Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

Proposed lines and extensions[edit]

117Avenue (talk · contribs) is engaging on a crusade against any mention of proposed lines, routings and extensions at Wikipedia talk:Route diagram template and elsewhere. If he is successful in imposing his views on the non-notability and elimination of unbuilt proposals, then large sections of the history of London’s Underground will be deleted. Useddenim (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Untrue. WP:RDT explains how to use templates, and all I did was remove controversial content, not affecting the example at all. 117Avenue (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Annual review[edit]

It's been a quiet year. Since 30 September 2012, the project has added 63 articles, five good articles, one featured article (promoted from a good article) and one featured topic. One featured article has been delisted. Membership has increased by one, though the number of active users has decreased.

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Participants 9 47 69 77 84
(46 active)
80
(40 active)
84
(45 active)
85
(36 active)
Articles Assessed 0 1,415 1,714 2,153 2,656 2,830 2,933 2,996
Good Articles 0 4 5 10 21 24 27 31
Featured Articles 1 1 4 10 24 31 33 33
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

LU photography rules[edit]

An ip user nominated File:Borough tube station lifts 01.jpg as potentially unfree for violating LU's rules on photography. The nomination was declined on the grounds that the file is on Commons (it hasn't been nominated there), but there is a brief exchange at File talk:Borough tube station lifts 01.jpg people here may be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it possible that it isn't just about this photo or LU per se. Have a look at these contributions and these contributions and in particular see their interaction with the revision history of the Elevator article and the status of this photo, then read this editor's (or one of these editors') beliefs about English in Wikipedia ("the British English wikipedia users will stop at nothing to stop wikipedia from using an AmE word"). I would prefer to assume good faith but I do wonder if the photo got nominated in the hope that the word "lift" could be removed from Elevator. Just a theory though. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
From what I have seen I would agree with DBaK. I've been watching this IP for a while along with a couple of others which I suspect are the same user. It's someone who has a serious chip on their shoulder about the use of British English and will stop at nothing to remove it. Interestingly from the WHOIS info it appears to be a doctor from Cancer Research UK. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I suspect that the UK's liberal freedom of panorama laws would mean that these images would survive deletion nominations at Commons (if there's nothing stopping people from positing photographs of items in museums surely there's no barrier to taking photos of train stations which are open to the public?). There's a good summary of the laws at commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Interesting re the lift/elevator thing. I did think it was was very odd photo to use to comment about something as generic as LU photographic rules but didn't think to look for a pattern in the user's contributions to link it to something else! Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Surely Freedom of Panorama concerns photographs taken from a public place, such as the street? I am certain that all railway stations in the UK, including those of London Underground, are private property; I'm pretty sure that London Transport - or one of its successors - took out a byelaw preventing the taking of photographs on LU property. Their main concern is that a train driver could be dazzled by a flash. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There is not a chance that the lift is copyrighted in the first place. There is no copyright for utilitarian objects, neither in the United Kingdom nor in the United States, and a lift is obviously utilitarian. Also, in the United Kingdom, freedom of panorama also applies indoors and even if an admission fee (for example a train ticket) is payable to enter the location. Therefore, freedom of panorama clearly applies in the London Underground.
I think that the IP means that is it somehow prohibited to use photos created in the London Underground if the photos were created in violation of the photo restrictions. This is pure nonsense; see for example v:Museum photography. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I think there was a similar issue raised a year or so ago, about photographs taken in places in the UK where the owner had expressly restricted photography. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can recall it and what the outcome was? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Commons take on this would be that the photographer holds the copyright, and any issues arising from the photographer taking photos of/from places they shouldn't are between the property owner and the photographer. LU (or anyone else) cannot claim copyright just because the photo was taken on their property, and, if Freedom of Panorama were an issue, a station would be categorised as a public space anyway, regardless of ownership. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
So in short, if it is illegal to take photos in the London Underground, then London Underground might be able to sue the photographer for trespassing or a contractual violation or something, but it doesn't affect how Wikipedia can use images created in violaion of the photo restriction. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, and I don't think LU care that much really. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Making references more useful and informative[edit]

Hi, I am looking for a couple of volunteers to help make references more useful and informative and to preserve and link to archive copies of the referenced material. e.g. this recent edit fixes a number of issues:

  • Convert bare references to use {{cite}} template to make them more informative and to avoid {{linkrot}}.
  • Add |archiveurl= and |archivedate= to all web references in case the original referenced material ceases to be available.
  • Remove redundant accessdate information as it is not needed where a date-stamped article has a date-stamped archive copy.

<ref name="">{{cite web | url= | title= | last= | first= | work= | publisher= | date= | archiveurl= | archivedate= | deadurl=no }}</ref>

  • References which include the article title, author, publication name, publisher and publication date are much more useful to readers than a bare URL. The {{cite}} template provides a simple way to add that extra information.
  • Replace web with news for newspaper references.
  • Add |format=PDF or |format=DOC after the |url= parameter where appropriate.
  • Archiving the referenced web content also preserves a separate copy just in case the original URL stops working.
  • Adding archive data to references through the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters is further aided by the fact that the Internet Archive Wayback Machine now supports on-demand archiving of content.
  • Once the original publication date and/or archivedate have been recorded, the accessdate is somewhat irrelevant and can be removed.

Similar work is needed on the majority of rail and tube station pages, but there is just too much of it for one person to tackle in a reasonable timeframe. Most pages seem to have about half a dozen references. There's a couple of thousand pages to review. I am aiming to look at around 50 to 100 pages per month. It would be useful to have a couple more volunteers working on this to spread the load. Anyone up for that? -- 79.67.255.56 (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update[edit]

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

C Stock withdrawal and S Stock on the District[edit]

I've been away and am now catching up. I note there's been some unsourced changes about the rolling stock used on the Distict line ([1], H&C line ([2]) and Circle line ([3]). Anyone have a source for these? Edgepedia (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any reliable sources for the withdrawal of C Stock on the H&C and Circle lines. According to the District Dave forum, on 10 February the diagrams for these lines only scheduled S Stock,[4], but the poster at the time said this had no guarantees. It also seems that a C Stock train could run if there is disruption or a relief driver has not been passed on S Stock. [5] Claims have been made that S Stock worked on the Wimbledon branch on 9 February,[6] and that S Stock entered service on District line Wimbledon-Edgware Road on 23 February.[7].[8] says that four diagrams remain until May (ish). [9] says that C Stock is expected to be officially withdrawn with a rail tour on 29 June.
Whilst these are not RS, they cast doubt on the changes made by the IP. Any reliable sources for this? Edgepedia (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

TfL Website[edit]

The TfL website has just been updated, breaking most of the incoming urls. I've replaced quite a few on the London Underground article with archive.org caches, but there must be a lot of links in other articles that are now dead. Edgepedia (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Templates for deletion[edit]

I've {{db-t3}}-tagged all of these:

lfdder 18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

London Underground O and P Stock[edit]

I'm not a contributor here... do you prefer comments on individual "talk" pages, or here?

In this article, there is an internal inconsistency between two references to car 14233/54233. Under 'Wartime Losses', it says "DM 14233 was damaged during bombing and one end of the car was destroyed. This was repaired using an end of Q38 Stock trailer 013167, which had also been badly damaged. The rebuilt car entered service renumbered 54233 in 1941.[4]" (the reference is to Bruce 1983). Later, under 'Withdrawal and preservation', it says "The driving motor 54233 was the one that was rebuilt using one end of a Q23 trailer in 1941.[14]" (the reference is to BRC [10]).

At that latter reference, it says: "The 'P. stock' car No. 14233 ... was partially destroyed in an air raid .... Shortly before, on 7 September, the Q38 stock trailer 013167 had been damaged in an air raid .... The work was a success and the rebuilt car entered service on 15 September 1941, at the height of the ‘Battle of Britain’ as 14233.... In the early 1960s ... [it] received number 54233."

I have fixed the Q23/Q38 mistake, but the question of when it was renumbered to 54233 is harder to resolve as Bruce is not available online.

Manolan1 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou, this edit was correct. I do have Bruce 1983; but it only supports part of the two preceding sentences, and certainly not the number 54233. As you probably know, renumbering from 1xxxx to 5xxxx went with conversion to CO/CP stock - and that began in 1955. Another book that I have gives the CO/CP conversion of this car - and therefore the renumbering from 14233 to 54233 as February to June 1963.
For a change that is specific to one article, we would normally put the main discussion on the article's talk page - i.e. Talk:London Underground O and P Stock. Optionally, we would leave a short note here drawing attention to that discussion. See WP:TALKPAGE --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:London bus operators[edit]

Template:London bus operators has been nominated for merging with Template:Bus companies in Greater London. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — lfdder 17:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)