause a number of issues.

For example, the SL3 is noted as partially parallelling routes 301 and 269. However, it also partially parallels many other routes including routes 160, 162, 229 and 286 so this statement is not completely correct.

In the case of the SL5, it is noted for partially parallelling route 119. However, the routes operate completely different routings between Bromley and Shirley so it could be argued the 119 parallels the SL5 no more than the 367 does.

Therefore, these statements risk causing confusion and in many cases are factually incorrect, or incomplete in some cases.

Since they seem to serve little purpose, I feel it is of benefit to remove them.

Apologies if this has been discussed and agreed previously. Thanks, looking forward to hearing everyone's thoughts. Aaroncrudge (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

I would just be bold and remove them... if someone has a problem with it (I don't see why they would to be honest) then they can come here. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 21:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

agree to remove Turini2 (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have also removed the sentence 'It has a limited stopping equivalent route; [SL route]' on some articles (routes 1, 21, 68, 183, 207 and 427) as per this discussion. Just saying this to update all of you :-)

Cheers, 82.36.101.179 (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The article is extremely inconsistent in the number of routes. The intro text talks about 10 operating and 10 proposed ones. The infobox has 11 operating and 9 proposed. The actual list at the end of the article has 11 operating ones and 5 future ones. Which of these is correct? Lamoebas (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2025 (UTC)Reply