Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

London Underground Ghosts - article just deleted

I was just reading London Underground trivia and came to the 'Hauntings' section at the bottom of the article. I had a vague recollection of an article London Underground Ghosts which I was about to provide a {{main}} link to, when I discovered that it had been deleted – apparently in the last 24hrs.

Was anyone aware of this article (which is in the 'See Also' section of London Underground? Or aware that it was under threat of deletion? Did anyone suggest its contents should be merged into the 'trivia' page? I can't assess it now, of course, since it has been deleted.

Thought I'd draw attention to it here, as I assume it's the most lilkely place to find these answers!

EdJogg 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good evening. I've just had a look through the deleted revisions and can inform that it was deleted early this morning following a prod tagging at 03:43, 8 May 2007 by Evan7257 who expressed a concern about the notability of the subject. At that time there wasn't much to the article but 88.109.156.210 added significantly to it on 12 May 2007 however this was simply copied from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A673391 which I think would be a copyright violation. Overall, I don't think the content merited an article of its own, probably would be more appropriate merged into London Underground trivia which Evan7257 did after adding the prod. None of the content of London Underground Ghosts has been lost. Hope this helps. Adambro 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The PROD information available to non-admins was insufficient to be certain that the article had been reviewed by WP:LT members before it was deleted. It's always frustrating to come across a page that has just been deleted... Cheers EdJogg 18:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think it warranted deletion, take it up at WP:DRV - admins do make mistakes, and some articles do get tagged as "non-notable" too quickly — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh...but I can't remember what was in it! EdJogg 19:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The admins can access the deleted articles - ask one of them to userify it to your userspace. That makes it invisible to google & breaks all the links to it, so it's not polluting the purity of the Wikipedia mainspace with its foul original-research non-notable presence, but lets people who want to work on it clean it up prior to re-introducing it. I'd strongly suggest changing the title to "myths about the London Underground" or something similar, which would allow items like Betjeman's South Kentish Town story, Bumper Harris the One Legged Escalator Rider and the German spies hiding in the King William Street tunnels to be included, expanding it out to beyond stubbiness — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I definately think that it was a good idea this article got deleted. Unisouth 05:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal

Could some members please help update our portal, I cannot do it on my own! Unisouth 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I can help look after the portal - what wants doing with it? - Jack Gordon 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

LUL/Tube Lines/TfL/Metronet Battery Locomotives

Just wondering whether or not the Battery and Maintenance Locomotives being tested at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, Wirksworth, require an article, or whether they can be added to an existing article. Being a volunteer there, I am in a perfect position to update on the proceedings. - Bluegoblin7 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can add that information to London Underground battery-electric locomotives. Unisouth 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Does the monthly collabaration article nomination still exist?

Noone seems to have made any nominations or votes for the monthly collabaration article which hasn't changed in over a year. Does the collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Collaboration still exist? ThanksTbo 157talk 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes if people vote for one. Unisouth 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal selected article and picture

Most Wikiprojects have a vote for the selected articles on the portals. Does this exist in this Wikiproject? Thanks.Tbo 157talk 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been trying for months to get members to help with portal. Voting is now open! Visit Portal:London Transport/Vote to vote for next months selected article and picture.

Wikiproject UK Trams

I think that a Wikiproject UK Trams might be in order at the present time. There are already several Wikiprojects that cover trams, but all seem to be rather blank in the UK area. There are hardly any articles on trams, and those that there are, are either stubs, lacking factual references, or are complete so that they only need to be edited to add specialist information. i have almost single handedly revamped the National Tramway Museum Page, and it would be hard to belive that a couple of months ago, it was a stub. Please rally your support or oposal here. The project would cover all trams, both modern and heritage, proposed and forgotten, built and demolished. The page will be started in due course here. - Bluegoblin7 14:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject London Transport only covers Croydon Tramlink and tram projects such as the Cross London Tram. Unisouth 11:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. Seeing as this project only covers the above, mroe are needed for the others, and to help expand the above! Please rally your support, and add information to the new project page! Bluegoblin7 12:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a note to say that this project has now gone live ----->WP:UK Trams

All London bus route articles up for deletion

See discussion here. (Note: I did not initiate the deletion procedure. It's listed here because it falls into the scope of this project.) --Oakshade 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Portal and collaboration - Please Participate!

Hi. Just a reminder to all users that they can now vote for the selected article and selected image each month. The project's monthly collaboration has also reopened. All users are strongly encouraged to participate in these activities. They only take a minute and do help in improving the quality of articles in our scope. Tbo 157talk 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated two images & an article to get the ball rolling. For info, the table template for adding images doesn't work correctly, so I've just added them as plain-text nominations — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Added images. Btw, what is the difference between selected articles and article collaboration? Simply south 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) selected article goes on the front page of the portal as the project's equivalent of a FA, while collaboration-of-the-month is when everyone chips in to source & rewrite a selected article. (In my experience, the latter tends to be fuel for revert wars) — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK... (hmmmmmm!)... Simply south 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

DLR

Has anyone else noticed the chaos that's engulfed Docklands Light Railway today (28 Aug)? Ought someone to do something? — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Docklands Light Railway#PSA / VO for the discussion on these reversions. (And if you are going to ask me on what PSAs and VOs are, i have little idea). Simply south 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh, something I know - PSA = "Passenger Service Assistant", VO = "Vehicle Operator". "Conductor" & "Driver" are sooo 20th Century — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
:p ... Thank and good to know. Simply south 16:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Afd on List of London streets and roads

There's an AfD currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of London streets and roads which regulars here might want to comment on — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What do we cover?

People seem to wonder what we cover so here is the latest comprehensive list;

  • London Underground
  • London Overground
  • Docklands Light Railway
  • Taxis
  • London Trams (including 1st generation)
  • National Rail stations within the London Travelcard zones
  • Roads within the London Travelcard zones including items relating to roads (such as the London Congestion Charge)
  • Airports
  • London Dial-A-Ride
  • London River Services
  • London Cycling
  • London Buses
  • London Coaches
  • Other London Rail

I hope that covers everything! Unisouth 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I just mention that if people need any extra help with trams, they can use WikiProject UK Trams to help them out! Bluegoblin7 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Quick question. When i TWP tag railway stations that are outside london but are within the zone (ie 6, A, B, C & D) do you want them included (with "..|undergound=yes|LUL-importance=...|..." ??? Pickle 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Another quick question - do we cover the bridges? I'm assuming we do, given that cars, buses, trains run over them, but they're run by Bridge House & not TfL — iridescent (talk to me!) 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
No we don't cover bridges as it is a building/structure which comes under a different project. Only buildings operated or part-operated by TfL are covered by WP:LT. Unisouth 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Featured/Good content

Do we really only have one Featured List and four Good Articles in our remit? That seems awfully low, especially given that none are about National Rail, none about buses and only the list about LUL, which are the three most heavily covered (both on Wikipedia and in the real world) aspects of transport in London. Are there some more floating round that haven't made it onto the list? — iridescent (talk to me!) 00:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

To be fair this project only fairly (ish) recently expanded beyond the scope of just the tube, to encompass all London transport. Thus many of the project banners, etc might not be on the covered articles and thus giving the correct data. I personally have had a purge and done all c2c, southeastern and southern station, and most FCC but a lot of the rest aren't even TWP tagged... Pickle 00:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
At some point I'll do an AWB run through Category:Streets in London and its subcategories to make sure we've caught all of them in our net (IMO, better to do it manually and assess the importance as you go along, rather than bot-tag them and have to go through the whole lot). However, a look at the list WP:LONDON maintains makes me think this really might be all there is. (Most of the tube line articles could probably pass a WP:GAC with very little work, just a few more references) — iridescent (talk to me!) 01:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Doing it now - expect howls of "why did you give my article a low-importance rating" protest. I've assessed purely on the basis of importance to the transport network, which basically means a low ranking for every road aside from the most significant A-roads & a few bus hubs like Oxford Street, Trafalgar Square etc. I've also prodded/AfD'd some of the sorrier "this is the street where I live" specimens I've come across. (I've only got two accusations of being a rampant deletionist on my talk page at the moment, I need to keep the quota up!)
All complete; I've tagged everything that was in Category:Streets in London that we could reasonably be expected to cover (hence, I've left out the pedestrianised shopping precincts, street markets etc), and assessed them in terms of how significant they are with regards to transport. I've sent the absolute worst offenders in the "this is the street where I live" style off to AfD, but I've deliberately left the majority untouched as I didn't want to fill up AfD with dozens of dubious streets. If anyone a) just got a copy of WP:TW and wants to test if the automatic-nomination button works, b) just failed an RFA on the grounds of "you need more experience with deletions" or c) is feeling particularly deletionist, get yourself over to Category:Low-importance London Transport articles and fill yer boots — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
But I don't understand why you think streets are part of your remit? Isn't this project just for stations and the like? Streets that don't even have buses on are only slightly connected to you - it feels like you are just tagging them to say that you don't see them as important. Articles that you don't see as important are hardly deletion material. Secretlondon 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Streets belong to WP:LONDON in my opinion. Secretlondon 05:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my ignorance but surley WP:LT covers all forms of transport within london - inlcuding some strange contraptions called the car and motorcylce which, last i herd, were used on almost all roads in Greater London... Pickle 13:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See above under "What do we cover?" if you haven't already. The remit here (at least, as I understand it), parallels the remit of Transport for London (the artist formerly known as London Transport) and hence includes roads. I've tagged virtually all the roads as low-importance to the project, other than the major transport arteries & a few with particular significance as transport hubs such as Oxford Street. I'm not tagging them as "unimportant" (and whilst tagging them, I'm taking care to explain this to in the edit summary) so there are plenty of pages like Whitehall that are of top importance to WP:LONDON but only mid importance to WP:LT, and some such as A23 road which are of higher importance to WP:LT.
I certainly don't want a repeat of the flamewars that erupted when WP:CHICAGO tagged every former & current Chicago resident, so I won't object if anyone removes the tag if they feel it's inappropriate (obviously, I can't speak for the project here, just for myself). However, I do think it's useful to have them tagged; some editors (notably Regan123) are putting a lot of work in merging & cross-referencing assorted road & rail stubs into valid articles (see my merge-and-expand jobs on A215 road or A1 road (London) for examples).
I've deliberately not prodded any of the roads and only AfD'd the most blatant "this is the street where I live, nothing much ever happened there" type articles such as Great College Street, both because I don't want to swamp AfD and because I know from experience that road & rail articles can usually be expanded hugely. However, the fact remains that Category:Streets in London contains an awful lot of sub-stubs which are unlikely ever to be expanded. I suspect in a number of cases these articles were created purely to get rid of redlinks on articles; witness the fact that every road in which one of Jack the Ripper's victim's was found has its own substub article.
I think streets qualitatively differ from the railway stations, in that whilst IMO every station is notable & expandable (long argument on the topic here to save rehashing it again), there are a finite number of railway stations in the world, most of which (especially in the UK) are well documented, and it is possible to cover them all in reasonable detail, whilst there are 70,000 entries in the London A-Z index alone and there's no possible way to cover them all
Depressingly, even after adding in the road articles, the part about WP:LT only having one featured list, no featured pictures or articles, and four good articles is still correct — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I have just spent the last couple of weeks rewriting the article on the City & South London Railway, the first of the tube railways, and submitted it for GA review so maybe we'll be have another Good Article soon. --DavidCane 22:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Forget to mention that City & South London Railway achieved GA status on 2 November and is now up for Featured Article review here. --DavidCane 21:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Gray's Inn Road

Have come across this while on the Great Tagging Spree. Does anyone have any thoughts as to what can be done with it? Someone's obviously put a hell of a lot of work into it but a separate paragraph for every house on a street of 306 houses seems to be an indiscriminate list of information by any possible standard — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, there is a hell of a lot of work thats gone into it. I don't have the herat to AFD it i'm afraid. Pickle 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I know, neither did I... but someone really needs to put a stop to it before the creator moves on to do the same to other roads. Incidentally, I noted you converted the map to a thumbnail - maps are exempt from the MoS guidelines on forced image widths due to the loss of detail when the size is reduced — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How do you caption the map for screenreaders without using "thumb" ??? Pickle 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Leave the "thumb" in, but also add a pixel width; as in, [[Image:BWFE plan (cropped).JPG|thumb|450px|right|Layout of the Broadwater Farm Estate]] (the forced-image-width map from Broadwater Farm). — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh cheers for that Pickle 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, this house-by-house approach is apparently a new trend - take a look at the dogs-breakfast of Lordship Lane (Haringey) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Je ne sais pas - i really don't know what to say about that one! Pickle 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this project claiming all street articles as part of its project? I'm trying to work out why St Agnes Place was tagged - it's never had any buses so I don't see how it is connected to London Transport. Secretlondon 04:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Roads are used for transport, the road are within london so why not? Think of it as a "child" of WP:London... Pickle 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
See my long reply above for why I've tagged the roads (incidentally, I've not tagged all the roads but only the ones that to my knowledge are car routes; I may have got some wrong, particularly in the S London suburbs, if the article didn't make it clear it was pedestrianised). I'm not removing the WP:LONDON tags in any circumstances, just tagging London-related transport-related articles with WP:LT in addition. (While I've not added the WP:LONDON tag to all the ones that didn't have it purely on grounds that it would be too complicated to assess them by two different criteria, obviously everything with the WP:LT tag will be London related so adding the London tag will be bot-able.) I certainly don't want an English version of this to happen so if anyone thinks I've tagged an article that shouldn't be tagged, go ahead and remove it — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

London Underground trivia AFD

This is undergoing its fourth nomination. Please note that the nominator has merged some into relevant articles and moved some to London Underground statistics. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination). Simply south 17:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm deliberately not getting involved in the AfD itself - while I can make an argument to keep it, in all honesty, if I saw a list like this relating to a field I wasn't connected to, I'd probably be a weak delete. I think a valid article could be spun out of the content (see my similar comments on London Underground Ghosts, above) — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll do the same with this one. It is likely to get deleted anyway. Tbo 157talk 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

London railway station move

I have put this up for WP:RM but with moveoptions. See Talk:London railway station#2007 requested move. Simply south 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Roundel

See Talk:London Underground#New article about the roundel logo and its history. Simply south 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming of lines

Unilateral renaming of every LU line

User:Sunil060902 has just renamed every LU line from Northern Line to Northern line etc with no apparent discussion or consensus to do so other then this festival of sockpuppetry , breaking dozens of links in the process. As there's no consensus as to what the proper form is - Capital Transport always uses upper case, TFL uses the lower case form, and Wikipedia policy would normally be to capitalise it as a proper name, does anyone have any opinion on this? I'm willing to rollback all the changes made, but don't want to do do so without a consensus as - while I don't agree with it - a case could be made for keeping them in this form. — iridescent 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Please could you provide a list of which links are broken in the above articles? I'll gladly reinstate them. Once again I remind you: it's mixed upper/lower case on all London Underground-branded literature, maps, signs and even some trains! Moreover, disambiguation does exist in relevant cases (eg. there are other Northern Lines around the world). Should we refer to c2c as "C2C" to provide a counter-argument? Regards, Sunil060902 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Could someone rename them back to the articles' previous forms please. TfL always refers to them as 'Lines' and not as the 'northern', 'jubilee' etc. So as such Northern Line etc is the proper official term. Unisouth 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Techinically, that's not true, the TfL style is "Northern line". That's no reason to use them here though, and I've twice asked the user to stop. Reversions will begin shortly. --Mr Thant 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Thant, I can't find any broken links, so may I ask politely why are you making such a fuss? These are articles referring to specific TfL lines. Please consider this fact! So will you rename c2c to "C2C"? That's in small case! Sunil060902 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, almost forgot! I have a 1994 Capital Transport "London Underground Handbook" which has mixed case for all the line by line descriptions. So it would appear that it's not by any means a new fad by TfL! Best, Sunil060902 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sunil060902, why do "TfL uses mixed capitals" notices have to be inserted into every LU line (and possibly others)? If it needs to be used, i think a compromise would be just to leave it at TFL and LU only. Simply south 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
So that you don't have to look up another article to get that info! It's only two full lines of text! Best, Sunil060902 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I am amazed that this is able to generate so much discussion. It seems that this is the single most important issue currently affecting the Project. I might accept that if every article had GA status, but they do not. Surely, we ought to put more of our energies into getting the articles up to GA status as opposed to arguing over semantics/grammar. I think too many people are looking through the telescope the wrong way ... please can we look at the bigger picture before we get upset about the details. Catlows Cat 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

TfL use mixed capitals

Next time you look at an Underground map, leaflet, sign, or a train with a line-label on the front or passenger window, ask yourself which is TfL's preferred branding for each of their lines:

Is it:

Name Line
Name line
name Line
or
name line
.
These are brands after all! - best, Sunil060902 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Wikipedia style guidelines specifically say we're meant to ignore a brand's typographical quirks in the interests of clarity, and I agree with them. No one denies TfL uses this style, but that doesn't mean we have to follow it, the same way we don't write every tube article in New Johnston. --Mr Thant 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to "move" the c2c article then? best, Sunil060902 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that an edit war is going to start here over these naming conventions. I do see how Tfl uses Circle line over Circle Line, but honestly I don't think that either title is suitable for Wikipedia. It seems that the official names of the tube lines are the names themselves, minus the word "line" (ex: simply Piccadilly, not Piccadilly Line/line). The official tube map displays it this way, as well does TfL's website, which explains why "line" is not capitalised, since it is technically not part of the title. I think we should look into naming conventions like Bakerloo (tube line) or something similar. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, the same website displays captions such as "Current Piccadilly line status". best, Sunil060902 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the following has been inserted into all tube line articles:

Note: Although it is not grammatically correct, TfL nowadays seem to use mixed upper/lower case when referring to the line names on all literature, maps, signs and even labels on some trains. For example, the Circle line is always listed as Circle line, not Circle Line. However this does not extend to National Rail services, eg. the North London Line.

However I don't agree with this. As a user mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#London Transport line renaming, whether the correct form is "line or "Line" depends on whether you see the whole name, i.e."Norther Line", as the proper noun or if you only see "Northern" as the proper noun, "line" just being inserted as a common noun. This is simialr to "station". For example, "Euston station" is correct while "Euston Station" is not as "station" is just a common noun added to denote that it is a station. Tbo 157(talk) 16:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, do you disagree with the actual renaming or me stating that it's incorrect in the para. above? best, Sunil060902 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)I disagree with the statement you made, saying it is incorrect. I agree with the renaming from "Line" to "line" for the reasons I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#London Transport line renaming. Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


Hi everyone! How do I publish a nice picture of a Northern Line, I mean Northern line (LOL!) train with a mixed case label on the cab door? That would be my "Exhibit A". best, Sunil060902 17:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Click on "Upload file" to the right of the screen. FWIW, TFL isn't consistent in their capitalisation - check out their own website — iridescent 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict)To upload a picture of such nature, it would need to be your own work or work that it available under a free license, which is accepted here at Wikipedia, to comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy. If after reading the Wikipedia:Image use policy, you're sure that the image does comply with the policy, you can upload it at Wikipedia:Upload. You may contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, here's my "exhibit A": Sunil060902 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And here's my "exhibit B": Sunil060902 13:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Found discussion

I have found the discussion about the these name changes. See Talk:London_Underground#Names_of_LU_lines. Simply south 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone takes the "consensus" there to seriously, be aware that two of the three people arguing for lower-case have since been indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry on railway-related discussions — iridescent 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Station Complexes

Apologies if one already exists, but I thought it might be an idea to provide a list (easier) or an article (a bit more care needed) of station complexes within London.

Definition? Any two stations that are linked to one another by dedicated subways/footbridges or other National Rail/TfL property. Ie. interchange between the component stations is not necessary at street level. The obvious example is Bank/Monument, which the article in Wikipedia points out is officially a complex. But what about unofficial complexes? Most of the National Rail termini/Underground interchanges would qualify I would assume. Of course there are several "close-shaves", like Limehouse railway station where one has to tread a few yards at street level to get to the DLR and vice versa. But these could be listed too as a subsection. On the other hand Paddington tube station can be considered a single station by virtue of the mainline station linking to two components.

The main inspiration has got to be the new St. Pancras railway station, which when combined with the Underground station, the new Thameslink platforms, and Kings Cross railway station (accessible from St. Pancras via the tube station!) will provide a grand total of 34 platforms (mainline/subsurface/tube)! A record I think in London and the wider UK.

Is this an interesting idea? Bad idea? best, Sunil060902 10:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, looks like it's actually Waterloo railway station, with 36, increasing to 38 when you take in the connection to Southwark tube station. But that means two sets of Jubilee platforms. But I think it's the only such example! Sunil060902 16:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Alarm bells start ringing when you have to provide a definiton of what the article title means! The same problem existed at London railway station, until the scope of the article was revised, and the article renamed to suit. You will run into the same problem. The title must include the word 'London', but then you have to define 'London' as well. Will it cover all stations served by TfL's railways -- what about Amersham, well outside London? Will it cover Central London or Greater London? -- where is the boundary set, and how will the user know? What about all the 'station complexes' outside London? -- an article describing these is almost implied by this article's very existence.
'Street level' poses problems too. Paddington GWR and H&C platforms are at the same level, although you have to use a footbridge, and neither is far below 'street level'. So I think you're implying that a complex is somewhere that you can change rail lines without leaving the station boundaries. Ummmm. Another definition needed!
Finally, what would you hope to achieve by grouping together these complexes? Would anyone search for the term? Is there another page where the list would fit more comfortably (railway station complex, for example, which is almost implied as existing).
Sorry that this is so very negative. I'm not simply trying to blast your idea out of the sky -- I'm a software engineer by trade, and by habit will look for the problem areas first!
EdJogg 13:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Station boundaries are quite easy to define, are they not? But I will point out, at least Amersham is not a complex LOL! Sunil060902 14:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'll get a sandbox up and running eventually, but here's my list so far of London complexes:

Sunil060902 14:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'
Stations Mainline platforms Surface LUL platforms Subsurface LUL platforms Tube LUL platforms Other platforms Total platforms
Kings Cross-St. Pancras 13 St. Pancras, 2 St. Pancras Thameslink, 11 Kings Cross 0 2 6 0 34
Waterloo, Waterloo East, and Southwark 19 Waterloo (plus 5 disused Eurostar), 4 Waterloo East 0 0 10 (including 2 Southwark) 0 33 (including 2 Southwark, plus 5 disused Eurostar)
Euston 18 0 0 6 0 24
Victoria 19 0 2 2 0 23
Liverpool Street 18 0 2 2 0 22
Paddington 14 2 Hammersmith and City 2 District/Circle 2 0 20
London Bridge 15 0 0 4 0 19
Bank-Monument 0 0 2 6 2 10
Charing Cross 6 0 0 4 (plus 2 disused Jubilee) 0 10 (plus 2 disused Jubilee)
Moorgate 2 Thameslink, 2 Great Northern 0 4 2 0 10
Cannon Street 7 0 2 0 0 9
Marylebone 6 0 0 2 0 8
Blackfriars 5 0 2 0 0 7

Sunil060902 17:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as the table currently stands it would possibly fit well on London station group? Indeed, some of the information is already there!
EdJogg 17:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've got Kings Cross/St Pancras in as it would be when all the platforms (including Thameslink) come on line, but what's going to happen to the five Eurostar platforms at Waterloo? Sunil060902 23:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've altered Waterloo re. Eurostar, given next week's changes. Sunil060902 11:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Participants

This is getting pretty big and so i am possibly going to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Participants. Would anyone object if i also moved Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Membership to {{User WPLT}}? Simply south 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No objectios so i did. Simply south (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thames Clipper pic (as per earlier Request)

I have a pic! Nice one too!

Sunil060902 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Stratford DLR (as per earlier Request)

I also have a pic of this, though not uploaded yet. Sunil060902 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded just now!

Sunil060902 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for these images! Unisouth (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming of LU Lines

I have opened a discussion on this at Talk:Bakerloo line#Requested Move and tagged all pages. Bearing in mind the various comments above we need to bottom this out one way or another. Regan123 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I've been taking a look at categorisation under Category:Transport in London - the category was getting a bit difficult for a reader to navigate, so some new subcategories have been created, which make the category more understandable.

Naturally not everyone will agree with the categories they will sit in - please don't feel put out if there's a re-categorisation on your article, and make changes as you want - it's genuine attempt at making it more consistent and easy to navigate. It's very tempting to put everything at the top level of Transport in London, but this doesn't necessarily serve the reader well - but of course it depends on the article.

New useful categories:

As I said, not everyone will agree, and please don't take umbrage - it's a positive effort to sort articles more effectively. Even if your favourite article isn't on the top category level now, it's logical and should be easy to use. Also, the category description points directly to the major articles for ease of use. Have a browse. --Cnbrb 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

LT Tagging

I notice that someone from this project is tagging articles with the LT tag that seem inappropriate to be included in the scope of this project - Turnpike Lane - about the street - as well as Turnpike Lane tube station; Stroud Green Road? I removed the Turnpike Lane one but then wanted to check if these articles are meant to be tagged before touching the SGR one. Can someone check & ammend or let me know and I willhjuk (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think these articles are within the scope of the project. The project is involved with all forms of transport i would have thought. Roads of all forms are also covered in WP:TIS. Simply south (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fairnuff. Will leave to it this group's discretion. hjuk (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal:London Transport Did you knows

Hi. The Did you know section of the London Transport Portal doesnt't seem to get updated very often so I have created the page, Portal:London Transport/Submit DYK where users can submit any interesting facts. All facts submitted will be placed in the Did you know section of the portal. So please submit your facts. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:LT Ad

I think that now the project is large enough, it should have an ad in the Wikipedia ads template. So if someone can come up with a design (that must of course include our project logo) then please submit it here and place it in the Wikipedia ads template, thank you! Unisouth (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Peer review of London congestion charge

I have requested a peer review of London congestion charge. Any comments would be gratefully accepted as well as any advice on getting a map for the expanded zone. Regan123 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Main page redesign

The main page for this project does seem to be unorganised and confusing. I am willing to redesign the main page but I thought I should ask opinions from participants of this WikiProject first. What do other users think? Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it desperately needs a cutting down - it seems to have become a giant random list of LT related material, rather than the project overview it ought to be. Compare it to the short concise overviews at our country-cousins WP:UKT and WP:UKRD. My personal nomination for the chop would be the Our articles section, which is patently not a list of our articles, or even "our most important articles" - what kind of list finds space for an airport with one scheduled flight per week and a non-existent railway line but not arguably the most significant civil engineering project of all time? — iridescent 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. WP:UKT recently had a similar main page redesign so I may use some ideas from there too. Any other opinions from other users will be appreciated and I will go ahead with the redesign when I can as long as there are no objections. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The project did start of as WikiProject Underground, which was a relatively small project. Thus didn't need many categorys and seperate pages, so it was all crammed into the home page. But now it is fully grown in WikiProject London Transport I think it needs to be cut down and modernised for the first time in it's history. Unisouth (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I have shortened the main page as suggested. There is probably still a bit more I can do in terms of design and I will do that when I get a chance. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Crossrail

At the moment, Crossrail isn't specified as being encompassed by this WikiProject. Given that it is included on TfL 'future' maps (eg the 2010 one amongst others) and that the mockup train is at Acton museum, and it very clearly will be a 'London' service, shouldn't it be added in here? --AlisonW (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

er ... partially scratch that. It isn't listed on the project page, but is on the talkpage of Crossrail ... --AlisonW (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Portal again

How can we raise the profile and awareness of P:LT? Suggestions welcome. Simply south 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually sure if this would violate any policy, but I think it would be great to stick a "Part of WP:LT" banner across every article in our remit (on the article itself, not the talkpage), with links to the portal and WP:LT itself - ideally at the top but more likely down at the bottom above the references. At the very least, the high-traffic articles like Piccadilly Line ought to have one - I realise there's one in the infobox, but realistically, who reads infoboxes through to the end? See the Portal:Military of the United States box on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), for example, for an idea of what I have in mind. Can anyone think of any reason not to do this? — iridescent 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
We should add the portal link where appropriate, but I don't think we need to have more than one portal link on each page and the portal links in infoboxes are more prominent than if they were low down on the page. If an infobox with the portal link isn't already present the {{LTportal}} template can be used to add a portal link in the see also section. It's my feeling that we should really only add this to articles where the LTPortal is the main or principal category. --DavidCane 03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there should be a new template that lists each portal assocciated with the article. The typeface being larger depending if the portal link is more relevant. Unisouth 08:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

London Transport Portal
I think that's a good idea - otherwise some articles could end up with five or six portals. (Presumably most of ours would at the very least also warrant P:London.) — iridescent 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Streets coverage extension

WP:LTs coverage of streets has been extended to cover Bridges and Road Signage including Legible London. Unisouth 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Tornado Clipper Diagram

Hi, everyone. I have just made this diagram of Thames Clippers Tornado Clipper for use by this project. Unisouth (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject logo

Do any users think its time to get a new logo for this WikiProject? Maybe more in line with the new silver roundels created by USer:Unisouth or any other designs. Suggestions? Tbo 157(talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally i don't see any problem with the current logo. Simply south (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, indeed I quite like it for its historical reference. --AlisonW (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Bus route 53

I photographed this bus at Liverpool Street and it has the number 53 on its blind, however it appears to be on a different route from London Buses route 53. I have checked the Wiki article with the info on TFL's website and it appears to be correct. Can anyone tell me what is going on? Oxyman42 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oxyman42, Occam's Razor surely suggests the driver has the wrong number on his destination blind? The 53 does not go to Liverpool Street railway station, and Community Transport (CT Plus) do not operate it. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha! It's actually London Buses route 153, CT Plus do operate that. Maybe the 1 is hidden by part of the blind itself? Sometimes happens on newer buses. Maybe you could rename your pic London Bus route 153.jpg? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Oxyman42 is very grateful for your input and has renamed the image as suggested, thanks Oxyman42 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

London Buses coverage extension

Our coverage of London Buses has been extended to cover the bus types themselves. All buses on the List of bus types used in London should be 'tagged'. If you know a bus type used in london that is not on that list then you can update it and place our template on that articles talk page. Unisouth (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A new wiki specially for Trains... And Trams/Streetcars etc... And much more...

Hello readers of WikiProject London Transport!

I just wondered if any of you would be interested in joining up to Train Spotting World, a wiki just for railways and similar things! We are also in the process of setting up several "Workforces", similar to WikiProjects, and were wondering if anyone wnated to help!

Various Wikipedians have gone over there, including myself, User:Tbo 157, User:Slambo, User:EdJogg, User:Timtrent and User:S.C.Ruffeyfan.

If you want more info, or have joined up and want some guidance, let me know here or there on my talk page!

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that the intention is NOT to 'poach' editors from WP -- you are needed here!
All the listed editors are still active at WP, but TSW allows a little more creative freedom...
Feel free to join us editing in both Wikis.
EdJogg (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
There is already a well established WikiProject for UK Railways and a relatively new one for UK Trams here on WikiPedia. Also note this is not a place you can put advertisements for other WikiProjects outside of Wikipedia UK topics. Unisouth (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)