Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Anniversaries Section added to Portal

I have finally finished something I started about four years ago. I have added an anniversaries section to the Portal with links in the navigation box above.

To suggest an anniversary there is a page here. Currently, there are about 70 dates without an anniversary. --DavidCane (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of bus and coach stations in London

I'd welcome your thoughts at Talk:List of bus and coach stations in London - on the criteria on what counts as a bus station in London! Thanks :) Turini2 (talk) 10:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Elizabeth line opening

Given the potential of the Elizabeth line opening in the next few months, do we want to start work on the changes required when it opens? Similar to that done on the Green Line Extension opening - which automatically updated things at the relevant time. If we want a split "Crossrail project" and "Elizabeth line" article, we probably should be drafting that now! Turini2 (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The new opening date is projected for the 24th May 2022. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 12:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
This is already being discussed at Talk:Crossrail#Railway line. Bazza (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

King's Cross St Pancras tube station

King's Cross St Pancras tube station is now labeled with the additional "International" at the end in the recent edition of the official tube map. Are we gonna follow suit? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's also been renamed to include an ampersand - so if the page was to be moved, it would be called King's Cross & St Pancras International tube station... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 06:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Not everywhere. We should hold fast until the TfL Left Hand knows what the TfL Right Hand is doing. Bazza (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Bazza 7: - You say that, but on the page before, this appears... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
@Mattdaviesfsic: Indeed it does, and I counter that with [1] and the interactive map at [2]! ;-) It reiterates my point that TfL are making a mess of things which we should avoid until they've cleared things up. The standard tube map has been on a consistent downward spiral as its guardians strive to cram more and more stuff on it. Naming a station so it requires three lines is ludicrous: Harry must be turning. Bazza (talk) 09:53, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I would hang fire - the official TfL source still says "King's Cross St Pancras" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this on the latest tube map too, but on looking into it the change was actually made quietly between May 2020 and Dec 2020 versions. TfL style guide does also use this as an example under "station names" Use the station names in the format they appear on the Tube map. For example, King's Cross & St Pancras International suggesting that this is now their preferred name, even if they haven't managed to update everywhere. Wholeheartedly agree with the deteriorating state of the tube map, which changes like this aren't helping. the wub "?!" 10:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

London Paddington station merge proposal

Hi, I have started (or rather, restarted) a discussion about a proposal to merge the three pages pertaining to London Paddington station. If you would like to contribute, head over to Talk:London_Paddington_station#Merger proposal. Thanks. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Northern Line

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Northern Line that you may be interested in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Longest journey in a single zone

FYI
 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:List of stations in London fare zone 2#Longest journey in a single zone, also User talk:86.181.0.154#September 2022 which preceded it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Realtime Trains as a reliable source

Feel free to give your views over at the RS noticeboard here about RTT and whether you think it is reliable or not. In particular, this affects EL, LO and some LUL services. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Tube / DLR station name articles

Hi all, I reverted these edits by @WMSR on List of Docklands Light Railway stations as I believed that consensus needed to be sought for the substantial edits - as it introduced interchange line names that I considered to fail MOS:COLOUR and it removed proposed/former names from the article. I made my points in the talk page, and WMSR helpfully responded.

I do not understand why this article (or List of London Underground stations lists names that were proposed, but not adopted. That information may belong in the articles for the individual stations, and I can see a case being made for former station names, but names that were only proposed certainly are not mentioned on station lists in any other city that I could find. If that information is only here, perhaps it could be copied to individual station articles and removed from this list. Furthermore, while the interchange line names might not be perfect, they are certainly an improvement in accessibility over tiny roundels of different colors.

As their responses covered both the Tube and DLR station name articles, I've decided to seek consensus here. Turini2 (talk) 07:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Talk:List of London Underground stations. Turini2 (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Tbh I've never thought about the use of proposed/former names in either list - I guess the proposed ones would better be in station articles themselves, whereas former names could remain - They seem to be reasonably referenced, anywho. As I said on the talk page, I agreed that the tiny roundels are also rubbish for accessibility - but thatts a long standing usage across the UK rail network station articles. Not sure what people think! Turini2 (talk) 07:56, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Information about former names definitely belongs in the article about the station, as does info about proposed names, if verifiable. Some station name changes were only partially done - all of the roundels at Hillingdon tube station still say "Hillingdon (Swakeleys)" some decades after the parenthesis was dropped from the diagram (by 1952), tickets, timetables etc. Whether to duplicate the former/proposed name info in a "list of stations" type article is another matter, I would say not unless the name change occurred recently - say within the last year or two. Consider the multiple names borne by stations like Charing Cross tube station and Embankment tube station - these would easily clutter and confuse the list article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Redrose. Perhaps for stations that have changed names, a note along the lines of "renamed in 1952 (previous name(s))" with the parenthetical linked to the relevant section of the article would strike the balance between making the information accessible without being overbearing or confusing. Alternatively/additionally, perhaps a List of renamed railway stations in Great Britain article would be useful? Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Oooof. The list will be huge, and would largely duplicate the "Index of Renamed Stations" in Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. pp. 259–297. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M., which has something like 4500 entries. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on this use of colour for interchanges in the article? It removes the tiny roundels, and WMSR believes "MOS:COLOR issues have been resolved". Personally if the roundels are to be removed, I think listing out the lines as wikilinks is fine, they don't need the colour. (and if they did need the "big box", all modes should get it) Turini2 (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
WMSR also edited the LU station list - removing the proposed/former names (prior to consensus here), changing the width for some reason (?!), adding the interchange colour boxes as above and removing when the "main line station" opened. Again, I have reverted - consensus to be sought here first. Again, thoughts welcome. Turini2 (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@WMSR rm main line opened column (not relevant if station was not open) - completely disagree, with an example. It's not the case that Barking station opened on 2 June 1902, as your edit suggested - the station opened in 1854. It was first served by Tube trains in 1902, which is a key difference. A contemporary example - Canning Town station didn't open in 1999, a station first opened in 1847! It was first served by Tube trains in 1999. The often complicated history and prior use of stations is the reason that column is present. Turini2 (talk) 09:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
@Turini2: A station existing at the same place is not the same thing as a station opening for tube service, and in a list of tube stations, the latter is much more relevant than the former. List articles such as these should not be an exhaustive history of the stations. That information belongs in individual articles. With regard to color, I have changed the text color for some lines in Module:Adjacent stations/London Underground to provide necessary contrast when using {{Rail color box}}. I was under the impression that there was consensus with regard to former names being excluded in list articles, as it would become quite unwieldy. WMSR (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that there was consensus! I understood Thryduulf's comment for retaining the former names and Redrose64 for removing them, for example. We're gonna have to agree to disagree on the opening/main line opening point - and see what others think. With the rail colour box, again - see what others think. If we were to progress with that, I think adding "line" to them e.g. "District line" etc would be a good idea, in line with TfL practice/common usage. Turini2 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
The opening date of the station for any services and the starting date for tube services are both definitely relevant. Without the two we would have to state on the list of Elizabeth line stations that e.g. Bond Street opened in 2022, which is clearly incorrect no matter which way you look at it. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Really out of copyright?

The photo at https://www.ltmuseum.co.uk/collections/collections-online/photographs/item/1998-20544 could be very interesting for the London Underground O and P Stock article, an example of how close the tube came to adopting plastic seats like in New York City. The entry claims that the copyright is expired, but I am not sure if TfL is really subject to crown copyright of 50 years (≤1971 at time of posting) instead of 70 years (≤1951)? I am not touching anything until the confusion gets cleared up. --Minoa (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"All material produced by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies in the course of their work belongs to the Crown and is Crown copyright." [4] TfL is a government agency. [5] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

London Underground strikes

Hello! London Underground strikes has been updated (and !kept following a PROD and Articles for Deletion discussion), but it would be great if we could have more eyes and further updates to the article. (For example, there are huge gaps in that table of "Past strikes'.) Happy to discuss further here or on the article Talk page. Cheers! Cielquiparle (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Rolling stock timeline

Hello, I am currently working on a summary timeline of London Underground rolling stock (link), similar to the summary timeline for the Paris Métro rolling stock. What do you think about the idea, and what would the ideal start date be? Best, --Minoa (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this going to be a historical sort of graph up to present? Not sure on the answer myself but good to ponder that the District Line (for example) only came into being in the '30s I think, although the Met Dist Rly was decades before that (1860s). Perhaps if sources indicate when each line gained its current name (so the District in the '30s) then I would start there (because the District, and the Met Dist Rly, are not the same thing, imo). Hope that helps. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
How are you goinmg to handle the periods where a line had two or more types of stock (other than during a stock replacement programme)? For example, the District Line, just mentioned, used two types (C and D) before the S stock was introduced; and before these were introduced, it had CO, CP and R; and if we go back to the 1930s, there were B, C, D, E, F, G, H, K, L, M, N all at the same time. Something similar (but on a smaller scale) happened on some of the tube lines: in the 1970s, the Bakerloo had 1938 and 1972 stock; the Northern had 1956, 1959 and 1972; the Central had 1960, 1962 and 1967; etc. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
You are right, the concept is challenging due to the diverse stock in the past, but I have confidence that something can be figured out, which is why I ask for feedback and ideas. I do however have a bit of trouble trying to force line breaks in the "Wimbleware" label. --Minoa (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Bus drafts

Hello fellow Wikipedians. I have made some draft pages which may be of your interest.

Please feel free to edit them and make them better articles! Many thanks, Roads4117 (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

RFC on whether citing maps and graphs is original research

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on using maps and charts in Wikipedia articles. Rschen7754 15:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Superloop

Hi there. I was wondering if an article on the Superloop proposal ([6] [7]) would be appropriate. In any case, I've just uploaded its logo, if it's of any use. --Snooze  19:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC).

It's merely branding right now, while being a future concept. Probably not notable at the moment - adding wording to relevant articles like X26 could be okay.Turini2 (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Garuda3 created the London Superloop page. Turini2 (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

LTM collection template

The LTM collection template, which was used on 258 articles to link to pictures in the London Transport Museum archive, was completely broken, because LTM had changed the path for the image files, and renamed all of them. In order to resolve this, I created a new "LTM archive" template, so that I could keep track of which articles I had processed. This takes the form {{LTM archive|1998-57854|Charles Yerkes in his office, 1900}} where 1998-57854 is the final part of the new url (formerly it was mo/i0000omo.jpg). I have managed to track down the images for 256 of the articles, although there are a very small number that are no longer available, sometimes because there is a placeholder in the new archive, but no picture. For a few I have had to comment the link out, but have generally added a "no longer available" comment to the link. The three posters on the New Works Programme all fall into the blank placeholder category, but would need something other than the LTM archive template, since they are now part of an "ephemera" path, rather than "photographs". I have failed to find any pictures or placeholders for the London Underground 1914 Stock article. One of the articles used a drawing, rather than a photograph, and I had to put the link in, rather than use a template. It is possible that LTM will eventually sort out the blank placeholders, and some of the missing images may become available. I note that the LTM photo template is also broken, but it might be possible to fix that, if someone wants to try. Bob1960evens (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Platform layouts, again: June 2023, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Four K8 phone boxes in tube stations newly listed

It would be great to have photos of these 1960s phone boxes at High Street Kensington, Chalfont & Latimer, Chorleywood and Northwick Park stations, now listed at Grade II. Ham II (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

New article

I have recently started an article on the Hammersmith Depot. Please feel free to add and expand if you can. Thanks. Elshad (talk) 21:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Crossrail site references

Crossrail appear to have redirected all urls on their site e.g. [8] [9] to a Wayback Machine copy of their homepage [10]. This has of course broken a tonne of references. Anyone know an easy way to resolve this? the wub "?!" 11:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I've made a request for a bot to fix the links. See Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests/Archives/2024/February#crossrail.co.uk. Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! the wub "?!" 13:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)#Requested move 16 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)#Requested move 16 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Are there guidelines or expectations for which projects should be linked to stations, lines, stock and similar railway articles relevant to the London area? -- Verbarson  talkedits 17:55, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

@Verbarson: Generally speaking, it's not necessary to have {{WikiProject London Transport}} when {{WikiProject Trains}} is present. Instead, remove the {{WikiProject London Transport}} (if one is present) and add the parameter |Underground=yes to the {{WikiProject Trains}} and optionally also the parameter |LUL-importance= with a suitable value, like this.
{{WikiProject London}} is a separte matter. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Verbarson  talkedits 19:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

New London Overground lines

The new names for the London Overground lines have been announced. [11] I propose the following to accommodate this.

I deliberately put the Goblin last as it is the one I'm least certain about. Thoughts? MRSC (talk) 08:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME we should wait a bit before moving anything as it's way to soon to know if these names will catch on (the initial reaction in the enthusiast community has not been positive, but again its too soon to know how representative that is), especially as the branding hasn't even begun to be implemented yet.
As for the Lioness line, I don't think that needs a separate article just a section (at most) about the name and moving the article (if it becomes the common name). We don't have a separate article for the Richmond branch just because it also carries the District line. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
"the initial reaction in the enthusiast community has not been positive" not my experience, but experiences differ!
Yes, we should wait until these are implemented before moving anything. Turini2 (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Chessrat has proposed moves of the below on the talk on the Talk:Watford DC line...
Turini2 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Harlequin line, anybody? Will these last longer? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

These are the current names used by TfL from the timetables and notices at stations:

Interestingly we didn't even have redirects for any of them. We probably should have made the articles align with these service patterns even if we didn't use these names before now. MRSC (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Although I hastily updated my SVG rail diagrams per the TfL announcement, I have to admit that the new names aren't very popular after a quick forum/youtube surfing, so creating or moving articles right now could be too soon to proceed. As for Watford DC Line, I slightly lean towards "move (to Lioness line)" over "split" because its stations are dominantly served by Overground trains. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 07:35, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Has there been consensus to use these new names over the existing WP:COMMONNAMEs? Module:Adjacent stations/London Overground now has them as the primary names. Bazza 7 (talk) 09:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
No. The consensus of the requested move discussion was firmly against moving the articles to the new names, although this was in part due to the physical/line service distinction, COMMONNAME played a significant part. No other discussion has taken place that I can find. I would oppose using the new names as primary at this point, and don't think we should even consider doing so until the branding begins to be implemented by TfL. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I have restored the module to its state prior to 27 February 2024, using previous route/line names and colours. Bazza 7 (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ultra (rapid transit)#Requested move 29 April 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Tube interior to be identified

Here is a c1970 image of the interior of a Tube service. Any ideas about the line? I think I can make out "Central" by magnifying the line map in the upper left corner, but it doesn't exactly tie up with a 1970 Underground map. Lamberhurst (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's the Northern line. A long branch at one end, then a split into two lines that rejoin, a single station (Camden Town) then another split at the other end. No other line was that complicated. -- Verbarson  talkedits 23:33, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Lamberhurst (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The image is reversed. It appears to be the Northern line on the maps above the doors, but it's actually the District line and Circle line. The closest map on the left (right if corrected) shows the Ealing, Richmond and Wimbledon branches with the top of the image cutting through Earl's Court. The carriage is an R Stock carriage (see File:Inside-R-NDM.jpg). The small label underneath says "To open window pull down handle" which would not have been practicable or safe on a tube carriage. --DavidCane (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Er, lots of tube stock had pull-down windows, see the rightmost two windows in this pic of 1938 Stock. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that the map might combine two lines, but I should have noticed the height of the carriage. -- Verbarson  talkedits 11:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes; I should have said that with the way the R Stock carriage windows projected from the side of the carriage, that wouldn't have worked on a tube carriage.DavidCane (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport/Archive_12&oldid=1263086333"