Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Featured Topic: Church Siding does not and never will warrant an article
Haynestre (talk | contribs)
→‎Vanguard Works: new section
Line 185: Line 185:
:Note this is an entirely different change from that in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#Colours again|the previous discussion]]. That was an attempt to convert the Pantone specifications to RGB, and was rightly rejected IMO because of the differences between print and screen. Whether to use the "web safe" screen colours or not wasn't even considered then.
:Note this is an entirely different change from that in [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#Colours again|the previous discussion]]. That was an attempt to convert the Pantone specifications to RGB, and was rightly rejected IMO because of the differences between print and screen. Whether to use the "web safe" screen colours or not wasn't even considered then.
:<small>Also as an outsider can I just say what a great job this project is doing. I'm not a Londoner, but I still spent hours clicking round the Underground articles yesterday!</small> [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
:<small>Also as an outsider can I just say what a great job this project is doing. I'm not a Londoner, but I still spent hours clicking round the Underground articles yesterday!</small> [[User:the wub|the wub]] [[User_talk:The wub|<font color="green">"?!"</font>]] 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

== Vanguard Works ==

The page on London General Omnibus Company states that in their bus manufacturing phase, they had taken over the Vanguard works in Blackhorse Road. I was always under the impression that the Vanguard works were in Chingford Road where the former Walthamstow bus garage was located. Can anyone put me right, please?
[[User:Haynestre|Haynestre]] ([[User talk:Haynestre|talk]]) 09:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:38, 23 December 2010

Crowlands

Is Crowlands the only unopened mainline station?

Simply south (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? If you mean "work started but it never opened", Queens Road (about halfway between Hackney Downs and Clapton) was built but never opened, and eventually demolished in 1965. Work started on Lullingstone (technically a few hundred yards outside Greater London) as well, but didn't get as far as that at Queens Road. – iridescent 16:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was having trouble finding other stations that weren't underground related and was curious. The platforms at Crowlands apparently are in situ, according to Brown. And yes essentially "built but never opened". Simply south (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't many I can think of aside from Queens Road that were actually built but never opened, other than North End on the Northern Line. There are a lot of stations that were only open for a few months, like the original Farringdon Street, and stations like Smithfield that were open to goods but never served by passenger trains. – iridescent 17:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you reckon the stations should be included in List of former and unopened London Underground stations with article name changed or even a separate article created to cover those that were built but abandoned on the NR network only? Also have you heard of Crowlands before? Simply south (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't—was it on the site of Romford Stadium?
AFAIK the only part-built but unopened stations to have their own articles are North End tube station and Brockley Hill tube station, so I'm not sure the issue will ever arise. An entry on Queens Road would never be more than a permastub—there's nothing to say about it other than construction and demolition dates—while all there is to say about Lullingstone is the two lines currently at Eynsford railway station. – iridescent 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more to Lullingstone than that, if this is anything to go by. Seems to have a lot of history behind it. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If i remember correctly, it was just off Justums Lane, between Romford and Chadwell Heath. (Crowlands) Simply south (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Category:Abandoned rail transport projects in the United Kingdom and its curiously-named subcats. North End is definitely in there. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any more info on Crowlands (there was something briefly on Ian-Allan publishing but this has been removed before i could act) other then the dates as well. Maybe just for now a separate article should be creatyed on the built but not opened stations. Simply south (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crowlands' home would be List of closed railway stations in London rather than a renamed List of former and unopened London Underground stations. Amongst the redirects in the planned section of the latter list, there are a few stations that have articles such as Ludgate Circus tube station, Harefield Road tube station or Lothbury tube station, but I think Iridescent has named the only two where construction was started and abandoned without opening. The tunnel works south-east of Elstree South tube station almost qualify it, and there was the never opened bit of the third tube platform at South Kensington tube station.--DavidCane (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed would imply that it opened at one point and it never did by the looks of things. Simply south (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That's why I renamed the list of defunct tube stations from Closed London Underground stations. As the list has a number of stations which are still open for main line services, the current name is a bit more cumbersome but it is accurate.--DavidCane (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we rename that one as well? Simply south (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit much mainline stuff, but I don't see why not. The list does need a good clean-up and some modernisation of the formatting to make it sortable and comprehensive referencing.--DavidCane (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlands is mentioned in "Ilford to Shenfield", Middleton Press. Says foundations were laid but that was just about it. I presume it was to one side of Jutsums Lane, but doesn't say which side! The only other mainline station that I can think of is the second "Poplar" (1851) which would have been located just south of the current All Saints and due east of the depot on the DLR (All Saints itself occupies the site of a later Poplar station (1866) not to be confused with the very first Poplar (1840) on the London & Blackwall Railway, which is just south of Blackwall DLR). best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh forgot to add that the 2009 edition of the Joe Brown atlas mentions that foundations were laid to the west of Jutsums Lane in 1900. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start on Crowlands railway station article. I even went to the site on Jutsums Lane at the weekend :) Sunil060902 (talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

District Line Route Map

I would like to propose this revised version of the route diagram. I think it shows the branches more clearly than the current version. Useddenim (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could state which bits have been changed.--DavidCane (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • detailed mainline connections
  • got the missing icons uploaded & in place
  • realigned east end of line & added St Mary's Curve
  • am reasonably happy with how it looks (unless anyone else has more comments…) Useddenim (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Template:BS-headerTemplate:BS-table {Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2Template:BS6-2

|}

Just noticed a topoligical error at Kensington (Olympia), but not sure this solves it, either, as the direction still isn't correct (not to mention the missing icon) … Useddenim (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there is a major feature or two missing from the Earl's Court area that must be added - the depot and sidings. Simply south (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there is a similar thread at Talk:District line#Route Map, which pre-dates this one. Really, only one main thread is required (see WP:MULTI), although there may be short notices placed on other appropriate talk pages linking to the main thread. The proper place for this discussion would have been at Template talk:District Line RDT; but it's too late for that now, so I have put a suitable note there, linking back here. To avoid different people looking at and commenting on similar (but subtly different), proposals, please rationalise so that only one proposed template exists. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Brown, Lille Bridge depot joins the Hammersmith branch of the District Line to the east of West Ken station but west of the junction with the othter lines. Another line from the same depot also goes to both a siding (not really important) and the Kensington Olympia branch. Simply south (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are you deciding what is and isn't shown? If you're showing the defunct lines to Hounslow Town and South Acton, why not the defunct lines to Windsor, New Cross and Southend? And what's happened to the Uxbridge branch? – iridescent 00:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are all pre-LT. And yes, the District wasn't independent in the UERL era, but they referred to it as the District Railway not line, so I feel that it's beyond the scope of this map. Useddenim (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{MDR route map}} which I have created for my pending rewrite of Metropolitan District Railway shows these by the way. --DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(re Useddenim) Not buying that. If you take the LT era as starting on 1 July 1933, then the Uxbridge branch (ran to 23 October 1933) and Southend extension (to 30 September 1939) both fall under it. If one were being really nitpicky, District Line trains jointly operated the Inner Circle until 1990 as well, albeit only as a flag-flying symbolic train on Sundays by the end. – iridescent 11:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary any longer to maintain a running update of the changes you're making to the template. This could probably be moved to the template's talk page now.--DavidCane (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note, the proposed template should disappear from talk pages, and instead go to the template's sandbox, which is where it should have been right from the start. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's where it was in the first place, and it was totally ignored... Useddenim (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not in the template's sandbox, which was, and indeed still is, a red link. Therefore, it does not exist, and most likely, never has existed. The discussion thread was not even started at Template talk:District Line RDT, but at Talk:District line. Until yesterday, the only non-banner posting at Template talk:District Line RDT was my own notice that this thread existed.
If you wish to alter the RDTs for other lines in the future, please observe the following:
  1. Create your proposed version in the template's sandbox. The name of this is always the name of the template, with "/sandbox" appended. So, the sandbox for Template:District Line RDT is Template:District Line RDT/sandbox.
  2. Start a discussion on the template's own talk page; in this case, Template talk:District Line RDT.
  3. Place a notice inviting contributions to the above discussion on the talk page of each article which uses the RDT, and also on the talk page of interested WikiProjects. In this case, they would be at Talk:District line and also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Note that these notices are not discussions in their own right, but pointers to an existing discussion, per WP:MULTI.
--Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday Project - Four Years On, Some Statistics

The project is now four years old. Here's some statistics looking back on how it has developed since September 2006:

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Participants 9 47 69 77 84
(46 active)
Articles Assessed 0 1,415 1,714 2,153 2,654
Good Articles 0 4 5 10 21
Featured Articles 1 1 4 10 23
Statistics are for 30 September in each year except 2010.

--DavidCane (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the London Transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some additional suggestions at Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.8#WikiProject_London_Transport. If members of the project can think of anything else that should be added, I suggest you add them to this list. --DavidCane (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Holden

I've uploaded a new version of Charles Holden, the architect behind 55 Broadway and many of the best tube stations. The V&A has an exhibition on his work starting on 2 October and running until 13 February (details). --DavidCane (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good. It's probably worthy of a run as the Portal's Featured Biography imho. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was the selected biography in March, before the update.--DavidCane (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In case he's too modest to mention it; congratulations to Iridescent for achieving Featured Topic status for his Brill Tramway series.--DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

There is currently one article missing from this - Church Siding. Simply south (talk) 23:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Church Siding does not and never will warrant an article; it was a short-lived "station" which consisted on nothing more than a pile of dirt to make it marginally easier to get off the trains. The paragraph at Infrastructure of the Brill Tramway is literally all that it will ever be possible to say about it. – iridescent 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Articles, Images and Biographies

Votes and nominations are needed for the selected articles, images and biographies at Portal:London Transport/Vote. --DavidCane (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still need some votes.--DavidCane (talk) 23:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London Transport articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the London Transport articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours, again (II)

Follow-up to WT:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5#Colours, again

I note that once again, the colours specified on {{LUL color}}, {{DLR color}} and {{LOG color}} have been altered (see Template talk:LUL color#Colours tweaked) and I since I can find no consensus for this change, let's discuss. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours tweaked

I have changed this template to match the RGB for screen colours specified in TfL's Colour standard (Issue 3). Previously the "web safe" specifications from the same document were used, but the limited web safe palette is now something of an anachronism. No Wikipedia guidelines or up to date web content guidelines that I can find still mandate its use. The number of people still viewing the web on systems limited to 256 colours is vanishingly small, and I think the increased accuracy of the RGB representations for almost all users is more important. … the wub "?!" 01:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is an entirely different change from that in the previous discussion. That was an attempt to convert the Pantone specifications to RGB, and was rightly rejected IMO because of the differences between print and screen. Whether to use the "web safe" screen colours or not wasn't even considered then.
Also as an outsider can I just say what a great job this project is doing. I'm not a Londoner, but I still spent hours clicking round the Underground articles yesterday! the wub "?!" 00:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Works

The page on London General Omnibus Company states that in their bus manufacturing phase, they had taken over the Vanguard works in Blackhorse Road. I was always under the impression that the Vanguard works were in Chingford Road where the former Walthamstow bus garage was located. Can anyone put me right, please? Haynestre (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]