Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Empty London Buses articles

I have recently discovered a worrying trend of London Buses route articles that contain little or no context, just the infobox (which in some cases isn't even filled in properly. The first I cam across was route 71. I explained to the editor why I was doing what I was to do and then tagged it for speedy deletion per criteria A1 (little or no context). I then found a number of other London Buses of the articles from the same editor in the same condition. I asked the editor to try and improve them otherwise someone else may deleted them; I didn't wish to do anymore.

Well, that failed, as the user obviously had no interest in my offers to help and deleted my comments off their talk page. I then found another article from a different user and some more from the same one. Current empty articles I have found are:

• London Buses route 78
• London Buses route 80
• London Buses route 85
• London Buses route 86
• London Buses route 101
• London Buses route 103
• London Buses route 104
• London Buses route 115
• London Buses route 121
• London Buses route 123
• London Buses route 213

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do? I'm sure we don't what an admin to see them and then question all the London Buses routes. I have recreated London Buses route 71 with more context, but I can't fix all of the above articles in the near future. Should we get them deleted and then recreate them at our own pace, or try and quick fix them now? Arriva436^talk 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If no-one raises any objections (soon) I'll delete the lot. Nothing is served by keeping these as empty shells. – iridescent 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more concerned with what he is using his user page for. Is it a sandbox or, considering his user name, some sort of use of wikipedia for advertising? MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with iridescent that articles serving as empty shells don't help anything. I'd have thought deleting the articles now would be the best step, rather than (as I said above) trying to quick-fix them, which would probably mean they never meet their full potential. Re what MickMackNee had said, I'm ignoring their user page, as I honestly have no idea what is going on! It also seems blanking his talk page is a regular habit, he only seems to want a London Underground template on it?? Arriva436^talk 19:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it until midnight; if no-one's argued for their keeping, they'll vanish. – iridescent 19:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Noting that the above comments were made on the 5 September and that the articles are still in the same condition as described, it would seem that either the articles never got deleted or were re-created. The articles with a completed infobox and introduction sentence could be tagged as a stub, as stubs are an accepted part of the process of wikipidia. But having said that I don't want all the London Buses routes to be questioned again. Oxyman42 (talk) 00:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's my biggest worry. If London Bus articles are accepted and left as stubs, then they could be questioned. I hope not though! Arriva436^talk 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I completely forgot. Do you want them deleted? (They can always be undeleted if anyone objects). – iridescent 19:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather have them deleted, some of them don't even have completed infoboxes, or even a lead saying what the route is. As iridescent said, they can always be restored. Arriva436^talk 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted. If anyone wants the infoboxes back for anything, let me know and I'll undelete them, or point any other admin towards this discussion. – iridescent 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

← Fortunately new member User:Yesnoguy is recreating these articles to a much better standard. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 22:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for London Transport

A collection of Wikipedia articles is being collected together as Wikipedia 0.7. This collection will be released on DVD later this year, and will be available for free download. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles; a team of copyeditors has agreed to help improve the writing upon request.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

London categories

Please see this discussion about reorganising the taxonomy of London categories. There is also an impact on 'England' categories. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Oxyman42, anybody know this user in RL?

Oxyman42 was a participant in this WikiProject and articles on London transport were his specialty. He has been blocked, and in his last edits before his Talk page was protected, he threatened "self harm," possibly suicide.[1]. In the events leading up to his "infinite" block, he seems to have been unable to understand what was happening (assuming he was sincere). If anyone knows this user in real life, it might be a good idea to contact him. --Abd (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm suggests taking such threats seriously, and contacting local authorities, see Contact local authorities. IP from which he edited recently may be of use to them, it can be found at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Oxyman42. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think he has an account on Geogrpah, you maybe able to contact him there. A bit off topic, but to add to the fact LT transport articles were his specialty, he was also a major contributor at the commons, with 1,511 images of his own and many others transferred from here. Not sure how he's going to add them now, it's probably put him off. Arriva436^talk 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to contact him myself because with the history he might view me as hostile (I wasn't, but ...), plus contacting local authorities in the U.K. isn't easy for me! He made an edit to Commons today, removing a notice. Another editor said he'd contacted authorities, see [2], but some redundancy wouldn't be harmful at all.--Abd (talk) 22:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Shepherd's Bush tube station (Hammersmith and City Line)

I don't know much about the station, but when I typed in "Shepherd's Bush tube station" on the search, the current stations list was confusing. Having read the talk page of this page I now understand why there are two articles for what I had thought was the "same station", but the article also says that the station is changing its name. If this is true, perhaps it would be less confusing to rename the article Shepherd's Bush Market tube station? I would normally do uncontroversial moves myself but I'm not certain whether the move would be uncontroversial (or even true). BeL1EveR (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, the station name still has not changed yet. Simply south (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think Shepherds Bush is confusing, just wait until you come across Hammersmith. – iridescent 19:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The in-train announcements already have "Market" and "Wood Lane"! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

St Pancras naming

All discussions should take place at Talk:St Pancras railway station/Naming. Simply south (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If Shepherd's Bush Market is to be renamed, why can't St Pancras International? It is almost one year since HM the Queen re-opened the station. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

alwaystouchout.com template

{{alwaystouchout}} has just been created by my good self, and I am currently converting all links to the template format. Any assistance/corrections/guidance would be gratefully received.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Navbox

There is now a new navbox for all Metropolitan line-related articles. Eventually I'll work on similar boxes for other LU lines. To use it, simply add {{Metropolitan line navbox}} to the end of the article. Notes about the box:

• Items are ordered alphabetically; the purpose of a navbox is to allow a user to navigate easily between related articles, so A-Z is the most sensible way of ordering, rather than (say) putting stations in physical line order, as this would require pre-knowledge of the Met line.
• It seemed sensible to split the stations up into sections to make it a bit easier on the eye; even without knowledge of station locations, they are still easy to find.
• I've grouped present, historical and future topics together so it is clearer.

I hope everyone finds it useful - do please add to relevant articles.Wikidwitch (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Railway stations of London and Finsbury Park Line

• If no one objects in the next week i am going to go ahead with the new change to Template:Railway stations of London which should hopefully sort out the controversy. See Template talk:Railway stations of London#New proposal.

• Does anyone know the name of the freight line between the ECML and the NLL, as shown in the complex of {{FP-H&I RDT}}?

Simply south (talk) 14:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The freight line is the "Canonbury Curve" is it not? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that. I have updated the diagram accordingly. Thank you. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Schemes scrapped

Read this. Simply south (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Bus route 148 has changed

Hi. Bus route 148 has changed. Instead of running to Shepherds Bush Green, it is now running a little further to the new White City Bus Station. The Buses say "White City" as destination now when running that direction. What has caused this alteration is the new shopping mall Westfield. I believe that most of the transport (Bus, Tubes) has been improved because of this:

   improved Shepherds Bush Central line
   new Wood Lane Tube Station
   new White City Bust Station
   improved Shepherds Bush Station

It may well be that other bus routes have also altered (I think 31 as I was at White City Bus Station). --Stephen Howe (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate "Enfield"

Hi. I have disambiguated all but a handful of links to Enfield, a disambiguation page. Among the remaining are these:

• British Rail Class 308
• London Buses route 39
• London Buses route 125
• London Buses route 192

Could someone here fix the links to Enfield in these 4 articles? Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

Here are images for several bus routes. Are they of use and can they be put on Wikipedia? Also, how can I join this project? Link is: London Bus Route Details --Dennisman (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Images - Carshalton railway station

Hiya - you've contributed a great collection of images over at Commons. Do you have any of Carshalton Station to add? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, give me a few days and they'll be uploaded! (pics taken last Sunday) Sunil060902 (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The Carshalton railway station category is ready and waiting to accept them! :-) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just uploaded them now! Hope they're OK! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unindetified station pics

Commons has some Unidentified stations. Can anyone help? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well having visited every single station within Zone 6, I should be able to help. #4 is probably Oxford Circus, #5 is probably Oxford Circus pre-refurbishment. #6 looks like Queensway. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

File:London 1100539.jpg and File:London 1110092.jpg are both almost certainly South Kensington; that the author also uploaded this at the same time is a giveaway. – iridescent 10:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Which two files are both S Ken? Simply south not SS, sorry 12:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops! Fixed… – iridescent 12:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

List of bus stations and garages

You might be interested in the newly created list of London bus and coach stations list article, which lists numerous London bus and coach stations and garages. Please feel free to add any omitted stations or garages, and if you are interested, to create articles for some of the entries on the list. -- The Anome (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, there is a differnce between a bus station and a bus garage. A bus garage is for the maintenance and storage of buses whereas a bus station is for the picking up and dropping off of cargo (mainly passengers). I have moved the article accordingly. Simply south not SS, sorry 18:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all of the red links, as there is no point having them. If an article gets created, we can re-link accordingly. Also, now all of the bus garages are listed, and seeing as we have Bus garages in London, I can't help thinking we should remove them and stick to having bus stations in the new article. And would "List of bus stations... in London" be a better name? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Wikipedia is a wiki, and red links are a deliberate feature of Wikipedia's software that exists to encourage the creation of articles, which was the principal motivation for creating the list in the first place. Please see WP:REDLINK for more on this topic, particularly the part which says that academic studies short that red links are the driver for Wikipedia's growth.

If you want to get rid of the red links, perhaps you should consider creating articles in question? Bus stations seem to me to be just as article-worthy as tube stations. -- The Anome (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes but vast lists of red links look messy and are uneeded. One or two may help "encourage the creation of articles", but an entire page of them just looks messy and puts me off. WP:RED says that "articles should not have red links for topics that are unlikely ever to have articles". Well I really doubt that all of the bus stations will suddenly have articles in the near furture.

Also, you said "Bus stations seem to me to be just as article-worthy as tube stations", so I have relinked and moved to have lower case article names such as "X railway station" per WP:TITLE#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 18:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

And possibly coach stations but why not. And I am just moving the bus garage article as it is a list anyway. Simply south not SS, sorry 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Metrobus (South East England)

Would the article on Metrobus come under this WikiProject? The company operates several routes under contract from TfL, although it is based outside Greater London (Crawley). If so could someone with experience have a look and perhaps classify it/see if there's anything else I can work on? Thanks Richard⁰⁶¹² 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated the links above, as various page moves mean that the links given redirected somewhere completely different. As a reply (albeit a bit late!), I will say that the article has been tagged as WP:LT, as it definitely should be. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 09:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Jubilee line page split

Hey, due to there being an aweful lot of information on the predecessing schemes for the Jubilee Line (such as the Fleet and River Lines), and the confussion from having such detail on the main Jubilee Line page (for example the Fleet Lines route map comes before the actual Jubilee lines one), I've suggested stuff to do with the past extension proposals of the jubilee line to the docklands should be put into a different artical. If anyone would like to visit the Jubilee Line talk page and discuss their opinions it'd be much appreciated. I can't see a straightforward way to reformat the information without loosing some depth.

Many thanks! OutrageousBenedict (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Jubilee line

Using the roundel on Wikipedia/Wikicommons

I notice that several uses of the roundel image were tagged as free for use, when they are (probably) copyrighted. The images are hosted on commons so I raised it there and there is now a request for deletion here; as well as covering the logo it potentially includes many images in the Commons Category:London_Underground_signs. Sorry to be a pain! Paulbrock (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a photograph of the roundel on permanent public display (such as on station signage), it's explicitly exempt from copyright under under Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 ("it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public"). – iridescent 14:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:21, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Transport stubs

I have created one stub template that incorporates all three of the LU, LO and DLR after some confusion between the DLR and the LU. The London Overground was relatively small as well (not the system, the number of stubs). After what can effectively be called a merger, stubs in all three systems, plus any other topic related if it is added, can be found at Category:London Transport stubs, with the change to new template of Template:London-transport-stub. Simply south (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The merger has meant that interchanges (e.g., this version of Blackhorse Road) now have the same template twice. At some point, someone's going to need to go through double checking for duplication. – iridescent 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

{{London Bus Routes}}

{{London Bus Routes}} is up for deletion at. If you believe this this is a useful template, you may wish to comment there. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

LU list FLRC

I have nominated List of London Underground stations for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Simply south (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot tagging proposal

Can I request that people comment at this discussion at WP:LONDON, as if it goes ahead it will potentially massively inflate the number of articles tagged as WP:LT. Basically, if there's consensus to do so a bot will tag every article in the LT related categories with the WP:LT banner, and tag all London articles which aren't tagged as WP:LT with the WP:LONDON banner. This will (hopefully) allow both projects to see exactly what we cover, and also promote the project(s), as people who aren't necessarily aware of the projects will hopefully see the banner and become more aware of what we do. (As an example, on a manual tagging of Category:Visitor attractions in London and related categories, done to check how many articles were untagged, I came across 2,000 untagged articles, including four London-related Featured Articles, all of whose authors could potentially want to get involved with us.)

Proposed categories to be tagged WP:LONDON
The following content has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

Could I ask that anyone with any comments/suggestions/opposition make them at the WP:LONDON discussion, to keep the discussion centralised. As we won't go ahead unless there's a consensus (or at least, a lack of opposition) from both projects, can you make it clear in any support/opposition that you're from WP:LT.

Thanks! – iridescent 15:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

LUL 2008 usage

Just to say that the tube usage is now up for 2008 and needs filling in. Just look it up and add tubeexits08= Simply south (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I will be adding these to the List of London Underground stations article as part of my improvement of that. I'll let others add the data to the stations articles themselves. --DavidCane (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Nearest tube}}

Hi. This was originally closed as 'no consensus' - today the matter appears to have been revisited and closed as 'delete'. A number of London articles will be affected by the deletion, and the template should be removed where you come across it. Ideally, it should be replaced by text such as "The nearest London Underground station{s} {is|are} {fred tube station|fred} on the {bert line}".

Since simlar concerns have been expressed about {{Over}} and {{DLR}} they should be dealt with in a similar fashion. I think there's also {{Nearest station}}. They should also be considered at risk of the precedent.

I'd do an AWB run; but am currently busy in real life. Kbthompson (talk) 09:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed Docklands Light Railway for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Pyrotec (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move discussion re: London Underground lines

Talk:Victoria line#Requested move Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 10:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RMT strike article(s)?

Is there any detailed info on Wikipedia regarding the strikes called by the RMT? A small paragraph on the RMT page, and just a sentence on Bob Crow's page, but was hoping for a history of the various disputes and reasons behind them, how it ties in with PPP, etc. Would be a NPOV nightmare no doubt, but there's large amounts of media coverage each time. Something like London transport industrial relations? (transport intentionally lower-case) Not sure that covers it! (Cross-posted on Wikiproject Organized Labour) Paulbrock (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A great idea in theory, but you're talking about 150 years of industrial relations, through multiple governments, wars, an economic and demographic climate that has changed beyond anything Charles Pearson would recognise, and ever-changing technological advance. I doubt it could be covered adequately in a full-length book. – iridescent 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I mean just industrial action rather than relations, but worried that might be POV; I've just found Category:Rail_transport_strikes so am looking for/considering starting an article similar to 2005 New York City transit strike. Paulbrock (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thing is, most of those in there (2005 New York City transit strike for example) have an easily demonstrable significance – that NYC strike, for example, was only the third one in NYC's entire history and led to the almost unprecedented action of union members being held personally liable for losses incurred by the city. The endless rounds of spats between LT and Bob Crow's finest don't have the same significance as individual events. – iridescent 21:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I think having individual articles for 2009 London tube strike,2007 London tube strike,2006,2004,2002,2001,1999.... would be a clumsy approach. I do feel that the strikes as a whole should have better coverage on Wikipedia, or do they occur so often they're not notable? I personally won't have the time/patience to go back to pre-internet years (is is cheating just to limit to 21st century?). Any suggestions on if/how we can include more information on these events? Paulbrock (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Off the top of my head suggestion; as British industrial history divides neatly into eras, how about London transport industrial relations under the Thatcher government, London transport industrial relations 1945–51 etc? (Note that I'm not proposing to write these myself!) – iridescent 22:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

CONT icons

The CONT icons are being renamed, please see User:Chrisbot for more details. In the mean time all users are asked to use the icon names that are shown at User:Chrisbot/Work status even if it seems illogical. They will change from time to time so please check every time before you use a CONT icon. It is in the good cooperation of all that this will work out. ChrisDHDR 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the London Underground

I have created a new chronology for the Underground at Timeline of the London Underground. Let me know if you think there's anything missing. --DavidCane (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Line to Hainault?

When I worked on the Central line in 1980 several of the staff pointed to a wide area on either side of the track south of Woodford station and said that the Victoria Line had originally been planned to run east of its terminus at Walthamstow, surface here in a flying junction with the Central line and go on to take over the Woodford to Hainault section. It seems broadly feasible, so does anyone else recall this? Or was it abandoned at a very early stage? Britmax (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No the original plan was to get to the surface at Wood Street, one stop north of Walthamstow Central. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The widening around Woodford is because Woodford was the original terminus of the electrified portion of the line; the spaces to the north and south of the station are the sites of the reversing loops for steam trains to Epping/Hainault and electric trains into the City.  – iridescent 19:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hornsey Road railway station

I run a bot that transcribes geographic location data for disused stations. I've had a comment on my talk page that the geodata for Hornsey Road railway station may currently be incorrect. Can someone with expertise in this area please check this? -- The Anome (talk) 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Fixed to correct location – iridescent 14:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway rolling stock

I would like to suggest adding technical information regarding the DLR rolling stock like the speed, etc. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 00:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Popular pages

So that we can find out what the most popular pages of our project are, I have requested a WikiProject Popular pages be set up. Hopefully, this will be implemented from 1 August and should appear as a sub-page at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages. An example of an already operational page can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Popular pages.

Once we know what the most visited pages are we can put some effort into bringing them up to highest standard. --DavidCane (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Live departure boards

The tube station infoboxes have links to the National Rail live departure boards, which of course don't work. They should have links to the TfL departures boards http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/livetravelnews/departureboards/ .

Mattdickinson (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Nearest Over

Template:Nearest Over has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page.

A couple of other LT related templates have also been nominated there. Thank you.Kbthompson (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of A215 road

A215 road has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

London station article naming

There is some inconsistency in article naming for London stations that require disambiguation (and 4 others in central London):

• Style 1: Kew Gardens station (London), Kingston railway station (London), Reedham railway station (London), Richmond station (London), Sutton railway station (London), Sydenham railway station (London)
• Style 2: St Margarets (London) railway station
• Style 3: London Victoria station, London King's Cross railway station, London Paddington station, London Waterloo East railway station, London Waterloo station

Style 3 has only been used to disambiguate Victoria. The other four redirect from the article name without "London". These other cases I assume were an attempt to add London to all central London terminals, but the application omits Cannon Street, Charing Cross, Euston, Fenchurch Street, Liverpool Street, Marylebone, Moorgate and St Pancras. I favour some sort of naming convention for stations in London. Any thoughts?

"Station" if it's a shared tube-and-rail station (Victoria, Paddington, Waterloo etc), "railway station" if there isn't a tube station of the same name (King's Cross, Waterloo East, Fenchurch Street etc). "London" is part of the official name of Victoria, Liverpool Street etc (read the nameboards on the platforms) but not St Pancras, Charing Cross et al. Marylebone and Euston probably ought to be renamed, as the "London" is now used on their signage (see this image for example). St Margarets (London) railway station is just an aberration as far as I can see. – iridescent 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The "station" pattern is not an issue as it has been pretty much followed without any problems for years. It is the disambiguation that appears to trickle to the surface every now and then. Interestingly, Network Rail prefix Birmingham New Street, Liverpool Lime Street etc. but not any of their London stations. [3] I'll have a dig around for more sources for all the terminals. MRSC (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This source from National Rail has 18 stations prefixed "London" including St Pancras. [4] MRSC (talk) 07:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Link	Network Rail managed stations [5]	National Rail station codes [6]	Station signage
1	n/a	Y London Blackfriars	Y London Blackfriars >image<
2	Cannon Street	London Cannon Street	London Cannon Street >image<
3	Charing Cross	London Charing Cross	London Charing Cross >image<
4	n/a	Y City Thameslink	Y City Thameslink >image<
5	Euston	London Euston	London Euston >image<
6	Fenchurch Street	London Fenchurch Street	Fenchurch Street >image<
7	King's Cross	London Kings Cross	London King's Cross >image<
8	Liverpool Street	London Liverpool Street	London Liverpool Street >image<
9	Y London Bridge	Y London Bridge	Y London Bridge >image<
10	n/a	Y London Marylebone	Y London Marylebone >image<
11	n/a	Y Moorgate	Y Moorgate >image<
12	Paddington	London Paddington	London Paddington >image<
13	St Pancras	London St Pancras	St Pancras International >image<
14	Victoria	London Victoria	London Victoria >image<
15	Waterloo	London Waterloo	London Waterloo >image<
16	n/a	London Waterloo East	Waterloo East >image<

I've found five where these sources agree. They are Blackfriars, City Thameslink, London Bridge, Marylebone and Moorgate. Three of these are already named to agree with the sources. Blackfriars and Marylebone require a move. I'm not sure what conclusions to draw from the other stations, and perhaps we need to find more sources. MRSC (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And when you're done with that you can get NR and LT to agree on whether King[']s Cross has an apostrophe... – iridescent 19:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Be aware of naming issues on St Pancras. Simply south (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had some fun reading that. We now have five London stations that, given the above, we have randomly added "London" to the start of. I think the easiest thing to do might be to move the five articles back to the standard naming (without "London") and also move St Margarets. MRSC (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In which case, brace yourself for howls of protest from the partisans of all of these. – iridescent 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that one would take our near-standard dab form of Victoria station (London). MRSC (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've requested a page move to stimulate further discussion, see Talk:London Paddington station#Page move MRSC (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)