Jump to content

User talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 17

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Royal Commission on London Traffic

On 18 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Royal Commission on London Traffic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Royal Commission on London Traffic proposed constructing 9 miles (14 km) of avenues with railways underneath at the cost of £30 million in 1905 (equivalent to £3 billion in 2016)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Royal Commission on London Traffic. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Royal Commission on London Traffic), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Unbuilt tube stations in the London Borough of Merton

A tag has been placed on Category:Unbuilt tube stations in the London Borough of Merton requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Mill Hill (The Hale) railway station

Replaced by Mill Hill Broadway? That doesn't sound right, the two sites were quite separate. Govvy (talk) 12:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Not replaced by, but they were going to have a combined entrance.--DavidCane (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Charing Cross

"To carry out the works on the station and the running tunnels, a site on the north-western corner of Trafalgar Square at Whitcomb Street was used to construct a pair of access shafts 120 feet (37 m) deep from which long passages were excavated beneath Trafalgar Square to the existing below ground concourses. Although not originally intended for passenger use, one of these became the interchange passage between the Bakerloo and Northern lines."

I am a bit confused by this segment. If you are talking about these "long passages" originating at the northwest of the square, neither of these is used as an interchange passage for passenger use. From what I've been able to find, they are shown to the public sporadically as a sort of museum piece. The northern one connects to the interchange passage, but it's not itself used by passengers for anything, and only this one connects to any section/area of concourse; it appears the other ones connects to the western Jubilee tunnel. Am I misunderstanding what you're talking about? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm summarising. From what is described, the section of passage way that is now the connection between the mid-level Bakerloo line and Northern line concourses was original part of the construction tunnel. Badsey-Ellis says (page 285):
"One of these tunnels split in two at the station, with branches heading in opposite directions to the existing Northern and Bakerloo line lower escalator concourses. Although originally intended to be a temporary working tunnel, it was realised during construction that it would be convenient if it was fitted out for passenger use to enable passengers to access the Northern line from the Trafalgar Square ticket hall without having to descend to the level of the new platforms and then up again (and vice versa)."--DavidCane (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea this tunnel wasn't originally planned to link the two stations. This would probably mean that they expected people to interchange at Embankment station, or if they wanted to get between the Bakerloo and Northern platforms, to interchange at the lower-level Jubliee concourse. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

"this navbox should go only on the pages that it links to" Noted! How best to link the "heads of public transport in London" to the actual articles - just a piped link? Turini2 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question.
List of heads of public transport authorities in London links to each of them direct where they have articles. The title of the navbox links to that. In the individual personal articles, the text should have a link to the organisation they led (e.g. London Regional Transport). All of the articles for the organisations link to History of public transport authorities in London (and vice versa) in the succession box at the bottom.
If you mean link the articles on the organisations to their heads, a "Chairmen" section could be added to each with names and dates listed (the London Passenger Transport Board article already mentions Ashfield and Latham in the text, so that does not need one).
Thanks for creating Sir Wilfred. I created several of the others and have been meaning to do the rest when I could be bothered to do the research.--DavidCane (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit review

Hi David, I've reverted a few edits of a new user to London Underground stations that seemed pretty obviously wrong to me, like this one. However, I'm not familiar enough with the services to evaluate some of the others. Would you mind taking quick look at their recent edits? Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

The edits have the same pattern as two IP editors I reverted many edits from a couple of days ago. I'm guessing they may be the same person. The particular edit you identified above was incorrect, and I see that it and their other edits have been reverted by other users. If their interest stays in editing articles within the WikiProject:London Transport subject area, I will probably spot them all--DavidCane (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk:George Huebner/GA1

DavidCane, just a reminder that your review here is still open. The nominator has recently posted that the issues raised have been addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Information conflicts from Mr Horne's books

Greetings! I have just bought the Piccadilly Tube book by Mike Horne. While I was stumbling across references from the District Railway article, apparently it mentioned that the Ravenscourt Park to Turnham Green section duplicated on 3 December 1911 on the District book by the same author but, on the Piccadilly book it says 3 November 1911. Any thoughts? Thanks :D VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 15:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I find a reference to 3 December 1911 in the District line book (p. 48), but just 1911 in the Piccadilly line book (p. 26). The London Railway Atlas 4th edition by Joe Brown gives 3 December 1911 (note on p. 37)--DavidCane (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll use 3 December then. The 3 November one in the Piccadilly book is apparently on page 46 based on my findings. Thank you! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 10:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I see you're talking about a different Piccadilly line book to the one I thought. I was looking at The Piccadilly line: An Illustrated History which is a companion to Horne's one for the District line, but it is one of three in the series that Horne didn't write - it's by Desmond F. Croome. --DavidCane (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Yes, yes. I'm using the Piccadilly Tube book. That clears the confusion. I might add these books to my collection later. Cheers VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 11:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Hmm another weird date conflict

Hi again. I was referring to a few sources about when the Met opened its extension to Uxbridge from HOTH. While Simpson 2003 p=97 states 30 June as in the Met article, Horne's 2007 (the one I'm using as stated earlier) said 4 July 1904 in p=45. Wallinger et al in 2014 also gave the same details as part of the Labyrinth series. Do you happen to know a clue of the date difference? Else I will make adjustments accordingly. It would be interesting to know if 30 June is an official opening, while 4 July has commercial steam services, or 30 June being Uxbridge's opening and 4 July Ruislip's. Thanks again, cheers! VincentLUFan (talk) (Kenton!) 18:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I always use Douglas Rose's Diagrammatic History of the Underground for dates of opening, closure, etc. He has 4 July 1904. Joe Brown's London Railway Atlas has the same. 30 June 1904 was a Thursday, which seems unlikely as an opening day, whereas 4 July was a Monday.--DavidCane (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive_13&oldid=985952772"