Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

LU sta list

Can i suggest that this list be renamed? If we are having things for integration purposes then we may include London Overground, whilst DLR is also already included as well as the LU. Simply south (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find the list. Can you provide a link to it. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of London Underground stations. Its an FL. Simply south (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I can see that there is a small case for inclusion of the London Overground stations within a consolidated list, London Overground is a train operating company providing a National Rail service over tracks and stations owned by Network Rail rather than being part of the London Underground or DLR systems which are primarily owned by TfL. London Overground stations are all still named "xxx railway station" rather than "xxx tube station" in accordance with the existing naming convention and the stations are listed at List of London railway stations which covers the Network Rail services in the London area. Therefore, I don't believe that there is a need to rename the list. What was needed was a specific statement in the opening paragraphs that London Overground stations are in the list of railway stations. This I have added. --DavidCane (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Bus routes Afd

Afd on List of bus routes in London. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bus routes in London (2nd nomination) Simply south (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:UK light rail

I have put this up for merge with Template:Britishmetros. See Template talk:UK light rail#Merge. Simply south (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These are seperate projects, plese discuss the issue on their project talk pages. Unisouth (talk) 08:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

East London Line RM and suggestion

This is currently up for a requested move to East London Railway. See Talk:East London Line#Requested move

Seperately, i think it is about time this project got an announcements template thing. Also, could we have a newsletter? Simply south (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about starting a monthly newsletter called The Metropolitan. I will need help starting it up and then continuing it though. Unisouth (talk) 09:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I am happy to set it up and edit it. What format are you thinking? Look at the Signpost, WP:Derbys newsletter, at Train Spotting World's Transport Journal Bluegoblin7 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Something like the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter, see my talk page. Unisouth (talk) 11:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I have started working on it in my sandbox, so please comment there. One question, could you give me the codes for the project colours?

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 11:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

We use the standard codes for Red, White & Blue. For line colours see the maps section of the Portal (click on edit). Unisouth (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have nearly completed a mock up, and if someone can just drop by and ok it, we'll be ready to launch on Sunday.

Bluegoblin7 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is your link that you are meaning... Simply south (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes. Woops! Would have helped if i'd included it. Thanks Simply South. Yes, the link is User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox3, and will eventually be at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/The Metropolitan, but that's really long so hopefully shortcuts such as Metro, The Metropolitan, The Metro etc. Bluegoblin7 13:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe not as there all in use! Bluegoblin7 13:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross-space redirects are not really allowed here so instead it should be put under something like WP:LT/M. Simply south (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Project Barnstar?

Do we have a project Barnstar?

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 13:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two things. In answer to your q, no. Secondly, no need to ask it twice. Simply south (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask it twice? Sorry... my computer is having a bit of a crazy moment at the moment.

I'll get on and make one. Shouldn't take a minute, i'll use the logo...

Bluegoblin7 14:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

For rail-related articles, there's TWP's Railroad Star. Since it's been awarded precisely seven times since its inception, it could probably do with a wider airing. — iridescent 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a project Barnstar. If anyone could design it I would happily start giving it out to people who made great contributions to WP:LT. Unisouth (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan

I am pleased to announce that the layout for our new newsletter The Metropolitan is now online at User:Bluegoblin7/Sandbox3. The only problem is is we have no content in it!

So, first of all, we need some section headings. I have added a few ideas, but if you think differently, add them below!

Secondly, we actually need some content to add in the sections! For the first issue, I will put as much stuff as I have time to do, but for future ones, this is only going to work with YOUR help!

The layout may change over time, as may the name, format, title image, and even editor! So please, keep on suggesting changes!

Thanks,

Bluegoblin7 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Im happy with it. Are other users happy with it? Also everyone is an editor here so im not sure what you mean by the editors may change. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 00:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it as well. Don't forget that the WHOLE project is involved with this and ALL editors have a say and NOONE is in control of it, not even me! Unisouth (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, presumably people will coma and go from WP... therefore an editor change?

I am about to add some content (or maybe not... I have NO idea what to call the headings...) so check back soon...

Bluegoblin7 16:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think what Unisouth meant is that we shouldn't pick editors and that everyone can edit any of the issue pages if they wish to. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problems... As long as they dont edit it once it's been launched... Bluegoblin7 17:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your ideas? And also like i said before, i think we need an announcements thing showing what things are up for RM, XfD etc. Simply south (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my ideas are the main box news, annoucements etc, showing the month's progress. Other boxes could include line news, and i also want to theme each issue around a line, if possible, but that can only work if people expand one line within each month!

And i'm now exhausted of ideas...

Bluegoblin7 18:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

London congestion charge - FAC

I have nominated London congestion charge for featured article status. Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/London congestion charge. Regan123 (talk) 22:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Talk:North_London_Line#Merge_NLR_with_NLL There's a discussion on merging North London Railway with North London Line, but only two people are involved so more input is needed. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Portal

Hi. Just thought I'd inform you that the amount of votes and nominations at Portal:London Transport/Vote is decreasing again. So please take just a second to pariticipate in a process which is much easier than any Wikipedia project process such as RfA, AfD etc. Also remember to update the portal. If you feel its not up to standard, then feel free to suggest improvements. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 21:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated a bunch of articles I've spotted on a quick skim-through of LT-related articles, to give the voters something to vote on. As I've been involved in the writing of so many of the nominated articles, I'll excuse myself from any decision on what goes live to avoid any COI. — iridescent 16:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:LT Range Extension for 2008

Our project now includes ALL transport in London. This includes bridges, private taxi companies including dot2dot, river operators, bus operators that extend into greater London but not based in greater London and all other types of transport in london that are not neccesarily operated by TfL. Unisouth (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It already does :) Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A while ago, i tagged London Bridge (Lake Havasu City) due to historical reasons. What would this be rated? Its connection is that this is where the old London Bridge was moved to before the current one.

(This is one example of a London Transport related article, and it is not even in the UK)

Simply south (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It already does. No it did not, it only covered TfL and its predecessors articles. Unisouth (talk) 10:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the scope on the main page - "The project also covers Crossrail, any other transport systems operating within and around London". Its been like that since last year. In my view, its always covered all transport in London and since noone owns or controls this project, it always has been what the members of this project view it to be. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 11:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Have all roads, bridges, notable street, rivers, companies, associated buildings etc been tagged? I don't think so. Simply south (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if its not tagged. Its not easy to tag everything. The other day I spotted some underground related articles which weren't tagged. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All projects have guidelines Tbo and I feel you are trying to control this project yourself. Also diagrams can now only be voted for selected image once every three months. Unisouth (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, I don't want to get into any ridiculous arguments. If i wanted to, I could same the same to you or any other editor. Please can we just edit as a community in a calm way without making accusations which really don't help on Wikipedia. If you disagree with me on something, just discuss. Im not the sort of person who will persistently edit war to get my point across and I will always try to get a community view. Also, yes projects do have guidelines and all members have a say on what those guidelines are. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 16:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I know everyone has a say but you must discuss changes first before major changes. Anyway I don't want to argue with you (if that is what you call it) and if you look you will release that I have not reverted anything. Thank you for reading. Unisouth (talk) 09:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan has arrived!

Finnaly we have a newsletter. It is on a Trial basis. If you would like to parcipitate in the trial please follow the instructions on this page and you will recieve Januarys newsletter.

Unisouth (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

=( So what happened to my version!?!?!? Last time I do anything for this project - not one comment, one idea, one anything! I'll be elsewhere if you need me... but I may not be interested....

Bluegoblin7 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I am sorry I thought you cancelled your version as no more was heard of it, oh well. Unisouth (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was waiting for input! I don't want to put the whole thing together myself - for several reasons!

1. I have other commitments
2. If it is a community newsletter, then the community should decide what's in it (and can we PLEASE stop arguing about people owning the project! I really couldn't care less, but as I said... i'm off)
3. I am not that active within WP:LT, as I have other WP that I am more involved with and nearer to location wise.

Anyway, so long. Oh and please cross me off the participants list.

Bluegoblin7 13:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)(EX-MEMBET)

London Underground stats AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground statistics. Simply south (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Co-located tube and railway stations

Members of WP:LT are invited to join in this discussion at WT:RAIL. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi. As you can see our collaboration hasn't been very active and I have heard suggestions from project members that collaborations aren't good as they promote edit warring. So should the collaboration be kept and are users going to vote for one? Opinions please. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes becuase it encourages more editing to an article and improves it to at least start level. It doesn't promote edit warring as all Wikipedians should work together. Unisouth (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes they "should" but do they? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on the popularity of the article or how important the topic is. Judging by member activity here at late only a few members seem to be editing and making articles about London Transport. Most of us WP:LT members are civilised so '"warring" should not be a problem. By the way I am setting up a temporary task force intending to improve the River Services sector of articles as the sector seems to be slacking compared to the other sectors. Unisouth (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps making a task force for all the sectors of transport in London, encouraging users to edit articles within that task force would be better as the number of articles WP:LT covers is becoming quite large. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea, we now have to just set it up. Unisouth (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Our first task force has now been set up, see the link in our Navigation bar at the bottom of the main page. Unisouth (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Metropolitan Poll

Bluegoblin7 has created a new design for our newsletter. Please vote for the "skin" you would like us to use. The poll finishes on the 29th February so get voting! Unisouth (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Current

As above or view all the issues so far at this page.

For

1. Unisouth (talk) — Obviously

Against

BG7

See here.

For

1. BG7 16:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC) (Would i not be?)

Against

---

No longer required. Unisouth (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Custom House to North Woolwich and beyond

I am still not sure how this is going to work if both the Royal Docks Heritage Railway and Crossrail are both trying to use the same stretch of track for their uses. Simply south (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Why Crossrail would come up from well below surface, use a little bit of existing track (which clearly needs replacement) and then dive under ground and water again is beyond me and, istm, very unlikely. Crossrail would, however, be quite likely to use the wayleave of the existing railway and - like HS1 under the North London line - route their metals below ground along that route line. Research needed! --AlisonW (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I read in one of the railway periodicals that the Royal Docks Heritage Railway will only be allowed to operate on the proviso that they give up the land in event of the construction of Crossrail. the Heritage railway is only seen as temporary with the aim of providing a tourist attraction in the area during the 2012 Olympics. I regret that I can't remember which magazine it was in or what month to provide a citation, I would disagree that it is a little bit of track being talked about, remember that it includes the tunnel under the royal docks. Oxyman42 (talk) 18:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Measuring on google earth it would be just over two miles of track/route that would be reused. I still wonder about whether coming up for Excel, reusing this section, then going down again under the Thames is actually as cost-effective as staying under throughout. Also is the Connaught tunnel a suitable loading gauge for the proposed service? --AlisonW (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an article in the current "Heritage Railway" magazine that basically says the Royal Docks Heritage Railway is now being abandoned because of Crossrail. The Connaught tunnel used to be able to take standard UK main line stock and as far as I am aware Crossrail's gauge is no greater then that. also this webpage http://www.railwaypeople.com/rail-news-articles/crossrail-progress-387.htm states that "The south eastern section will join what is currently the North London Line near Custom House, running through the existing Connaught Tunnel beneath the Royal Docks." Oxyman42 (talk) 08:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Single line per station

Please!

1. only use a single line of information per station; inserting <br /> breaks the continuity of the actual route line when users change their font size.
2. Could we make a policy decision as to what information should be put alongside the station name?
   1. Nothing
   2. Interchange icons (national rail, LUL, LOL, line-coloured roundels?)
   3. Text description of what interchanges are available

or some defined combination, but then *stick to one of them* as at the moment it seems different people are running around through all the templates making their preferred change then a day or two later someone replaces all that work with their preference, and in many cases mistakes in what is left behind. --AlisonW (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Generally ONLY the national rail symbol, TfL roundels (there are no official line coloured roundels so are barred only use the sector roundels), national tramway symbol, plane and Tyne and Wear metro symbols should be placed alongside the station name. Unisouth (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I would love to agree with you, I am seeing rashes of multi-coloured roundels being added to route maps in the last few days. For instance, see Template:District_Line for a particularly multi-coloured example! --AlisonW (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That is really confusing and it is against our guidelines. Unisouth (talk) 09:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a point in collaborations?

Past records of collaboration and edit histories suggest that collaborations don't encourage editing in any way. Editors generally seem to edit what they want to and will not edit a collaboration chosen by the community. Im really questioning whether theres a point in the collaborations since editors should work to improve all articles within our scope. Perhaps task forces encouraging editing of stubs would be better. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of the "everyone collaborates on a particular article" approach as it tends to result in people trying to make contradictory changes to articles and getting frustrated. In my experience the most fruitful approach is for one person to write/rewrite something and then invite others to amend it as necessary (see Railway stations in Cromer for a recent fairly good example of this) - but that's just me. — iridescent 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Our collaboration doesn't seem to be working does it? Which is why I have set up our first task force, see the task forces link on the main page. If you would like to create a task force please create a sub page of the main task forces page and edit our template to include your task force. You should create a special logo for it as it helps identify it better when looking at our main template on article talk pages. See Talk:Thames Clipper to understand what I mean. Unisouth (talk) 10:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some projects have an adopt an article scheme, where a user adopts an article and works on it while also inviting others to work on it when necessary. This could help the task forces. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Linking the above idea I have decided to close our collaboration system. Unisouth (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Roundels

On RDTs and other things, should {{click}} be used in conjuction with the images to show the different lines? Simply south (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

meta:Template:Click suggests strongly not, but I could see some usefulness in the suggestion. --AlisonW (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Metropolitan steam locomotive

Does anyone know which class of locomotive is in this picture? I found it in the Metro-land article and would like it to be added to the relevant locomotive article.Oxyman42 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's known as "Metropolitan Railway No. 1", so I tracked-down (through Google image search) that it is a Metropolitan Railway E Class; and on that page you'll find a link to the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre page all about it. While you're at it, the Metropolitan Railway article lists the preserved coaching stock, but says nothing about preserved locos or freight.

Both BRC and MR articles are without many pictures (BRC has none!), so you could place it on both these too!

EdJogg (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, I have added the image to the E Class and BRC article as you suggested.

I Have many issues with the Metropolitan Railway article though. For example, the line diagram shows the Metropolitan line as is today with the Jubilee line present, rather than the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways as the article is titled. The article seems to be the result of a merger between the Metropolitan Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway and doesn't work as a whole. (In my opinion they should be split) The style of the article is inconsistent and appears to be a merger of several other pages, parts of the text are good others can be described as un-encyclopedic eg: the MetR "could be seen as a 19th century precursor of Crossrail" why? So could the Central Line could it not? I feel that this article is going to need attention from someone with more experience of editing Wikipedia and/or knowledge about the subject than me. Oxyman42 (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a long term plan to go through all of the line articles and improve the early history sections or create specific new articles where appropriate. I started with the Northern line (my favourite as I grew-up in Morden) and have done the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway and the City & South London Railway and am currently working offline on the Charing Cross, Euston & Hampstead Railway which between them make up the modern Northern line.

I may do the MR and MDR next - the history of the Metropolitan and Metropolitan District Railways is entwined as the latter was originally established as a financial mechanism to extend the former so it may be better to keep the early history together and separate them at the time Charles Yerkes bought out the MDR. The MR article really needs its own historic version of the route diagram showing the services as it was in the "classic era" of the 1930s (probably at around 1935 - before the Bakerloo line took over the Stanmore branch and the line was cut back from Brill and Verney junction) without the interchange information that the current diagram has and showing opening and closing dates in the way the C&SLR and CCE&HR diagrams do. --DavidCane (talk) 02:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. It's good to know that the articles are in good hands. EdJogg (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Station images

I know I've been away from this project for a while, and for that I apologise (Real Life gets in the way of online activities sometimes) but I once created a comprehensive page listing all the Underground & DLR station pictures needed and it seems to have gone. I can find no discussion relating to its removal either. All that remains is a frankly rather poor list of "needed images" on the Requests section.

Also, I've browsed through many of the station pages, and there are now many poor quality shots being used, which is most disappointing. The station images should be visually informative, giving a flavour of the look and feel of each station and/or it's exterior location. What's the point in just posting a close-up photo of a roundel from every station interior, for example? Or a blurry or very dark shot of a station entrance which is in the distance, surrounded by loads of sky or roads? We should reinstate the previous page listing required station pics (which was sorted by line and station name) which I had carefully constructed, and review the photos currently being used in the infoboxes for each station to ensure they are 1) PD or have owner's consent for use, 2) are clear and useful (not blurry, over/underexposed, etc). HTUK (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't go into detail of specific pictures, as it wasn't my intention to single anyone out. I appreciate that any Wikiproject, especially one as broad as London Transport, needs the contributions and collaboration of everyone who can put something positive in. I think all of us contributing should be able to determine whether what we're adding is of sufficient quality, so I don't want to appear to be censoring or editing specific content. I guess my main concern was that my comprehensive table page of station images appears to have been removed, yet there are still quite a few images outstanding. HTUK (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted the needed images list as there was no evidence of any concern over the lack of images. I agree that there are many low quality pictures but, in my opinion a low quality picture is better than no picture. If you want High quality pictures you are free to do something about acquiring them yourself, Personally I don't see the point of being too fussy and getting no pictures. All pictures on Wikipedia/Wikimedia commons should confirm to Wikimedia's policies on copyright issues and permission for use, why single out these Images? Oxyman42 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm not meaning to sound critical - given my table of needed images had been removed (probably a while ago - I'll check the history and perhaps ask Unisouth), you understandably saw that omission and filled the gap. I see your point about lower quality images being better than nothing, but there are a couple of problems with that - firstly, it means it might still be necessary to go back over articles again at a later date and update the images (which seems to be excessive duplication of effort, and also means that in the meantime articles are not as polished as they could be), and perhaps more seriously, there is a risk of offending previous contributors if their pictures are moved or replaced in the articles some time later. As for the question of why I "single out" these images, if you look at several of them, you'll find I contributed previously to them, hence my interest. You're right though - I can of course add more myself (and I intend to, having already started taking some from the remaining places). Will hopefully be able to spend time on it at the weekend. HTUK (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to remove the requested images list and/or improve it you are free to do so. I don't think people should get too offended by having their images replaced by better quality ones as they become available, that is largely how wikipedia works after all isn't it? I just feel that if you require the highest quality then it will take years to get a picture for every station. I probably have submitted blurry photos as I have no tripod or the skill required to take pictures in low light conditions, I thought they were an improvement over nothing but would not be concerned if they were replaced by better ones Oxyman42 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I found the previous table page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_London_Transport/Current_Stations_Images, so am reposting here. It's a bit out of date, so will need cleaning up, etc, and it should probably be integrated to the main project page later, but I'll leave that to Unisouth to decide as he's managing the structure of this project (I think). HTUK (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi HTUK,

While you were away, we had several "discussions" on the "ownership" of the project. We cam to the conclusion that there is no owner, structurer etc, there are simply "active members". Therefore, please feel free to add what you want. Thanks!

BG7 13:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tube usage

Wiould anyone object if i added tubeexits02, tubeexits03, tubeexits04, tubeexits05 and tubeexits06 to Template:Infobox London station, showing the different usages (amount of journeys) from the different number of years, instead of having the current tubeexits or as well as? Simply south (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea. I can see two issues:

1. The presence of tubeexits in an infobox is used as a test to add the TfL stats section and to put the LT Portal tag at the bottom of the box. The code would need to be modified so that any of the alternatives suggested would also make this happen.
2. If statistics are added for all of the years there is a danger that the info box will become rather long - potentially an extra three rows in addition to the current information and with the likelihood that it would grow further as new data becomes available (incidentally, the earliest entry/exits stats on the TfL site are for 2003).

That said, I'm not sure why showing each of the years' statistics is desirable. The existing link gives the really interested reader access to all of the data anyway, though I doubt that many actually click through to the TfL site. It might be useful on the List of London Underground stations to have columns for each of the years. --DavidCane (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I did it before noticing this reply (as i have raised it about a month before). Anyway, the first issue has been easily sorted already after i implemented the changes. A main purpose of showing the usage from multiple years is to compare them to show an increase or decrease. Also, even with the multiple years added, it could be good just to show the usage from that year. The first successful test of the implementation has been at Barking station. Simply south (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

An update on this, 2007 figures are now available. Please update (add |tubeexits07= and then the figure for that year to the relevant station). Simply south (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Round in circles

What should we do with Template:Circle line and Template:Circle Line? Simply south (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since the latter is WAY clearer, transfer the missing detail (eg junction names) from the former and add it to the latter. You may need to use numbers and a 'key' for these, to avoid cluttering-up the diagram. EdJogg (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairlop Loop

Hi all,

I just wrote the following article, Fairlop Loop, literally this afternoon. Can I ask any of you for ideas, comments, omissions etc.? Maybe the odd Line Diagram....?! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed/abandoned/closed etc. line boxes

There are loads of these boxes cropping up now on articles and I think its all got too much. These boxes should be restricted as follows:

1. On currently open station articles: current services and planned services which are under construction and/or have funding
2. On proposed station articles: planned services which are under construction and/or have funding
3. On closed station articles: the services operating immediately before closure.

Does this sound like something that can work? MRSC • Talk 16:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ongar and North Weald

See Talk:Ongar tube station as for one of the reasons why both of these should be rewritten. I would like to point out that these stations are not closed stations anymore and so should not be classed as such. They are just no longer served by the London Underground. They did close but they did reopen. They are used by the Epping Ongar Railway. Simply south (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Travel Surrey

In response to Unisouth's request for an image of one of the Travel Surrey 426/446 branded Darts, I have taken this image, which shows a side view. I know it doesn't show the front, but I couldn't get that without the branding not being clear. There is nothing on the front that distinguishes these buses from other Travel Surrey vehicles either. Hopefully, it will do for now!! -- Arriva436^talk 19:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

London Underground

Can i just ask that this article be improved? I have tagged various sections for additional verification and other things and left a review on the talk page. IMHO it does not look like A-Class or even GA-Class quality. Can it also be reviwed further? Simply south (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a list of editors who are "certified" (if thats the right term) to review articles and grade them for quality? I cannot see one on the project home page. Olana North (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Or at least not related to this in this project. There are people generally who do FA-reviews, GA-reviews and peer reviews. I have also found WP:WPGA. Maybe i will ask for a peer review or good-article review. Simply south (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/London Underground/archive2. Simply south (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Picture inside a tube tunnel

I have a free picture inside a London Underground Tube tunnel available if there is a suitable page for it. It was taken during a detraining following this incident. Always a good idea to have a camera on you - you never know what might be available to photograph! Unfortunately I didn't get a picture of the train and people coming off the train. I will upload the picture soon anyway, but if someone could suggest a suitable page to put it on, I'd be grateful. Carcharoth (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are some posibly suitable articles

London Underground infrastructure

Jubilee line

Subterranean London

Tunnel

Oxyman42 (talk) 21:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Added it to London Underground infrastructure and a sentence about the incident to Jubilee line. The picture doesn't quite fit the Jubilee line article yet. Needs more history to avoid unbalancing it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tramlink taken over by TfL

I know that Transport for London took over Tramtrack Croydon or took over operations fully from the same company. But does anybody know if FirstGroup still operates the system? Pafcool2 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

East London line replacement routes

I saw that London Buses route ELC had been created, so I started creating a template for it. Does anyone think that it could be improved in any way? --sonicKAI (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of word "tube" in article titles

Hi, I see that articles have names such as Stockwell tube station. Is there a reason for this? Tube is a slang term. Surely Stockwell London Underground Station, Stockwell Underground Station or similar would fit better with Wikipedia naming standards?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tube" is a long-standing and well recognised descriptive term for the London Underground whereas Underground could be taken to mean that the station is just below the surface. The issue was discussed previously here and, in more detail, here. --DavidCane (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, David. I had thought that "tube" was slang and "underground" more formal and more likely to be understood by people from outside Britain. But looking at the references in the Jean Charles de Menezes artilce, I see "tube" is used by several news organisations, including one in Sydney.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

New requests section

The new requests section has now opened. Please do not put any new requests on the main page. The existing requests will remain until they have been fulfilled. Unisouth (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/DLR. I have suggested it should be left to you. --Bduke (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AFD notification for Track access controller

The article Track access controller has been nominated for deletion based on notability and verifiability standards. Please join the discussion. Slambo (Speak) 11:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

London Buses

I got involved in London Buses by accident when a user wanted to insert the 'ibus' logo along with the number in the Template:Infobox London Bus. This disrupted the reading of that value by the template to connect to the related Performance.pdf file. I fixed that by the addition of another parameter for active ibus routes that only displays the logo with the number (see London Buses route 482) if 'ibus=yes' is entered. Could you please let other editors know about this, as I am not a part of the group. Hope I have helped. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

WPLT Wiki Ad is finally here!

After quite a long while since it was first announced, the new WikiProject London Transport Wikipedia Advert is finally here! I chose a simple look to ensure it looks professional yet friendly. It incorporates many images of London Transport features as well as our own logo. Below is the advert.

Wikipedia ads	file info – #137

If you would like to place the ad on your user page, use the template code below!

{{wikipedia ads|ad=137|nolinks}}

Images by, advert created by UNI^|SOUTH 20:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Its great! Now we just need to get updating the rest of the project to match!

Once again you are really doing WP:LT proud!

Thanks,

BG7 21:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Aldenham Works

Could I as a one outside the project draw your attention to this article, recently created, which needs a lot of work that I am not able to give it currently. Thanks! Britmax (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeh no worries - i'll take a look. Ok if I adopt it, and initially work it up in my sandbox?

Thanks,

BG7 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Category name change request

The names of the following categories probably should be change given the redirect for Wikipedia:WikiProject Underground to WikiProject London Transport:

• Category:WikiProject Underground images
• Category:WikiProject Underground nameboards
• Category:WikiProject Underground Templates

-- GregManninLB (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests generally should be in the requests section. These categories are out of date and should be deleted. Replacements have been made so these are now redundant. UNI^|SOUTH 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Updated logo

The new updated logo incorporating our old slogan from WikiProject Underground.

I have released a new logo in conjunction with our new Wikipedia Advert. It is basically the same only I have incorporated an old slogan we once used for WikiProject Underground back in 2006. Inspiration came from seeing the old slogan again in one of the old categories above. UNI^|SOUTH 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Merger

Shouldn't This be merged into Wikiproject London? Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 20:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No. This project has a very large coverage, all of London's transport, which, if you've ever been there, you will see is huge. Merging it with WP:London and creating a task force would be very foolish, as the articles would become unmanageable... see how many we have tagged by looking at the table below.

London Transport articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Total
FA	3	8	6	17		34
FL	2	1	1	2		6
GA	2	19	29	61		111
B	10	32	49	101		192
C	5	22	54	322		403
Start		8	91	1,106		1,205
Stub			12	397		409
List	3	4	10	23		40
Category					312	312
Disambig					30	30
File					33	33
Portal					589	589
Project					25	25
Redirect				48	946	994
Template					121	121
Other					2	2
Assessed	25	94	252	2,077	2,058	4,506
Total	25	94	252	2,077	2,058	4,506
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 10,889			Ω = 4.63

THanks,

BG7 20:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Why does each bus Route need a whole wikipage? Couldnt you Simplfy it as London Bus Routes and London Bus Routes (Heritage)? Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 20:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Many bus routes have a large amount of history behind them, and also people may want to know about previous fleets. Also, why not? Why should we merge them? They are all individual in their own right. Why don't we remove articles of each individual Simpsons characters and move them all to Simpsons Characters?

Oh and I think you're relating to List of London bus routes

BG7 21:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So does Boston,Ma , New York,NY, Hollywood,CA, Basically any famous City. Trees Rock ^{Plant A Tree!} 22:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

NO there will not be a merger. Especialy considering this project was sactifactory when it was only covering the London Underground. This project has become far to large to be demoted to a useless task force. Without this project London Transport articles would be mostly stubs without images because WikiProject London doesn't care. They don't show pride in our transport system. Please do not become a member of WikiProject London Transport and then come up with ideas like that. UNI^|SOUTH 07:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Bus routs have been nominated for deletion before and the decision was to keep them, no one would question the existence of articles for rail routs so why object to bus routs? As for merging the whole project the suggestion sounds like trolling to me Oxyman42 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Task forces

Hi. Does anyoen know if the task forces for this project which were set up some time ago still exist? Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 18:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

All operational task forces are listed here. UNI^|SOUTH 19:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you think its worth creating a task force for the tube or london buses? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. Many London Unerground stations and London Bus Routes are just stubs and need expanding. Also many London Bus Routes do not have any images. UNI^|SOUTH 05:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll try and get a tube task force up and running. Is it ok if I use one of your tube rolling stock diagrams as a logo? Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 15:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. UNI^|SOUTH 15:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If you need the logo doing let me know - i have a few spare hours! BlueGoblin^7even 17:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in this diagram I made of a London General citaro artic. UNI^|SOUTH 17:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Incorporating into the bus one now! BlueGoblin^7even 18:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Project guidelines

Hi. Over the past few weeks, I have been writing up a project guideline on the main page. However since it is a community guideline created and followed by the community and not just one user, I would like to invite all participants of the project to comment on it and change parts of it if necessary. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

More citations please!

I've just been looking at a few of the West London stations (Kew Gardens, Chiswick Park, Gunnersbury etc). Fascinating stuff, but all the most interesting material is unsourced. I wouldn't know where to look to add citations and anyway the original contributors - experienced people claiming 10k+ edits on their user pages - obviously had some pretty authoritative reference material to hand when they are writing these articles. Would be useful to know where to find it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• No reply for six weeks, so I've asked Slambo (the admin who originally rated the Kew Gardens station article as B-class on Sept 26, 2007) whether it can be down-rated for lack of verifiability. Hopefully this is a special case, otherwise all the B-class London Transport articles may need to be re-assessed for verifiability. - Pointillist (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:London Transport

I have noticed that other than the selected article and selcted images section, the portal hasn't undergone much change or maintenance and so I would like to ask if any users think there should be any changes or improvements to the portal, whether it is rewording of any sections, layout, addition or removal of sections. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the news section frequently changes... Simply south (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

London bus routes

Proposed move of List of bus routes in London to List of London Buses routes. See Talk:List of bus routes in London. Simply south (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Station nameboards

I took the liberty of downloading an OFFICIAL copy of P22 Johnston Bold and made a couple of images myself. What do you think? I think they are a far more accurate a representation of LU signage (ie. font P22 Johnston Bold, all capitals) than other nameboards previously uploaded by others. But here are some samples FWIW:

hope you think they look good! regards, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench is right about the blanks space so I am in the process of reducing this! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sunil060902, seems to have taken a dislike to the station nameboards in Category:WikiProject Underground nameboards and has started removing them from articles. I reverted them back as I believed the consensus was to keep them follwing an earlier IfD discussion. His objection seems to be based on the fact they use mixed-case and the platform roundels are all-caps. Unfortunately the editor who created them (McDRye no longer appears to be active on Wikipedia, but my assumption was that they were meant to simulate the appearance of the blue signs seen above station entrances rather than the roundel. With all due respect, I think the versions created by Sunil060902 are inferior to the originals (too much blue space and the wrong shade of blue). I'd be interested in seeing what others thought about the whole nameboard concept on LU/DLR/LO station articles. DrFrench (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are plainly inaccurate regarding your claim about entrance signage. P22 Johnston Bold, all caps, just like the platform roundels. If there's too much blue space that can be rectified quite easily. I'm using Powerpoint and Windows Vista Paint. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

How does this grab you?

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blue space is now reduced drastically. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

DrFrench also raised the issue of color, so here is (I think) a darker hue:

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nameboards are no longer used within the project and it has already been discussed. UNI^|SOUTH 07:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but when was it discussed? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There was an inconclusive discussion here. My personal feeling is that the station name boards are a bit of a gimmick which do not add anything of value to the template, but there are other reasons not to use them:

• They would not be appropriate for use on tube stations which are also served by main line or DLR services, so we will end up with an inconsistent looking template.
• Supporting the inclusion of nameboard images makes the template more complex
• For someone who does not use the tube or has not seen a tube station, there is no reason why they would recognise the image as being a representation of the signage over the entrance
• The typeface used is not a good match to the Johnston typeface - the full stop and apostrophe are not diamond shaped as they should be and the other character shapes are often not very close to the original.

--DavidCane (talk) 01:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi David, OK you raise some fair points, except the last one. I used P22 Johnston Bold, the same font used in the LU station entrance/roundel capitalisation. Full stops such as St. James's Park station are square, not diamond as in the small case variant used on maps and other signage. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

River template icon - which one?

A user was concerned that the new 'Catamaran' icon would not be recognisable to many users. So would you prefer the;

Old ferry icon:

or the new catamaran icon:

I say use the catamaran icon as it symbolises the main commuter service on the Thames - Thames Clipper. Also, I feel, the shape of the Thames Clipper vessel is instantly recognisable compared to a dull standard boat icon. UNI^|SOUTH 07:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments/Votes

I had suggested something similar to the symbol used by TFL on their signage and maps (old ferry icon was nearest equivalent but could no doubt be improved upon). But it's only a small point. Maybe the catamaran is the way forward. Cnbrb (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't really like the catamaran; to me it looks like a rifle, not a boat, and I doubt someone not already familiar with Thames Clippers would recognise it as such. Besides, although Thames Clippers & their catamarans may be the most prominent commuter service, they're certainly not the only significant boat operator. I think Cnbrb's right in that we ought to be consistent with TFL's signage where possible. (Yes I know I argued the opposite point in the discussion over line naming. So I'm inconsistent.) – iridescent 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the wrong shape for (eg.) the Sun Clipper, which has the bridge well forward. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And how can you keep to the TfL signage and design standards. This is Wikipedia not the London Underground. It is not the wrong shape, it is a icon version of the latest Thames Clippers vessel desing of which there are seven, thus making it the most common shape. UNI^|SOUTH 11:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it will look a whole lot better if the weather deck is filled in (as it is in real life). Just my opinion, best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are talking about the open deck at the back, then the sides are meant to be open. If you are talking about the curved bits at the front then have to be left open in order for the shape to be recognisable. UNI^|SOUTH 15:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

OK agreed there, but how about the main section amidships? I took the liberty of reproducing your image on Thames Clippers here:

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

PLT

Which article should be picked for this month's selected article? Semi-tie at mo. Simply south (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I repeat the perennial plea for more people to get involved in nominating articles and images, too. It doesn't have to be something you've written/photographed itself, or even worked on – just things you happen to stumble across that look interesting and illustrate different aspects of transport in London. – iridescent 01:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 20:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bus company article discussion

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transport/Bus articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 691 articles are assigned to this project, of which 124, or 17.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WP London Transport}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Go-Ahead London

Apparently Go-Ahead are to merge their London businesses to trade under a single name, of "Go-Ahead London". I'm not sure how true this is but it seems likely, especially as the website has a new logo. The new OmniCitys arriving at Docklands Buses are also said to have the new logos, as shown in this picture.

If this is true, does anyone have any ideas as to how to reflect this on here? I would suggest a sort of Go-Ahead London disambiguation page with links to the other companies for now. Maybe if the new name does completely kill off the other names then they could all be merged, keeping the older names as historical articles. Any more ideas? Arriva436^talk 15:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is on their website and' buses then it must be true! UNI^|SOUTH 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

As a start, I have created the Go-Ahead London article. It contains a brief history and gives details of the current London bus operators owned by Go-Ahead. As an aside, you may be interested in this closeup picture of the new fleetname. Arriva436^talk 12:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)