Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Underground
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Qs
Isn't this project similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit? Also, as this is about the Underground, couldn't it also cover the Glasgow Underground? Simply south 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ok I'm interested. As a Londoner, a lifelong fan of the tube (and a near-daily user of it), this project sounds good. The LU pages seem pretty comprehensive already, but they still do need some rounding out of details on specific stations, and editorial work to make them more consistent. I've added some pics of missing stations lately and would be happy to keep on with that.
- Simply south - I think there's enough info and history to the LU to warrant its own project page - but maybe you're right and we could include other British underground systems? AFAIK, Glasgow and Newcastle are the only other places with subway networks outside of London and obviously the LU would be the main focus... anyone else got any thoughts on that? - HTUK 09:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hi, I'm the founder of this project. Why dont you join me and we can work on the rest of the project together? Lenny 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Still is this only the London Underground (and Docklands Light Railway) or does it include the other 2 metro systems as well, as mentioned above? Simply south 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Project banner
Rather than putting a second project banner on all London Underground articles, you can use the "Underground" parameter of {{TrainsWikiProject}}, like you can now see on Talk:London Underground. Let me know if you have any questions. Slambo (Speak) 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- And for those pages that use {{TrainsWikiProject}} instead of {{Tube}}, the class parameter will add the article to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Underground articles by quality and the just added LUL-importance will add the article to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Underground articles by importance. If an article is tagged with both templates, then either remove the Underground=yes from {{TrainsWikiProject}} (like you can see on Talk:Tube map, for example) or ensure that LUL-importance is added when an article is rated for importance here. Slambo (Speak) 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Members
Small point here. You've got both a "members" and a "membership" heading on your project page. You might want to remove one or the other, or clarify in the text how they are different, as it might confuse people where to sign up. As a stupid American, I wouldn't be able to contribute to your project meaningfully anyway, but I wish you luck with it. Badbilltucker 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New logo
I think we should have a proper logo for this project, rather than my picture plus text logo. Anyone can submit there entrys. Here is mine.
- I think the logo is fine as it is. However I have come up with a new slogan for the project and possible for TfL. Lenny 11:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Its a bit hard to read (the slogan). Simply south 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stations: standardised headings
It's been suggested so far in the project there should be a maximum of 5 headings and 7 sub-headings.
I'd already been juggling some possible headings based on the kind of information presently contained in various station articles, and divided them into the following potential areas and was intending to post them, but now the list violates the newly-added condition of 5 headings.
Here are the proposed headings & subs. Suggestions? Thoughts?
(1) ==History==
History of the station/site.
(1a)===Notable events===(*)
Previous events, eg: 7 July 2005 bombings for Edgware Road, et al; fire at King's Cross, etc.
(2) ==Today==
Include in this section the station's current status and any notable current facilities, features, design elements, etc
(2a)===Services===
First & last train times, trains per hour, etc.
(2b)===Transport connections===
List linking transport services - nearby bus routes, mainline stations, tram/riverboat.etc.
(2c)===Local places of interest===(*)
Sights and attractions located near this station.
(3)==Future developments==(*)
Any _known_ proposals for the station or the site - with references
(4)==Trivia==(*)
Some stations have additional facts or info (see [[Oakwood tube station]] for example).
(5)==Gallery==
Gallery of additional images.
(6)==See also==
Associated internal Wiki links.
(7)==References==
Footnote links to support article statements.
Related external links
(*) = optional heading, where appropriate.
- HTUK 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Probably rearrange the headings.
Intro to station - it serves blah and is on the blah and blah lines. Possibly zones as well. Services should go at the bottom of the page. I don't really think tph is all that necessary as most stations have trains every 5-10 mins. Also the History section should be referenced.
Ordering based on your title (i will exclude a couple)
1 1a, 2, 2c, 3, 4, 2a and 2b should be merged, 5 (Optional), 6, 7,
So order=
- a general intro (not as title though) then
- History (withouth Notable events section unless really needed)
- Today
- Local Places of Interest
- Future
- Trivia
- Services & Connections
- Gallery
- See Also
- Ref + Ext links
How about this?
Simply south 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes I think this is a good idea. Simply South's version is preferable but needs modification:
- a general intro (not as title though) then
- History (without Notable events section unless really needed)
- Today
- Future
- Trivia
- Local Places of Interest
- Services & Connections
- Gallery
- See Also
- Ref
- Ext links
Lenny 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally sounds ok - I agree that "notable events", and tph in Services are not really that important as entries (especially the latter). To be honest, nor is the Trivia one. I also made an omission in my original list - I meant to add that Gallery is an optional section (as Simply south pointed out), as not all the stations need loads of pics to illustrate them, and (as already stated in the main project page) longer articles are better with pics carefully interspersed rather than all bunched up together.
However, I feel the actual sequence changes suggested seem a bit 'all over the place'. The reason I proposed them largely in the order I did is that it breaks down more neatly into 3 broad progressive sections; "past" (history, possibly notable events that happened at that site), "present" (the station as it is today, including places to see, service times, etc, as they are at the time of writing), and "future". Then all the "extras" - pics (for smaller articles) and links and so on - follow at the end.
Another point: Trivia is less notable/important that Places of interest and Services/connections surely? I would think that if it is used, it should come after the more practical factual info?
- HTUK 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- In general, I'd support the Past-Present-Future-Extras order that you've got here, The only thing to watch out for is something that was mentioned to me recently about articles under the scope of WP:NYCS. Most of the station articles there include "External links" but not "References" because the project convention is to use the "External links" heading instead. I see this as bad form because "External links" to me means "here are some pages with additional information about this topic" while I see "References" as "these are the sources of the information in this article." I haven't seen it become a problem on tube articles yet, but this distinction is followed up through the GA and FA process, so it would be best to keep the References and External links separate. Slambo (Speak) 19:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Assessments and assessment categories
| Underground articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
Since {{Tube}} includes the class parameter, and it seems to be working properly from a couple of articles I placed an assessment on yesterday (see the B-class category), I created the assessment category pages this morning. All of the Tube assessment categories are subcats of Cat:Underground articles by quality and the appropriate WP:1.0 assessment categories. The articles in these categories should be picked up by the bot tomorrow morning to fill in the index, log and statistics pages linked in the box shown to the right. I'll update {{TrainsWikiProject}} shortly to sort articles appropriately if the Underground=yes parameter has been added so we don't necessarily have to have both banners on the talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- {{TrainsWikiProject}} now knows about the Underground assessment categories and will sort appropriately if Underground=yes is used. One question though... I've still got {{TrainsWikiProject}} sorting into subcategories of the more general Category:Rail transport articles by quality; do we want to suppress the more general assessment categories for Tube articles? It's simpler if we let it sort articles into both, but then the Trains assessment statistics will include some Tube articles as well as all the other Trains articles. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Looks like the bot picked up the articles without a problem today, so the assessment links are working now. The only item still missing was Cat:Underground articles with comments, so it's there now.
- The Index link in the box will take you to a list of articles sorted by quality rating with the contents of any assessment comments transcluded in the Comments column. Once we add the importance categories, this information will also be included in the list and statistics. Slambo (Speak) 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The importance categories are now created, and {{Tube}} will now display an importance row for articles where a class value has been assigned. I will update {{TrainsWikiProject}} shortly to include an Underground importance parameter as well so we can keep talk pages that use that template only to one template and still have subproject-specific importance ratings. Articles where the class is set to dab, redir, template, category or current (or any of the known variations of these types) will suppress the importance line from displaying.
This introduces a new project task: monitoring Category:Unknown-importance Underground articles and adding importance tags for articles that appear there. I'd like to invite other project members to chip in and help with the importance ratings since I'm one of those crazy 'Merkan types who's not as familiar with London's transportation systems (I'd probably rate something as lower importance than a local would). Slambo (Speak) 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] DLR - WP:PR
Just thought i should note that i have requested a peer review for the Docklands Light Railway. See:
Simply south 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Tube Lines/Metronet
I've added to both of these articles but am unsure of what copyright tag Tube Lines logo comes under. They say here: that anyone can use images as long as Tube Lines are notified, but looking at {logo} classifies it under US law. Or is that ok because its where the servers are hosted? Logo image available : here and Tube Lines image library here RHB 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you for your recent correction to the existing directory. I noted that you added your project to the Technology section, and realized I had made a mistake by not linking all of the transportation projects, which are by definition technological, to that section. I have changed the link so that the entire transportation section is now linked to the technology section. I hope that this meets with your approval. Badbilltucker 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Etiquette query
- Let passengers off the train first before you get on, as this speeds up your journey.
I was under the impression that this wasn't so much etiquette as the law, unless the legal status is specific to ex-BR. Chris cheese whine 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] London Underground
London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed format for Stations section per line
I've come up with a tabulated format for the station lists in the main part of the line articles: User:ArtVandelay13/Tube. This shows more information, such as connections, and shows the information in a clearer format. There are a few things to fix - to link the lines, and the years are all wrong, but... any thoughts? I could quite easily convert it into a template if people are keen to use it. ArtVandelay13 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
