Talk:London Underground/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Deregulation

Buses in the UK were deregulated in 1985, except in London and Northern Ireland where contracts are let for specified services on specified routes by public bodies. In these areas there is a degree of stability and the promotion of network maps, zonal fare schemes and the signage of stopping places and timetables is therefore relatively practicable.

Deregulation is by contrast really very messy, and I hope it isn't extended. In Edinburgh for example it's virtually impossible to work out some of the routes! There is also a lot of wasted capacity due to competition, etc.

On the same subject, some reference should be made to Transport For London, the new umbrella organisation that has now got the Docklands Light Railway and London Transport under one roof (excuse the pun). -- Dweir

The entry may lead some to confuse LT Cards with Travelcards. Travelcards allow the user to travel on most forms of public transport within the zones for which they are valid (including National Rail trains), whereas LT Cards allow travel only on most Tubes and buses. Some services remain outside the LT Card and Travelcard schemes. -- Robert Brook 20:26, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

I didn't write that bit - I changed it from "farecards" to LT Cards; remember Travelcards are off-peak only, and no mention is made here to suburban rail or non-tube/DLR services, so I thought LT Cards would be the best drop-in replacement for the ambiguous farecards until I can refactor that bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dweir (talk • contribs) 20:49, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

Much as I hate to nit-pick... not all Travelcards are off-peak, otherwise I wouldn't be able to get to work on time! Only one-day Travelcards are restricted to use after 09h30 in the morning. But I take your point about the page not being about National Rail services. -- Robert Brook 21:16, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

Sorry! I've always felt like a second-class citizen having used one day travelcards on each visit. Now I know why. Also, any ideas why the Bakerloo is so hot and stuffy north of Regent's Park? And, any Londoners (perhaps you Robert) who know how to get a cheap trip on the tube want to refactor the ticketing paragraph? --Dweir 21:24, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

Just to make things even more complicated, there are now (more expensive) one-day travelcards that can be used in the morning peak --AdamW

Infracos

One of the new Infracos is called Tube Lines (rather uninventive), and the other is called... Metronet (?) -- Robert Brook 21:21, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

Metronet rings a bell. I just can't remember the divisions although it's roughly Metronet=Sub-surface, Tube Lines=<duh>. --Dweir 21:24, 18 November 2001 (UTC)

TubeLines are responsible for one of the InfraCos - JNP (Jubilee, Northern and Piccadilly) - and Metronet are responsible for two InfraCos: SSL (Metropolitan (which includes the H&C and Circle Lines), East London Line, and District) and BCV (Bakerloo (which covers the Waterloo and City), Central and Victoria). Arkady Rose 21:44, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Are you sure the platform doors on the Jubilee line are to prevent suicide? I thought they were to do with air resistance and that the suicide prevention was a side-effect. 13:21, 21 November 2001 (UTC)

They are purely to minimise wind resistance and for noise abatement purposes. Suicide prevention is just a handy side benefit. Arkady 23:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Wind resistance is part of the equation. The other is to mitigate potential smoke and fire problems. [Conversation with Jubilee Network Controllers at the Neasden Control Room: Nov 2003] [Robert Cy Jones 14.30, 12 July 2005]

First railway

I'm confused on two points.

First, the following seem to be potentially incompatible claims:

1. "London's first underground railway line was laid on January 10, 1863"
2. "the first deep-level electric railway line, or subway, was constructed in 1890"

Was the "first underground railway line" not electric? If it wasn't "deep-level", does that mean it was "sub-surface (dug by the cut-and-cover method)"?

Second, do Londoners ever refer to the system as "The Underground"? The first paragraph seems to imply that this is not the case.

It is usually called the Tube by Londoners ... However, the term "Underground" is now commonly applied to other such networks around the world, and to the concept itself.

This seems to imply that Londoners would not refer to their own subway/metro/understand as "The Underground", that term being reserved for other subway/metro/underground systems. I think this is not what people really meant, so I'm going to give a go at rephrasing.

--Ryguasu 04:16 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I'll try and answer those points as best I can:

1. the first underground railway in L. was from Paddington to Farrington, what is now the Metropolitan / Circle line. It's a subsurface cut & cover tunnel. the trains originally ran on steam
2. the first electric one was part of what is now the northern line city branch: King William St (now closed) south to somewhere like Kennington (not sure how far south the original line went). This was a deep-level circular cross-section line -- the first "tube".
3. Londoners use both. All the signs say "underground". some of the ad campaigns LT have run use "tube".

-- Tarquin 11:37 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks, Tarquin. With that in mind, I've removed some of the passages that struck me as confusing or misleading. Since I'm an American and have been to London only briefly, though, someone may wish to double-check these edits.

London's first underground railway line was laid on January 10, 1863.

Removed from the "Background" section. First, I assume the railway was not laid in a single day, as this implies. Second, I think this would be better described in the "history" section. Third, I think this is already described in more detail in that section.

It is usually called the Tube by Londoners, ever since the first deep-level electric railway line, or subway, was constructed in 1890.

Removed the "ever since..." part. This implies that the terminology "the Tube" originated in 1890. Have people really done their homework about this particular etemelogical claim?

According to the Oxford English Dictionary the phrase "twopenny tube" was applied to the Central railway from its opening in 1900 and became popular then, but the first actual electric underground tube railway had been running for ten years at the time. The OED also quotes Queen Victoria in 1847 referring to a railway tunnel as a tube. Ortolan88

PS -- OED says "underground railway" was first used in 1834 in reference to "the under-ground railways of Newcastle and vicinity" and cites an 1885 reference to "the stuffy underground railway journey to Baker street".

However, the term "Underground" is now commonly applied to other such networks around the world, and to the concept itself.

Removed. This is true, but this is a subjet for general-purpose underground article. Unless what is meant is that the term "underground" originated in London, in which case that claim should be stated much more clearly.

Now the main part of the article which seems unclear is

The London Underground maintains one of the strongest corporate identities? of any organization in the world.

I haven't removed this, but I'm confused: What is a strong corporate identity? How do you recognize one? Do the employees identify strongly with the tube corporation? Do the tube riders? Does this mean the identity of the tube is strongly tied to the identity of London? Also, what is the basis for saying this identity is stronger with the tube corporation than with most other organizations worldwide? Isn't that a rather spectacular claim?

--Ryguasu 23:07 Dec 8, 2002 (UTC)

I suppose the "corporate identity" thing means that the Underground logo -- the circle with a horizontal bar over it -- is instantly recognized by any Londoner, probably any Briton, and people around the world. Other underground systems (that I know of) have copied the idea to a certain extent: Paris has an "M" in a circle, Montreal has an M with a down-arrow, but the M logo is relatively recent (70s, maybe), whereas the LU logo has been around since the 30s if not earlier. It is also used for all station signs: the station name is written in the horizontal bar, and also for many line names, for example on the in-carriage maps. So, (and I'm pondering this question as I write...) the logo is probably far more ubiquitous across the network than the other networks' logos. The Paris (M) is only used atop street signposts and on maps, and even there it's really to differentiate from the RER. (feel free to plunder from my above ramblings for the article if you feel it's worth it!) -- Tarquin

I've decided that the "corporate identity" bit wasn't really coherent. I've put the part that had to do with the logo into a new "iconography" section, which also incorporates a few of Tarquin's above remarks. (I'm not comfortable adding the big about Paris and Montreal, because I don't know anything about it.) The main ideas that I've deleted but that might be worth including somehow are: 1) the idea that London Transport's "corporate identity" (i.e. logo?) had a "very careful, gradual development", and 2) the idea that London Transport has "a simple selling proposition" --Ryguasu 22:15 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Metropolitan Railway

I'm not too sure that the comment about the Metropolitan Railway serving the list of mainline stations when in opened is entirely correct -- Marylebone station, for example, wasn't built until 1899 (which is why Sherlock Holmes never caught a train from there, despite 221b Baker Street being just round the corner!). -- Arwel 19:52 Feb 17, 2003 (UTC)

...and indeed the Met (Hammersmith and City, these days) doesn't have a station at Marylebone - only the later Bakerloo does. The rest of the list is correct, and indeed the Met was physically linked to the GWR at Paddington, the GNR at Kings Cross, and (later) to the Midland at St Pancras (now the Thameslink route). I will remove Marylebone from the list. --rbrwr 16:28 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Station articles

Links to articles on tube stations would be useful. - Patrick 13:32 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

We seem to have the following articles: Bounds Green tube station, Tottenham Court Road tube station, Dollis Hill tube station, Notting Hill Gate tube station, Charing Cross tube station, London Bridge tube station, Cannon Street tube station, Embankment tube station, Oval tube station and Bethnal Green tube station.

...and significant tube station content in: Kings Cross fire, Mornington Crescent, Kings Cross station, Marylebone railway station, Liverpool Street station, Paddington station and Waterloo station.

--rbrwr

Thanks, I have put them in. - Patrick 21:35 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

...and see the full list (temporarily) at User:Rbrwr/sandbox--rbrwr

you have remined me i need to finish off my station information in each of the individual lines, see: Central Line fo a finished work. BTWon your list you missed out closed stations. such as Ongar Tube Station, Verney Junction Tube Station, Windsor Tube Station, South Acton Tube Station, etc. -fonzy

Aldwych tube station, Down Street tube station, South Kentish Town tube station, British Museum tube station... There's loads, I know. --rbrwr

Is that a "yes i know there are loads" or "i know loads", do you wnat em to add tehm to your list? - fonzy

I think I will make a separate list of closed stations. I have appropriate sources. Stay tuned. --rbrwr

k, but i may start finishing the work i stared ages ago (on the line articles) and never finishd tomrow. -fonzy

Provisonal list now at User:Rbrwr/sandbox --rbrwr

Logo

Given that, as the article states, LU defends its trademark, do we have permission to put that picture (just added by User:BasilFawlty) in the article? Pcb21 08:07 29 May 2003 (UTC)

especially as it's a blurry and badly cropped JPEG. PNG for thigns like that please! I suggest someone take a photograph of the logo used in real life. No problem there :-) -- Tarquin 08:28 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I wondered if it might be a photo of a T-shirt. I might be able to take a photo or two next week but better avoid adding any material to the LU or South West Trains bits today... after today's 2hr45min commute (to do 25 miles!) I doubt it would be NPOV! Pcb21 10:18 30 May 2003 (UTC)

easiest might be the map posters outside the stations. 2hr45... yikes! -- Tarquin 16:35 30 May 2003 (UTC)

What about just using an actual graphic image from LU such this?

James F. 19:25 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Well that's their image, it's copyright. We can probably put it in under "fair use". But AFAIK if a wikipedian takes a photo of an LU poster outside a station, which includes the logo in big, they own the copyright on the photograph. So we can include it under GDFL :) (and IANAL -- check with the mailing list if in doubt) -- Tarquin 22:23 30 May 2003 (UTC)

POV

I removed "Sadly" from the Access area because that just plain POV emotion. Paul Weaver 22:01, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a bit mawkish. But you could have replaced it with 'unfortunately'. -- Tarquin 22:50, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have removed "(Please add to this list.)" at the bottom of the Tube/Fiction section because "please add to" is implicit in Wikipedia and it doesn't look professional on an entry. --/Mat 11:51, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good call. For something as clear cut as that you probably don't even have to boterh mentioning it on the talk page. But thanks anyway. :) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:07, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Floodgates

In "Post-war developments" it states A series of floodgates were erected in the tunnels such that they would seal the affected sections of tunnel closed, allowing services to continue to run elsewhere on the line. The floodgates were no longer necessary once the Thames flood barrier came into service, but they remain in place and are tested three times a year. however readings elsewhere would disagree with this, especially the testing. Can anyone point me to a valid reference please? VampWillow 22:44, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

That was put in by User:Arkady Rose [1], who works on the Tube - David Gerard 22:49, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. VampWillow 22:56, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Indeed I do - I'm a former Line Controller for the District Line. :-) Arkady 23:06, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

And here you are subscribed to undergroundgoth ;-) If you ask for more detail there, she'll probably be the one to answer - David Gerard 22:59, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

image copyright info?

Can someone provide copyright info for the baker street tube picture? It's a featured article and on the front page, so it's important that we provide that info readily. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:32, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Suggest you contact (try wikipedia-email?) the person who uploaded it - User:Tonymccrae. I would guess he took it himself. Morwen - Talk 17:34, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The pictures do seem like they were taken by him, but there's no info given. I'll e-mail him. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:56, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

Until the copyright status of that image is resolved, do you think that the London Underground logo or map would be a more appropriate image? As those are provided by a government agency, they are innately public domain, right? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

IANAL but public domain? no. the 'government agency' bit about copyright is US-only (or at least, not UK - it may apply in some other countries too). If you look at any use of the roundel or LT map you will see a licence number, and licences do not come cheap :-( --VampWillow 22:24, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

London Underground Limited is not a government agency. LUL owns the copyright on the roundel; Transport for London (which is a government agency) uses the roundel only with permission. LUL take coyright infringement very seriously. Arkady Rose 23:00, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There was a comment somewhere about someone having asked LUL for permission to reproduce things on Wikipedia. I'll try to look it out later, unless someone can be bothered first? — OwenBlacker 12:27, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Don't know about LUL, but TfL released the Congestion Charge map under the GFDL. (One can't help but wonder if the permission sometimes comes because the GFDL is not understood, but ho hum). Pcb21| Pete 12:56, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's what I was thinking about; thanks Pete. Sorry for the confusion. — OwenBlacker 13:19, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

Capital of the UK?

Why does the first para need to explain that London is the capital of the UK? If every article which mentions London did this, it would be somewhat annoying, to put it mildly. People reading the article who don't know what London is need only to click London to find out that it is indeed the capital of the UK and England. As that's what wikipedia is good at, it seems a bit odd to make this article's opening paragraph inelegant with this extra wording. --Nevilley 08:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Removed it: it has only been in since the 21st and I think the article read fine without it. --Nevilley 08:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Note to editors - station histories etc

If in doubt about some matter of detail like a station history, you should probably check with the London Transport Museum. When stuck, I did, and they have more detail than I thought possible. They have a research service and self-service stuff at the museum site and so on - details on their website. I hope this is helpful. Anon. --82.35.17.203 08:27, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tile wall decor in stations

I just visited London for the first time and was impressed at the care taken to incorporate station-name-related tilework in many of the stations. I didn't see anything anywhere about when these designs were added or by whom or whether there was some kind of art subsidy or-- I dunno, anything about them at all. Anyone know anything about these? Elf | Talk 00:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Heathrow Terminal 5 expansion

Revised the text in expansion to relate the current state of the T5 project (a.k.a. PiccEx). I will alter when various milestones (e.g. completion of the bored tunnels or T5 station) happen. Apologies here to VampWillow for disconnecting her addition from the T5 project: while LUL may be planning to add extra Picc line tracks to increase capacity between central London and Heathrow, the extra tracks are not required to open T5, which expects to be well-enough served by the existing two roads. 20:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) User:Ecb

no ptob to me (I don't remember adding anything about T5 int he first place!). btw. if you use four '~' is will add your name to the date which helps people in following threads. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 21:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Influence of Chicago

Should we mention the influence of the Chicago L/subway system on the Underground? Anyone who has been to the London Transport Museum can attest to this fact. -Joseph 20:04, 2004 Aug 23 (UTC)

Table experiment

I've been screwing around with an idea (essentially stolen from the Japanese system used on station platforms) of a chart showing adjacent stations. Is this overkill?

Tottenham Court Road
Preceding Station	Line	Succeeding Station
Oxford Circus	Central Line	Holborn Transfer: Piccadilly Line
Leicester Square Transfer: Piccadilly Line	Northern Line	Holborn

--Calton 14:10, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) Copying my blurb from the sandbox (and thanks for experimenting there so I could see :-): I like this, but the colors can clash violently with links. How about just using borders, like this:

Tottenham Court Road
Preceding Station	Line	Succeeding Station
Oxford Circus	Central Line	Holborn Transfer: Piccadilly Line
Leicester Square Transfer: Piccadilly Line	Northern Line	Holborn

JRM 15:08, 2004 Nov 13 (UTC)

I would prefer this layout.

Preceding Station	London Underground Lines	Succeeding Station
Lancaster Gate	Central Line	Bond Street

Would do you thinks? 18:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I prefer the wider version (and we should definitely use Wiki table syntax, imho). I'm not sure transfer information needs to be listed in a navigational box. — OwenBlacker 19:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

I have updated my version in Paddington station. I'm not sure if we need the info (Next station north, west, south, east) and if a title row with the station name would be appropriate. Mikegr 21:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore should the underground line and the station be bold or is this overkill? Compare with Baker Street tube station Mikegr 13:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

How about using the skin-format for the tables, like we're meant to? ;-) Also, I think that it would be better if we used the "official" colours as extracted from the map, and on London Underground and the line-template.

For Marble Arch:

Preceding Station	Underground Lines			Succeeding Station
Lancaster Gate		Central Line		Bond Street

For King's Cross St. Pancras:

Preceding Station	Underground Lines			Succeeding Station
Euston Square		Circle Line		Farringdon
		Hammersmith & City Line
Euston		Northern Line (City Branch)		Angel
Euston		Victoria Line		Highbury & Islington
Russell Square		Piccadilly Line		Caledonian Road

Thoughts? James F. (talk) 16:48, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the wide version with the box outline colour above (indeed I changed the Edgware Road entry and found it easy to do so) however the colour in bozes directly above seems to have the elements too far apart to be clear so I'd be against that. --[[User:VampWillow|Vamp:Willow]] 17:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I strongly dislike using a thick border like that; of course, this is just a matter of æsthetic, so...

Apart from anything else, creating new boxes without using the standard formatting for such things that has been developed seems... odd.

I've tweaked it a little bit - how about now?

James F. (talk) 19:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Personally I find the these "navigators" completely unecessary. Far more useful would be a template that listed all the stations on a given line. I can't imagine why anyone would want to read about Baker Street tube station, and then think "oh, I wonder what the next station along is like....", this is after all an encyclopedia, not a click-through storybook. But if we must have them at least think of a way to do it with templates (they're quite flexible these days), so any style decided on now does not become impossible to change. Personally I think class="toccolours" should be used on all infoboxes, and border-collapse:collapse if borders are required. ed g2s • talk 01:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more than an encyclopedia, it's a wiki, it's an experiement. We omit a lot of oppurtunities if we insist that WP is ONLY a encyclopedia. You search for sthg in Wikipedia but you can also read it like a book. Everyone has a special access to use it. And we can support all ways. When I firstly discovered a tube station article, I liked go through the line stations the same way as you would go by the tube. A nice way to discover the Tube. I doubt that it is useful to have 5 or 6 line templates in a article, for eg King's Cross. The last style proposal is really terrific. Probablly we can find a template solution.

My suggestion using a template (maybe better variable names), but I don't know if I can create 2 cell spanning 2 rows:

{{Tube station one line| prestation1=[[Queensway tube station|Queensway]]| color1=#F15B2E| line1=[[Central Line]]| sucstation1=[[Marble Arch tube station|Marble Arch]]}}

Preceding Station	Underground Lines			Succeeding Station
Queensway		Central Line		Marble Arch

Mikegr 15:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We could, of course, use a flexible system such as is used for succession boxes (for an example of it getting quite complicated, see Neville Chamberlain, but this is perhaps a little bit of over-kill for what is, essentially, just 270 boxes.

James F. (talk) 17:14, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. OK, so I did it:

{{start LUL box}}

{{LUL two lines | previous=[[Euston Square tube station|Euston Square]] | line1=Circle Line | next=[[Farringdon station|Farringdon]] | line2=Hammersmith & City Line }}

{{LUL one line to two | previous=[[Euston station|Euston]] | line1=Northern Line City | next1=[[Angel tube station|Angel]] | colour2= 0A9CDA | line2=Victoria Line | next2=[[Highbury & Islington station|Highbury & Islington]] }}

{{LUL line | previous=[[Russell Square tube station|Russell Square]] | line=Piccadilly Line | next=[[Caledonian Road tube station|Caledonian Road]] }}

{{end box}}

Templates start LUL box to start and end box to end.

A normal line is LUL line, two lines concurrently is LUL two lines, and three is, surprisingly, LUL three lines.

A split is either LUL one line to two or LUL two lines to one, depending on which side you want the shared station to be on.

James F. (talk) 17:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ooooh. I like. I'm gonna update King's Cross St. Pancras tube station now (mainly cos the lack of Metropolitan line is irritating me ;o)

— OwenBlacker 22:56, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

I knew that there was something missing. That's really quite poor on my part, given that KCSP is my nearest mainline station... ;-O

James F. (talk) 01:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the new templates with the LUL names. Great idea. 19:11, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the names. What's the name of the template for Moorgate in Liverpool Street tube station? three to one and two? Mikegr 22:43, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was going to call it "LUL three lines split to one and two".

James F. (talk) 03:27, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have finished the Central Line and added everywhere the LUL boxes and I have created Template:LUL two and one lines to one for Paddington station and Template:LUL three lines to two and one for Edgware Road tube station. Mikegr 11:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I startet the Circle Line navigation boxes from Paddington to Tower Hill clockwise (or west to east) and if I continoue it clockwise to South Kensingtion, we have a conflict with the District Line, which goes from west to east. But I would like to use the LUL two lines template. Suggestions? Mikegr 12:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ed and I have taken advantage of the usefulness of MediaWiki 1.4 to simplify things - now, instead of giving a line which is a proper link and a colour which is the right one, all you have to do is give the name of the line/branch, and it will use the templates "<Name> link" for the link and "<Name> colour" for, shockingly, the colour.

Also, I've made Template:LUL-stub for the stations and so on.

James F. (talk) 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tannoy Terminology

Accoriding to b3ta.com[[2]] (not appropriate for all ages), tannoy announcements on the underground that direct "Inspector Sands" to a specific location indicate that this location has had a fire alarm trigerred. Is this still in use? Should it be included? --Joshtek 00:06, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it's very much still in use. I often hear it at Canada Water. It's normally "Would Inspector Sands please come to the operations room", jguk 15:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mackerel?

Is "St John's Wood is the only station which contains none of the letters of the word 'mackerel'." some sort of inside joke among Brits? --SPUI (talk) 01:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If so, I'm not in on it. Rd232 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It came from a quiz question, which - for what reason I do not know - became quite popular and was used in more and more quizzes, making it (but not necessarily the answer) quite well known. It's not a joke. It was presumably added so that if anyone is coming to the page looking for an answer to "what is the only London Underground station that does not include any of the letters in the word mackerel" they will find the answer. Kind regards, jguk 12:36, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. If some of the external links are reliable sources and were used as references, they can be placed in a References section too. See the cite sources link for how to format them. Thank you, and please leave me a message when a few references have been added to the article. - Taxman 19:54, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Restructuring

The changes I made today were mostly tryng to develop a better structure, plus minor additions. The History section still needs a summary from the daughter article, but I've had enough for now. Rd232 11:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)