Jump to content

User talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

The Signpost: 22 October 2014

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

DYK

Hi there,

I've reviewed your nomination, and have a question. Could you please respond at Template:Did you know nominations/Reginald Uren? ColonialGrid (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

DYK for Reginald Uren

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

Your GA nomination of Morden tube station

The article Morden tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Morden tube station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Morden tube station

The article Morden tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Morden tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Good to see another tube station reach GA status. I seem to recall discussing some of the Zone 1 London tube articles could do with work, so if you've got any good sources to help improve this, I'd be happy to help out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. It hasn't been on the main page so far and I am planning to nominate for DYK as I think it has a fairly good hook with it being at one end of the longest underground tunnel in London.--DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Morden tube station

Thanks from the wiki Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 November 2014

Your GA nomination of Down Street tube station

The article Down Street tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Down Street tube station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 19:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

The Metropolitan

I will revive it in the new year, that I promise. Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 01:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

DYK for Down Street tube station

Harrias talk 00:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 December 2014

The Signpost: 07 January 2015

The Signpost: 14 January 2015

The Signpost: 21 January 2015

The Signpost: 28 January 2015

25 DYK Award

The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
Thanks for all your DYK contributions from Richard Garth to Down Street tube station. Freikorp (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 February 2015

The Signpost: 11 February 2015

The Signpost: 18 February 2015

The Signpost: 25 February 2015

Nomination for deletion of Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011

Template:Citation London Underground performance exits 2003 to 2011 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

fyi

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (2nd nomination) EEng (talk) 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 March 2015

The Signpost: 11 March 2015

Historic Britain

David, I cannot thank you too much for the changes you have made to the lists of listed buildings using AWB. I am not particularly good with technology and have never tried to "learn" AWB; I thought that I was going to have to change all the EH references to HE manually! Thanks for saving me many hours of boredom. Best wishes, --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Happy to do it. I think I have got all of those using the format {{sfnp|English Heritage|...}}. There were some other links to English Heritage using {{sfn|English Heritage|...}} which I haven't changed yet, but they are links to things other than the National Heritage List for England, so they were not broken by the template change (e.g. the first reference in Listed buildings in Saint Anne's on the Sea). I will change ones that that to the format of the first reference of Listed buildings in Great Harwood.--DavidCane (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

.

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. Was there anything I left out of the summary that you'd like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if you could you check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

One question about this line from the article: "... was the terminus and only station on the short Piccadilly line branch from Holborn that was a relic of the merger of two railway schemes." Piccadilly line is a long, current line, so on TFA day, we'll probably have people reporting it as an ERROR that we're calling the Piccadilly line a "short ... branch". Can you find a better name or better link? If not, I'll probably drop the name. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The blurb for the main page looks fine, I think.
You could change the text you queried to "...the Piccadilly line's short branch..." --DavidCane (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
That solves the problem nicely. - Dank (push to talk) 23:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to see it, precious again, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost, 1 April 2015

Changes to citation format....

David, I've reverted a couple of changes you've recently made with AWB, as it changes the citation style in the article. When an article is using the cite web template with mode=cs2, the change you're making alters the appearance of the resulting citation, and, if the article is already consistently formatted, it also makes the citation different in style from all the others in the article. The whole "mode" thing is relatively new, as far as I can tell, as the old parameter model was a bit different (NB: I'm no wikignome though!) so you might not have come across it before. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem, but you might want to change the url manually to point to http://www.historicengland.org.uk rather than http://englishheritage.co.uk and the mentions of English Heritage to Historic England as the organisation has split into two parts. At the moment the old web address redirects to the new, but this may stop in the future.
I've got another 1999 pages on my AWB search list, so if I change another that you would prefer stayed the same I apologise.--DavidCane (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Cheers, and thanks for the tip - I'll try and update manually. Thanks for all your help with the wider updates, btw, v. much appreciated! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

Timeless Triple Crown

Five or more years have passed since Edgar Speyer, City and South London Railway, and many other articles he nominated were promoted, so it's my pleasure to award this Timeless Imperial Triple Crown to DavidCane. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much.--DavidCane (talk) 09:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Acton Town tube station

I don't know whether you received the ping, but I'm letting you know that User:Vincent60030 asked for your assistance at Talk:Acton Town tube station/GA1, regarding article and citation improvement. Regards, Rcsprinter123 (converse) @ 19:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Hello from the team at Featured article review!

We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.

Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.

Thanks for your help! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. The TFA page currently contains the article lead, but that's about 520 characters too long for TFA; could you edit out the parts you can do without? - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Much better, thanks. One question: I'm not sure which part of the text "the other underground railway, bus and tram services" comes from ... and does this mean the ones that connected to The Underground? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This bit replaced "all of the independent and municipally operated railway, bus and tram services" In the article, it is dealt with in the Move to public ownership section. The other railways that were absorbed into the LPTB along with the UERL and its subsidiaries were the Metropolitan Railway and its subsidiary the Great Northern and City Railway.
The UERL and the MR had avoided being merged into one of the Big Four main line railway companies in 1923. Some UERL or MR services used tracks owned by one of the main line companies or that were jointly owned with one of them, but these tracks did not come into LPTB ownership. Similarly services operated by main line companies over UERL and/or MR tracks continued after the merger.
With regards to bus and tram services, all bus and tram operations (whether privately owned or owned by local authorities) that operated within the London Passenger Transport Area were taken over by the LPTB. A list of these is at List of transport undertakings transferred to the London Passenger Transport Board.--DavidCane (talk) 22:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, David. I'm just posting to let you know that List of works by Charles Holden – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for June 22. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

  • Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
  • Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
  • Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
  • Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
  • Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
  • Research coordinators: run reference services



Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Historical England...

David,

Sorry to be a pain, but you couldn't double-check the edits you're making with the use of AWB on Historic England before saving, could you? There've been several recent edits that have changed the citation style accidentally, and another in which you've auto-changed the owner from English Heritage to Historic England...! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 13:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding English Heritage ----> Historic England, but I agree that you need to be careful when changing the references. I fixed up the reference and reference format for you at Theatre Royal, Drury Lane. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oxford Circus tube station help

Hi David,

I just wonder if you can help me find the reference for the recent content addition by some other user for the station building part since I am not able to find any reliable source. Thanks! Hope to get Oxford Circus to get good article status! Vincent60030 (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, do you mind if you could give me some guidelines on expanding history sections of stations since only a certain amount of content about the line is allowed. Thanks! Vincent60030 (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I did some work on this article many years ago and have always intended to return to it to flesh it out further. Oxford Circus is a tube station with an interesting developmental history - particularly with regard to the engineering aspects. The current article has too many subheadings. Due to the way it was developed, a description of the station is, naturally, entwined with the history, so much of these two sections could be combined. Have a look at this version from August 2006, which consolidates things better and seems to have more information than the current version. The first external link in the August 2006 version was an article written by Mike Horne (he wrote many of the Capital Transport Illustrated Histories of the tube lines), it is broken now, but the article as well as station diagrams can be found here. It has an enormous amount of information which could be used for a major expansion. The other sources already in the article contain a lot of information that could be used.
  • Regarding how much information to put in about the lines themselves. Have a look at what I have done in the articles on Euston tube station and Morden tube station. Background information not directly about the station, but relevant to the story is contained in a separate section of notes.
  • Get rid of the pointless cross platform interchange diagram. It does not add anything, that a text description would not provide

--DavidCane (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much David! I will work on it! :) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
(stalking) Hey, great minds think alike - I've just been doing a lot of work on Oxford Street, though being about the street not the station the emphasis is more on Selfridge's, M&S, HMV and wall to wall buses. Anyway, I've been going through Google Book's preview of The London Encyclopaedia, which looks to be an excellent source for basic factual information, and really should get hold of the full. A quick spin on Amazon though suggest the third revised edition is at least £25. Before I shell out some hard earned cash, do you have any opinions of it as a source? I do mean to work on some of these tube articles myself, everything inside the Circle Line is well worth doing IMHO, just need a pointer to good books to cite from. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh and David, good job on improving Euston tube station by A LOT! Btw can you give me some tips on editing long articles like Stratford station and as mentioned by Ritchie, how did you get book sources? Did you buy those books or read it for free? Vincent60030 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Vincent - this is the link I've been using for the Monopoly properties mini-project. The parliamentary Hansard [1] is another good source for basic facts, as everything important ever was mentioned by some MP somewhere at some point, so provided you're prepared to pick through POV and ranting from MPs, you can get vital facts quickly. Here's a factoid showing that in 1908, Marylebone LBC banned flower-sellers at Oxford Circus after 16 years of not having a problem with them. As far as books go, you either have to go to your local library and borrow a copy (or sit in the library with a laptop making notes), look for second hand copies on eBay or abeBooks, or if you're really stuck, go to one of those quaint old fashioned places like Waterstones and part with some hard currency. Remember, the encyclopedia's content is free, creating it isn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh thanks, @Ritchie333:. Btw David and Ritchie, do you think that Oxford Circus station is now qualified for GA? Vincent60030 (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey DavidCane, thanks for helping me out at Oxford Circus tube station article. However, is there an online version for the book source that you have edited? This is because you said it needs a page no. Thanks. Vincent60030 (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. Do you not have the book? You really ought to have access to the sources to confirm that they are correct. I don't have Horne's Victoria line book, but I do have Wolmar's. It might be in the Mike Horne station article I gave you a link to above or you could change the reference to Wolmar p. 298 which makes the same point.
  • I missed your queries above. The books I reference are usually ones I have or ones I occasionally borrow from the library. I also occasionally use online book sources (e.g. googlebooks), but these are usually fairly limited in the amount of the book that can be viewed, so I use these only for minor supplementary issues.
  • I would avoid editing articles like Stratford station with very complex histories unless you have the sources to hand. Also, check first if someone else is actively managing the article. They may have plans in place for development.
  • With regards to the Oxford Circus article, I think there needs to be more about the specific developments/reconstructions at the station itself - stuff that is in the Mike Horne article. Since the two original station buildings were opened, there has been an enormous amount of reconstruction in multiple stages below ground. One of the particular things that I think is worth mentioning that is not at the moment is the whole of Oxford Circus was covered by a temporary steel deck to allow the excavation and construction of the circulation areas below the circus (see the the first external link for video of this being constructed over a single weekend).
--DavidCane (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'll work on it. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh yes, does that content help to bring the article to FA? If not, do you have any tips for FA which can be achieved by open stations, not like Aldwych tube station or Westcott tube station? Thanks - Vincent60030 (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Hampshire!

Greetings!

The flag of Hampshire

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Hampshire! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 2,690 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Hampshire.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

Your GA nomination of Euston tube station

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Euston tube station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Euston tube station you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Euston tube station for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 16:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The article Euston tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Euston tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ritchie333 -- Ritchie333 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

Ham Castle

I am not sure how you think this edit fixed anything. If it did not, how many other edits that you made at that time may have broken links? -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Automation of the London Underground

You left a comment on Automation of the London Underground saying that the article felt too much like an opinion piece - what in particular made you think this/do you have any suggestions for improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absolutelypuremilk (talk • contribs) 13:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that make it read like an opinion piece are:
  • The scope of the article does not match the title. The article deals only with the future automation of tube trains. It does not cover automation of other aspects of the London Underground's operations, such as signalling, ticket issuing and collection, access control or lifts/escalators.
  • The article is primarily about benefits and criticisms of future automation. The history section needs to be developed further to examine the objectives and methods of automation, existing limitations and shortcomings. The section is also incorrect as the first use of ATO on the London Underground was on the Central line between Hainault and Woodford in 1964. This was the operational trial for the Victoria line services introduced in 1968.
  • The possible benefits section is rather speculative. Three of the benefits are not cited at all. The source used for the one that is cited is, itself, speculative about the possible increase in service intervals that could be achieved.
  • The criticism section needs neutral sources as well. The RMT are obviously going to object to removal of train drivers. Christian Wolmar wants to be the labour candidate for mayor of London, so might be expected to be critical of the existing mayor's proposals no matter how "fanciful" they might be considered to be (do a search on Wolmars site for "Boris" and see how many times he approves of the mayor's plans). Also, blog posts are not considered particularly good sources.
  • The current lead sentence: "This article is about the possible future automation of the London Underground network and having trains running without drivers."
    • WP:LEAD indicates that the lead section should describe and summarise the rest of the article below the table of contents so that it could be read as a standalone summary before reading further. Currently it does not do this.
    • "This article is about..." is not a good way to start the lead. First sentences on Wikipedia normally try to include the title of the article in bold (making any necessary grammatical alterations to fit into the sentence). Something like:
      Automation of London Underground rolling stock has been partially implemented since the introduction of automatic train operation on the Hainault to Woodford section of the Central line in 1964. It is currently in use on four lines. Transport for London plans to extend this to other lines by 2022...
Also, the sources need to be properly formatted with author, dates, etc. added where they are missing.
I hope that helps.--DavidCane (talk) 10:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

London Wiki

If you wish to make use of/develop London Wiki [2] feel free (original research welcome). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

As much of what is on there comes from here anyway and the short articles that it does have often link back here, I'm not sure why I would want to do that. I also note that it reuses Wikimedia Commons images without the proper creative commons attribution of the original author - a link back to the Wikimedia page is not sufficient.--DavidCane (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is the fewness of the people involved - and I can only do so much. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
The question is: why do you want to do it at all when WikiProject London currently has 14,925 articles to Wikia London's 8,512? Wikipedia is not perfect, but why reinvent the wheel and take on an administrative burden?--DavidCane (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
LW can go into the more obscure corners that are insufficiently notable for WP and take on original research etc. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Your GA nomination of Highgate tube station

Hello. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Highgate tube station you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I've left a few minor points on the review page. They're not important enough to necessitate putting the review on hold. Please look in and comment. Tim riley talk 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Highgate tube station

The article Highgate tube station you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Highgate tube station for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tim.--DavidCane (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you know for Highgate tube station

Hi there,

I just wanted to let you know that I have nominated Highgate for DYK! :) Also, can you please reply my earlier message about Oxford Circus tube station? Thanks. Best regards, Vincent60030 (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Vincent, I know that you're trying to be helpful, but that was a bit presumptive. I was going to make a nomination myself.
Regarding whether the Oxford Circus tube station article is ready for FA, I don't think it is yet.
  • I would wait for the GA review to be carried out to see what is suggested during that. The history section contains too much background information taken from the articles on the Central London Railway and Baker Street and Waterloo Railway. Limit the discussion to what is specifically relevant to Oxford Circus station:
    • It is not necessary to talk about the changes to the terminus of the CLR, Lansdowne Road, Notting Hill Gate, Davies Street and Chancery Lane, the construction of air shafts and the opening ceremony of the Central London Railway.
    • The article jumps over 39 years to a station closure for flood prevention works, which is duplicated in the Central line and Bakerloo line sections
    • You don't need to talk about the development of the route for the BS&WR, where stations were permitted, progress of works, etc.
    • What about the information in the Mike Horne article that I pointed you to on the reconfiguration of the station below ground?
    • Some background information can be informative, but put it in notes as I did with Euston tube station, Morden tube station and Highgate tube station. For example, indicating when the Acts of Parliament for the CLR and BS&WR were passed. Some of the notes that you do have are not relevant to Oxford Circus (second part of note 2 about The City Corporation, note 3 and note 4). You also have a note within note 2, which is not correct.
  • The Victoria line section is mostly taken from the Euston tube station article, but does not explain why Oxford Circus was chosen as a location for an interchange with the Victoria line.
  • In my view, as I said before, the station building section needs to combined into the history sections explaining the development from a historic context. The title of this heading is incorrect, because it is mostly about parts of the station below ground.
--DavidCane (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. Been busy lately. Thanks for the tips. I didn't have the time to edit the article so I havent change it yet. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Highbury tube station layout.png

A tag has been placed on File:Highbury tube station layout.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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 removed 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. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Highgate tube station

Gatoclass (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DavidCane/Archives/Archive_8&oldid=1140677417"