→London bus route articles: list of routes at stations |
Alzarian16 (talk | contribs) →London bus route articles: Some thoughts on points raised |
||
Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
There seem to be many articles on specific London Bus routes. Some even have route maps on them showing different places the buses stop at, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. In addition to this many of the articles contain unsourced material or just reworded information from the unofficial London Bus Routes website. [[User:ZoeL|ZoeL]] ([[User talk:ZoeL|talk]]) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
There seem to be many articles on specific London Bus routes. Some even have route maps on them showing different places the buses stop at, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. In addition to this many of the articles contain unsourced material or just reworded information from the unofficial London Bus Routes website. [[User:ZoeL|ZoeL]] ([[User talk:ZoeL|talk]]) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Indeed. Also, many Underground and railway station articles now have a list of bus routes (examples [[Acton Town tube station#Transport Links|Acton Town]]; [[Ealing Broadway station#Transport Links|Ealing Broadway]]; [[Greenford railway station#Transport Link|Greenford]]; [[Southall railway station#Transport links|Southall]]). Do we have policy on those? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
:Indeed. Also, many Underground and railway station articles now have a list of bus routes (examples [[Acton Town tube station#Transport Links|Acton Town]]; [[Ealing Broadway station#Transport Links|Ealing Broadway]]; [[Greenford railway station#Transport Link|Greenford]]; [[Southall railway station#Transport links|Southall]]). Do we have policy on those? --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#d30000; background:#ffeeee">Red</span>rose64]] ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
||
::There used to be far more route articles. Take a look at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_bus_routes_in_London&limit=250&hidelinks=1 this] - all of these used to have individual articles, and now exist only as redirects to a list. The ones that survive do so because they are notable. A couple more were for a time redirects and have since been restored - ironically, they're generally the best sourced of the lot, as they've had to be to justify their recreation. [[London Buses route 187]] is a good example. Lists of routes serving stations are totally differrent, but they do help to provide context to the significance of a location as a transport hub. [[User:Alzarian16|Alzarian16]] ([[User talk:Alzarian16|talk]]) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:18, 25 March 2010
Condition of the Wikiproject London Transport page
The project's third birthday is approaching next Monday, and I think this project page (not the Portal page) is in dire need of a good spring clean as there are a number of sections which seem to be dead now and there seems to be no coherent order. The scope section could really do with a rewrite as well.
The following sections appear to be unused:
- News
- WikiProject London Transport Milestones
- Project outreach
The following sub-areas appear to be dormant:
- Taskforces - the buses taskforce has no members and the others have only two or three.
- Requests
Any suggestions for what should be kept, what should go and anything that should be added? --DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
- Not much has happened really from what i see. The news section has really been taken over by the Met and same for Milestones. Requests are happening everywhere except the requests page. I'm not sure. Simply south (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Right, since there have been no specific comments, I am going to start an improvement exercise on the Project Page. This may mean things move around a bit or disappear for a while. The aim is to get rid of a lot of the redundant stuff and modernise the page and sub-pages and make it look something like the WP:LONDON project pages. --DavidCane (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- The complete reformatting of the WP:LT pages (including this one) is now complete. Hope you like the colours! Information has been reorganised for easier and clearer access and a batch of dead-ends and cobwebbed corners have been eliminated. If you discover an orphaned corner which I have missed, let me know and I'll give it the new look. --DavidCane (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- Right, since there have been no specific comments, I am going to start an improvement exercise on the Project Page. This may mean things move around a bit or disappear for a while. The aim is to get rid of a lot of the redundant stuff and modernise the page and sub-pages and make it look something like the WP:LONDON project pages. --DavidCane (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
redirecting
Someone has been redirecting buses pages which they don't find notable, in some cases pages had enough info, and still developing. I've undid three pages what I found, like London Buses route 356 so if you find any more can you please undo the redirect edit, thanks.Likelife (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- Don't tell anyone I told you this, but what you can do is have a look at the User Contributions for your 'troublemaker', and act accordingly. This should, at the very least, narrow your search! (see here for contributions of the appropriaate time-span -- there's quite a lot!)
- However, having looked at this prolific editor's record, they must have had a good reason for making the changes, so I would suggest acting cautiously and perhaps ask for (their?) assistance in improving the pages to avoid the issues raised.
- EdJogg (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- You have recreated the articles but are still failing to show that they meet WP:N in any way. Are you going to do this or shall I send them to AfD? Jeni (talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Pictures
I have some train and train station pictures. Please see my gallery at User:Tyw7/gallery. --Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Notified here because this is the relevant project. The London School Buses article is up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
"Public transport access"
Further to the deletion of the former {{nearest tube}}, etc. partially because they were 'decorated with roundels'; and partially due to the expressed preference for only including this information as narrative text. User:Cherryguy93 is adding a table of "Public transport access" to the front of articles such as London Eye and V&A Museum of Childhood. Some of the tables have roundels. Can I ask if we have a view on this? I'm happy to have the information included - at the end of the article (not the most important element in an article); but don't want to find us having to go through another 'removal' exercise, as when the templates were deleted. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
- Totally endorse removal. Quite aside from the whole "we're not a travel guide" issue, these are unmaintainable unless someone's planning to watchlist and maintain every article in London. London buses change their routes more often than some people change their underwear. If anyone wants to find out how to get to-and-from particular places, TfL Journey Planner will be delighted to oblige. – iridescent 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Pageview stats
After a recent request, I added WikiProject London Transport to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages.
The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
North and West London Light Railway
Interesting article, but needs some work: North and West London Light Railway. MRSC (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Baker Street and Waterloo Railway
New article on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway just uploaded covering the pre-LPTB history of the Bakerloo line. That's the last of the Yerkes tubes done. Going to nominate this for GA. --DavidCane (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article was promoted to Good Article on 16 November and has now been nominated for Featured Article here. --DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Featured Portal nomination
I have nominated Portal:London Transport for Featured Portal status. The nomination is here, if anyone wants to keep follow what's going on.--DavidCane (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the candidacy was ended rather abruptly before matters were resolved. I'll wait a bit before trying again. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Succession boxes for Underground lines
Not sure whether to raise this here or at Portal talk:London Transport. User:Cherryguy93 has been adding succession boxes to eleven of the Underground line articles (East London Line excepted) - Northern line for example:
To me these look like trivia of little practical use; many of them cover periods when "xxx line" was not even a recognised term. Opinions? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is the best place to discuss this. I'd also noticed them being added and agree that it's both trivia and misleading because the current names are often much more recent than the infrastructure they cover. The term London Underground itself didn't come into use until 1908 and most of the lines were under separate ownership until later than that. I think the succession boxes should be deleted as they are not encyclopaedic content. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I note that User:Sunil060902 has amended several of these boxes; it just goes to show that the "start" year for various lines can be contentious, except for the Victoria line (being the only one opened entirely under a "line" name, and having no sections transferred from another line). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, honestly I think they are superfluous myself. However, I made it clear on the W & C article that that line is, officially, LUL's newest line, since 1994 (think about it!). But I have no objection to the info boxes' deletion.
My take on this is:
- Met 1863 - OK, identity retained as Met line
- Dis 1868 - OK, identity retained as Dis line
- Nor 1890 (& 1906!) hmmm, identity blend of two distinct lines
- Cen 1900 - OK, identity retained as Cen line
- Bak/Pic 1906 - OK, to an extent = Bak and Pic lines
- Cir 1949 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
- Vic 1968 - brand new, so OK
- Jub 1979 - brand new, so OK, plus part of Bak (ex-Met), but new idenity
- H & C 1988 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
- W & C 1994 - former L&SWR and BR, then transferred to LUL that year
I'm not sure, reading the ELL article, that there was a firm date when the ELL became a separate identity. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not a big fan of them myself, I only made a minor correction to them so at least there wasn't a "loop" if you went before the Northern Line back to the Circle line. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help me out here please? User:Experting is insistent on bunging in a list of routes they run (they've not even put it in a good place, putting it right in the middle of the operations section and getting in the way.) I keep reverting by explaining in the edit summary, they revert by just saying things like "yes there is".
I believe that, when we have Selkent and East London (bus company) which detail the routes each subsidiary operates, having an unlinked, unexplained mass of random numbers on the article of the parent company at East London Bus Group is unnecessary.
It's got to the point now where me reverting doesn't achieve anything, so can someone help please. Any opinions? Arriva436talk/contribs 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- See the user's contributions, and the reaction of others to those edits. He seems to have an attitude problem, placing inappropriate and/or overstrong warning templates on other users' talk pages, whilst ignoring (and also removing, but that's not a crime) the warnings placed on his own talk page. Might be a matter for an admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Platform layout
What are our thoughts on the platform layouts that appear in many articles such as Bow Road tube station? Is this essentially duplicating the succession boxes or is this something that adds value to the articles and should be encouraged? Interested to hear some views... MRSC (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Personally, I think that they take up too much space in the article, disrupt the formatting and don't provide anything much of value. In most cases they do little more than repeat the succession boxes. Unless there is a particular reason to provide details on the platform layout (for example, the unused platforms at South Kensington), I don't see that there is a need to detail which direction on a platform the trains run (standard left-hand running applies in most cases anyway). Cherryguy93 is the editor who has been adding these, so it would be appropriate to invite his views. --DavidCane (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are occaisions when the direction of the line is reversed e.g. the Northern Line at Bank and London Bridge, The Central Line at White City and variuos points on the Victoria Line. Simply south (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- That can usually be dealt with in the text, as I think we already do. --DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't really like them myself, as (i) space-filling; (ii) of little encyclopedic value; (iii) not completely useful to the public. Further, at all except the simplest one- or two-platform stations, platform uses do change, as service patterns change. It would be a bind to keep the diagrams up to date as well as the text. I have seen them being added, and also removed, from station articles by other users, and wondered what I should do myself; however I have neither added nor removed such diagrams, until definite policy has been laid down.
- I think I saw recent comment from User:AlisonW and User:SilasW about such diagrams. Forget where though; maybe an article talk page? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think there are two interesting things about platforms, which side of the train they are and where the exits are (though maybe that should be kept "secret" as TfL seem to make a point of not publishing that information so people don't all cram into one carriage). If that information can be expressed well in a diagram maybe they are worth having. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- That can usually be dealt with in the text, as I think we already do. --DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- There are occaisions when the direction of the line is reversed e.g. the Northern Line at Bank and London Bridge, The Central Line at White City and variuos points on the Victoria Line. Simply south (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for your views. I wonder if these are really needed on simple stations with two platforms. It is so easy to describe these with prose and the existing nav box. This is also by far the most accessible way of presenting the information. Once you get to more complex stations with at least four platforms these diagrams might be helpful, but they also hide some degree of complexity such as platforms that are not neatly parallel or perpendicular to each other. If we were to keep these for more complex stations, we might be able to improve their appearance and keep them consistent by use of templates. Another thought is that National Rail now produce these layouts themselves example. We could simply link to these. MRSC (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since, according to the above example, the layout diagrams are available at an official location, we must be wary of breaching copyright should we produce our own. If we must have them, I would prefer a link to the NR page as per above example; these could be incorporated into the infobox quite easily. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- My comment (at User_talk:SilasW#Platform_layouts) related to the fact that these 'layouts' are pretty much totally useless in every case. For example, Hammersmith tube station (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines)#Layout purports to tell use something. But given we don't even get told where North-S-E-W are the reader who doesn't already know the station has no useful information passed to them by the diagram. In this case we know it is a terminus, yet the double-ended arrows suggest trains go in both directions (to the same place!). Further the use of 'thick' and 'thin' platform edges isn't explained or consistent. Personally I'd have thought 'thick' meant a wall, but it seems not - except on some. Then we come to the maintenance issues. Each one is a manually-created table! Leaving aside the ethics of using tables for non-tabular information, this makes it difficult to 'read' the coding by others. At least route maps use templates and, if these platforms are to survive, I would suggest they need to be 'templated' too. If we are to have station layouts in any case they would be better served by a line drawing placing them in the context of nearby roads and the station entrance. The current platform layouts do nothing for the reader and I would be content to see them go. iirc they appeared without discussion? --AlisonW (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest we do not remove these for the sake of it, but once the article contains prose explaining the same information and a link to an external source (where it exist) we then remove them. MRSC (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Also, anyone who decides they want to have a go at turning these into prose, please check the layout of the article. I'm finding loads of transport-related articles where the usual See also > References > External links etc. order has been altered. MRSC (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Abandoned London Underground projects
Anyone know what's going on with Category:Abandoned London Underground projects? All the articles in it have been removed but I can see no category to replace it. Personally I thought it was a useful category for grouping, well, abandoned Underground projects - the "what might have been" stories. Where are these articles now? Cnbrb (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now here: Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and here: Category:Proposed London Underground lines. MRSC (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi folks
- This is one of a number of London rail and underground-related categories which I have encountered whilst cleaning up uncategorised categories, and a whatlinkshere on Category:Abandoned London Underground projects check brought me to this discussion.
- Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Category:Abandoned London Underground projects was emptied and then blanked. That may have been a good decision or maybe not, though like Cnbrb I am surprised to find that there is no longer a "what might have been" category ... and whatever view anyone takes on the merits, this should not have been done out-of-process. A proposal to delete should have been listed at WP:CFD so that any objections could be considered before the category was depopulated.
- In this case, I was going to suggest that Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines should be placed as sub-categories of Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but a quick peek at those categories suggests that they contain a mixture of abandoned and live projects, so that wouldn't work.
- Blanking a category is acceptable if it is a new creation and blanked by its the only editor who had edited it, but this was a well-established category. I'm sure that this was done in good faith as a sincere effort to improve wikipedia, but it should not have been blanked. It doesn't take long to list a category at WP:CFD, so please can editors remember that any future renamings, mergers or deletions of categories should be done through WP:CFD?
- In this case, it seems to me that the editor who depopulated Category:Abandoned London Underground projects should look for input after-the-fact, by explaining here the reasons for the category's depopulation and asking whether that step has consensus. If not, it should be repopulated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure its a good idea to recreate it. It had things like Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell, which if you read the article isn't really abandoned. A new subcategory of Category:Proposed London Underground stations would be a good idea for the stations that were planned to be served by Underground but then the plans were cancelled. Perhaps Category:Cancelled proposed London Underground stations. MRSC (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- One of the reasons why depopulation of a category is a bad idea is that after the fact it's difficult to see what was in the category, because there's no single place to look. Is there a list anywhere, or can you you cobble something together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can see from my edit summaries that all the actual "plans" are now in Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines. The rest are stations now contained in Category:Proposed London Underground stations. I suggest the actual plan articles be left categorised as they are now. There are so few of them; and their very nature makes a division into "abandoned" and "current" somewhat impractical. Category:Proposed London Underground stations should be subdivided to create a replacement for Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but needs to be more accurately named and I'm still not sure what it should be called. Category:Stations formerly proposed to be served by the London Underground perhaps. MRSC (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- Articles suitable for inclusion in this category might be those listed in the navbox Template:Closed London Underground stations under "abandoned plans". It seems like it might not have been all that underpopulated after all. The replacement categories described above don't really fill the gap - they only list what was proposed, so the only way the reader can discern if a proposal is still current is to go in and read each article individually. The new names suggested like Category:Stations formerly proposed to be served by the London Underground are cumbersome and unsatisfactory. In short I'd conclude that there wasn't anything wrong with the category in the first place and nobody can think of a better one to replace it, so why lose it? Cnbrb (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- I can see from my edit summaries that all the actual "plans" are now in Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines. The rest are stations now contained in Category:Proposed London Underground stations. I suggest the actual plan articles be left categorised as they are now. There are so few of them; and their very nature makes a division into "abandoned" and "current" somewhat impractical. Category:Proposed London Underground stations should be subdivided to create a replacement for Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but needs to be more accurately named and I'm still not sure what it should be called. Category:Stations formerly proposed to be served by the London Underground perhaps. MRSC (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- One of the reasons why depopulation of a category is a bad idea is that after the fact it's difficult to see what was in the category, because there's no single place to look. Is there a list anywhere, or can you you cobble something together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure its a good idea to recreate it. It had things like Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell, which if you read the article isn't really abandoned. A new subcategory of Category:Proposed London Underground stations would be a good idea for the stations that were planned to be served by Underground but then the plans were cancelled. Perhaps Category:Cancelled proposed London Underground stations. MRSC (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm thinking depopulating these categories. It is far too granular and if we are categorising by one platform, why not two or three? MRSC (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Makes sense. --AlisonW (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, do NOT do that.
- If you think that a category is no longer needed, please propose its deletion at WP:CFD. Out-of-process deletions, however well-intentioned, are disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Definitely CFD if you insist. There are procedures to doing these things rather than acting on a whim. (And for what its worth, I'll be opposing) Jeni (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get some views on how we should categorise our articles. Accusations of "whims" is a failure to assume good faith. If we think this category is a good idea, we can look to extending it to Category:Two platform tube stations etc. MRSC (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- The proposal to depopulate out-of-process may be what triggered Jeni's ABF. However, I think that MRSC has now moved beyond that idea. --17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to get some views on how we should categorise our articles. Accusations of "whims" is a failure to assume good faith. If we think this category is a good idea, we can look to extending it to Category:Two platform tube stations etc. MRSC (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Chelsea-Hackney
When Crossrail 1 was just a proposal we didn't allow succession boxes on the articles. When the funding was secured we started to include this. However, we currently have succession boxes for Crossrail 2 (Chelsey-Hackney). This project is currently merely a "safeguarded route" with no sign of much support or, crucially, finance. Following our existing practice, should these be removed? The articles are already categorised as "Proposed Chelsea-Hackney Line stations" and have {{Chelsea–Hackney line navbox}} at the bottom. MRSC (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- To me, Chelsea-Hackney is just another nice-to-have scheme, which may well go the same way as so many earlier schemes (Central Line to Denham anyone? Northern to Bushey Heath?). See
- Garland, Ken (1994). Mr Beck's Underground Map. Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-168-6.
- in which there is a suggested future Underground diagram, showing the proposed Chelsea-Hackney line in pale green (I can't check which page, it's back home & I'm on hols, but it's towards the end). The point is: 15 years on, and I've yet to see actual digging begin. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're right, although the proposed line would suit me quite nicely! Kbthompson (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
London Overground template
- (Another thought strikes me) After the London Overground template was subst'd, it leaves a lot of articles with 'opens in 2010' in the text. That will need to be adjusted when the (fast approaching) time comes. They're no longer neatly linked into anything. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- You can use AWB to search for the exact phrase that was subst'd in all Category:Districts of London articles. That should find most. MRSC (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks - joy! - but not yet; I'll wait til it opens. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hear it may be sooner than expected. It certainly looked ready at Hoxton the other day. MRSC (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- Er, are you sure that what you saw was indeed Chelsea–Hackney line, and not the East London Line extension works? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I hear it may be sooner than expected. It certainly looked ready at Hoxton the other day. MRSC (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- [Conflict] (This bit was about ELL!) Scheduled for June 2010; but as you say, at Dalston Junction there appears to be a certain 'readiness' for action. I would guess they are waiting on the 14-week north London line closure to complete works associated with the 'Dalston curve' to allow services to Highbury. They seem ready to run test trains, as track and signalling are in place. Kbthompson (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Former services
The next thing I want to tackle is the "former services" succession boxes added to articles such as on West Brompton station. These are less-than-useless in my opinion. They don't mention the date the services became "former". Worse still, they often include services that have simply become part of another line or network. Taking the West Brompton example, the box implies that there is no longer a service on the WLL to Kensington (Olympia). My instinct is that these templates should only appear on articles about stations that are completely closed and should either give the date they relate to or relate only to the services on closure. For all other articles a pictogram of the local area, something along the lines of the one found in Broad Street railway station (London) (but including dates) would be much more useful. Any thoughts? MRSC (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think this should be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways because it's not confined to London. However, restricting it to closed stations will prevent it being added to (a) junction stations which remain open although one or more of the routes has closed (West Drayton for example), and (b) intermediate stations which remain open, but the adjacent atation has closed (neither Tottenham Court Road tube station nor Holborn tube station mention British Museum in their succession boxes, although that station was between them, and it mentions both in its own succession box). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
London bus garage codes
A number of internal links to garage sections now do not work because the garage codes have been added to the section headers, affecting the # operator in the link in the source wikipedia page. I have AWB so I can hopefully fix this pretty easily and quickly, but if you want to help, just PM me — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- I did undo the user that made these edits a number of times a few months ago for precisely that reason. Obviously I didn't catch them all, or he has made more since. (Sorry, can't remember who it was off the top of my head) Jeni (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, this time the person concerned, User:Andymacp, appears to be new to Wikipedia. It's not insurmountable to leave the codes in place and to update the links, as that's possible with AWB. I will begin the task towards the end of the month when I'm a bit less busy with other non-WP stuff if I receive no objections. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think the codes should be in the titles, title's aren't really there to convey extra information, but to break up the sections. That said, I'm not a member of this project, and I'm not heavily involved in editing down that way, so if there is a greater consensus, go for it :) Jeni (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that they ought not be in the section titles themselves - particularly as they are meaningless to an unedified reader - but the work involved in removing may be greater than making do with re-formatting the broken links. I think the addition of Garage codes takes nothing away from the article, so why not? It may require a little more pre-thought than I first estimated to satisfactorily resolve this. Can anyone assist with a suggestion of their own? — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't think the codes should be in the titles, title's aren't really there to convey extra information, but to break up the sections. That said, I'm not a member of this project, and I'm not heavily involved in editing down that way, so if there is a greater consensus, go for it :) Jeni (talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, this time the person concerned, User:Andymacp, appears to be new to Wikipedia. It's not insurmountable to leave the codes in place and to update the links, as that's possible with AWB. I will begin the task towards the end of the month when I'm a bit less busy with other non-WP stuff if I receive no objections. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Banner discussion
Please could people look at WT:TWP#Removal of WikiProject London Transport as a sub-project or part of the banner? Simply south (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Class 313 dispute
Hi, a dispute has erupted at the Class 313 page over images, and I was hoping some other interested parties could help us reach an agreement.
-mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Newsletter subscription
The Metropolitan |
---|
Another issue to be addressed is, please could people indicate in the next month at the feedback page, my talk page or in this discussion whether they still want to recieve issues of the metro. A lot of newsletters seem to be going to redundant pages. Simply south (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
South Kensington tube station nominated for Good Article status
South Kensington tube station has been nominated for Good Article status. --DavidCane (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I just created this article and have no idea which categories or templates in belongs in. Any suggestions? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- Find another article which covers a similar subject and see what categories are on that. Then find one which covers a different subject in the same part of the country, and borrow some cats rom that too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
- I looked on Capital Citybus to get categories, but I thought there might have been a template I didn't know about. It seems there isn't, though I can't help feeling that here should be. Thanks for the suggestion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
London bus route articles
There seem to be many articles on specific London Bus routes. Some even have route maps on them showing different places the buses stop at, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. In addition to this many of the articles contain unsourced material or just reworded information from the unofficial London Bus Routes website. ZoeL (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Also, many Underground and railway station articles now have a list of bus routes (examples Acton Town; Ealing Broadway; Greenford; Southall). Do we have policy on those? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- There used to be far more route articles. Take a look at this - all of these used to have individual articles, and now exist only as redirects to a list. The ones that survive do so because they are notable. A couple more were for a time redirects and have since been restored - ironically, they're generally the best sourced of the lot, as they've had to be to justify their recreation. London Buses route 187 is a good example. Lists of routes serving stations are totally differrent, but they do help to provide context to the significance of a location as a transport hub. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)