Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport

Condition of the Wikiproject London Transport page

The project's third birthday is approaching next Monday, and I think this project page (not the Portal page) is in dire need of a good spring clean as there are a number of sections which seem to be dead now and there seems to be no coherent order. The scope section could really do with a rewrite as well.

The following sections appear to be unused:

• News
• WikiProject London Transport Milestones
• Project outreach

The following sub-areas appear to be dormant:

• Taskforces - the buses taskforce has no members and the others have only two or three.
• Requests

Any suggestions for what should be kept, what should go and anything that should be added? --DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much has happened really from what i see. The news section has really been taken over by the Met and same for Milestones. Requests are happening everywhere except the requests page. I'm not sure. Simply south (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, since there have been no specific comments, I am going to start an improvement exercise on the Project Page. This may mean things move around a bit or disappear for a while. The aim is to get rid of a lot of the redundant stuff and modernise the page and sub-pages and make it look something like the WP:LONDON project pages. --DavidCane (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The complete reformatting of the WP:LT pages (including this one) is now complete. Hope you like the colours! Information has been reorganised for easier and clearer access and a batch of dead-ends and cobwebbed corners have been eliminated. If you discover an orphaned corner which I have missed, let me know and I'll give it the new look. --DavidCane (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

redirecting

Someone has been redirecting buses pages which they don't find notable, in some cases pages had enough info, and still developing. I've undid three pages what I found, like London Buses route 356 so if you find any more can you please undo the redirect edit, thanks.Likelife (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone I told you this, but what you can do is have a look at the User Contributions for your 'troublemaker', and act accordingly. This should, at the very least, narrow your search! (see here for contributions of the appropriaate time-span -- there's quite a lot!)

However, having looked at this prolific editor's record, they must have had a good reason for making the changes, so I would suggest acting cautiously and perhaps ask for (their?) assistance in improving the pages to avoid the issues raised.

EdJogg (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have recreated the articles but are still failing to show that they meet WP:N in any way. Are you going to do this or shall I send them to AfD? Jeni ^(talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I have some train and train station pictures. Please see my gallery at User:Tyw7/gallery. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

London transport related article up for deletion.

Notified here because this is the relevant project. The London School Buses article is up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Public transport access"

Further to the deletion of the former {{nearest tube}}, etc. partially because they were 'decorated with roundels'; and partially due to the expressed preference for only including this information as narrative text. User:Cherryguy93 is adding a table of "Public transport access" to the front of articles such as London Eye and V&A Museum of Childhood. Some of the tables have roundels. Can I ask if we have a view on this? I'm happy to have the information included - at the end of the article (not the most important element in an article); but don't want to find us having to go through another 'removal' exercise, as when the templates were deleted. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally endorse removal. Quite aside from the whole "we're not a travel guide" issue, these are unmaintainable unless someone's planning to watchlist and maintain every article in London. London buses change their routes more often than some people change their underwear. If anyone wants to find out how to get to-and-from particular places, TfL Journey Planner will be delighted to oblige. – iridescent 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, totally endorse removal. Cherryguy93 has done a great job with graphics for individual London Underground lines, but as Iridescent said, TfL is the place to go for such information, not Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject London Transport to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

North and West London Light Railway

Interesting article, but needs some work: North and West London Light Railway. MRSC (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

New article on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway just uploaded covering the pre-LPTB history of the Bakerloo line. That's the last of the Yerkes tubes done. Going to nominate this for GA. --DavidCane (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was promoted to Good Article on 16 November and has now been nominated for Featured Article here. --DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Featured Portal nomination

I have nominated Portal:London Transport for Featured Portal status. The nomination is here, if anyone wants to keep follow what's going on.--DavidCane (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the candidacy was ended rather abruptly before matters were resolved. I'll wait a bit before trying again. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for Underground lines

Not sure whether to raise this here or at Portal talk:London Transport. User:Cherryguy93 has been adding succession boxes to eleven of the Underground line articles (East London Line excepted) - Northern line for example:

To me these look like trivia of little practical use; many of them cover periods when "xxx line" was not even a recognised term. Opinions? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the best place to discuss this. I'd also noticed them being added and agree that it's both trivia and misleading because the current names are often much more recent than the infrastructure they cover. The term London Underground itself didn't come into use until 1908 and most of the lines were under separate ownership until later than that. I think the succession boxes should be deleted as they are not encyclopaedic content. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Sunil060902 has amended several of these boxes; it just goes to show that the "start" year for various lines can be contentious, except for the Victoria line (being the only one opened entirely under a "line" name, and having no sections transferred from another line). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both the above editors of this discussion... it's only fair, because they might not be watching this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, honestly I think they are superfluous myself. However, I made it clear on the W & C article that that line is, officially, LUL's newest line, since 1994 (think about it!). But I have no objection to the info boxes' deletion.

My take on this is:

• Met 1863 - OK, identity retained as Met line
• Dis 1868 - OK, identity retained as Dis line
• Nor 1890 (& 1906!) hmmm, identity blend of two distinct lines
• Cen 1900 - OK, identity retained as Cen line
• Bak/Pic 1906 - OK, to an extent = Bak and Pic lines
• Cir 1949 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
• Vic 1968 - brand new, so OK
• Jub 1979 - brand new, so OK, plus part of Bak (ex-Met), but new idenity
• H & C 1988 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
• W & C 1994 - former L&SWR and BR, then transferred to LUL that year

I'm not sure, reading the ELL article, that there was a firm date when the ELL became a separate identity. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of them myself, I only made a minor correction to them so at least there wasn't a "loop" if you went before the Northern Line back to the Circle line. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

East London Bus Group

Can someone help me out here please? User:Experting is insistent on bunging in a list of routes they run (they've not even put it in a good place, putting it right in the middle of the operations section and getting in the way.) I keep reverting by explaining in the edit summary, they revert by just saying things like "yes there is".

I believe that, when we have Selkent and East London (bus company) which detail the routes each subsidiary operates, having an unlinked, unexplained mass of random numbers on the article of the parent company at East London Bus Group is unnecessary.

It's got to the point now where me reverting doesn't achieve anything, so can someone help please. Any opinions? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See the user's contributions, and the reaction of others to those edits. He seems to have an attitude problem, placing inappropriate and/or overstrong warning templates on other users' talk pages, whilst ignoring (and also removing, but that's not a crime) the warnings placed on his own talk page. Might be a matter for an admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. I will try and do it soon! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Platform layout

What are our thoughts on the platform layouts that appear in many articles such as Bow Road tube station? Is this essentially duplicating the succession boxes or is this something that adds value to the articles and should be encouraged? Interested to hear some views... MRSC (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that they take up too much space in the article, disrupt the formatting and don't provide anything much of value. In most cases they do little more than repeat the succession boxes. Unless there is a particular reason to provide details on the platform layout (for example, the unused platforms at South Kensington), I don't see that there is a need to detail which direction on a platform the trains run (standard left-hand running applies in most cases anyway). Cherryguy93 is the editor who has been adding these, so it would be appropriate to invite his views. --DavidCane (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are occaisions when the direction of the line is reversed e.g. the Northern Line at Bank and London Bridge, The Central Line at White City and variuos points on the Victoria Line. Simply south (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That can usually be dealt with in the text, as I think we already do. --DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like them myself, as (i) space-filling; (ii) of little encyclopedic value; (iii) not completely useful to the public. Further, at all except the simplest one- or two-platform stations, platform uses do change, as service patterns change. It would be a bind to keep the diagrams up to date as well as the text. I have seen them being added, and also removed, from station articles by other users, and wondered what I should do myself; however I have neither added nor removed such diagrams, until definite policy has been laid down.

I think I saw recent comment from User:AlisonW and User:SilasW about such diagrams. Forget where though; maybe an article talk page? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two interesting things about platforms, which side of the train they are and where the exits are (though maybe that should be kept "secret" as TfL seem to make a point of not publishing that information so people don't all cram into one carriage). If that information can be expressed well in a diagram maybe they are worth having. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your views. I wonder if these are really needed on simple stations with two platforms. It is so easy to describe these with prose and the existing nav box. This is also by far the most accessible way of presenting the information. Once you get to more complex stations with at least four platforms these diagrams might be helpful, but they also hide some degree of complexity such as platforms that are not neatly parallel or perpendicular to each other. If we were to keep these for more complex stations, we might be able to improve their appearance and keep them consistent by use of templates. Another thought is that National Rail now produce these layouts themselves example. We could simply link to these. MRSC (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to the above example, the layout diagrams are available at an official location, we must be wary of breaching copyright should we produce our own. If we must have them, I would prefer a link to the NR page as per above example; these could be incorporated into the infobox quite easily. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we describe the layout in prose and then link to the relevant plan on the National Rail website as the reference. Unfortunately I don't think there isn't something similar for LUL stations? MRSC (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned London Underground projects

Anyone know what's going on with Category:Abandoned London Underground projects? All the articles in it have been removed but I can see no category to replace it. Personally I thought it was a useful category for grouping, well, abandoned Underground projects - the "what might have been" stories. Where are these articles now? Cnbrb (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Now here: Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and here: Category:Proposed London Underground lines. MRSC (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks

This is one of a number of London rail and underground-related categories which I have encountered whilst cleaning up uncategorised categories, and a whatlinkshere on Category:Abandoned London Underground projects check brought me to this discussion.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Category:Abandoned London Underground projects was emptied and then blanked. That may have been a good decision or maybe not, though like Cnbrb I am surprised to find that there is no longer a "what might have been" category ... and whatever view anyone takes on the merits, this should not have been done out-of-process. A proposal to delete should have been listed at WP:CFD so that any objections could be considered before the category was depopulated.

In this case, I was going to suggest that Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines should be placed as sub-categories of Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but a quick peek at those categories suggests that they contain a mixture of abandoned and live projects, so that wouldn't work.

Blanking a category is acceptable if it is a new creation and blanked by its the only editor who had edited it, but this was a well-established category. I'm sure that this was done in good faith as a sincere effort to improve wikipedia, but it should not have been blanked. It doesn't take long to list a category at WP:CFD, so please can editors remember that any future renamings, mergers or deletions of categories should be done through WP:CFD?

In this case, it seems to me that the editor who depopulated Category:Abandoned London Underground projects should look for input after-the-fact, by explaining here the reasons for the category's depopulation and asking whether that step has consensus. If not, it should be repopulated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former single platform tube stations and Category:Single platform tube stations

I'm thinking depopulating these categories. It is far too granular and if we are categorising by one platform, why not two or three? MRSC (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)