Talk:London Underground/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Off site images

Please don't link to images off-site for which you are not directly responsible--including images that are on government websites. Images should come from one of two sources: the Wikipedia server or server space owned by a Wikipedian. --Larry Sanger

Which Westinghouse?

I'm trying to bypass links to Westinghouse. Which organization is now supplying signalling apparatus to the London Underground? --Wtshymanski 17:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Westinghouse Rail Systems Ltd, part of Invensys Rail Systems, apparently - see http://www.westsig.co.uk/ --rbrwr^± 18:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! --Wtshymanski 17:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Safety

From the article it says 'Suicides are nonetheless common, at roughly one per week across the network, though it is estimated that only one in three attempts of this nature end in a fatality.' Does this mean there are three suicide attempts per week of which one is successful. Or that on average, there is a single suicide attempt each week, resulting in a fatality every three weeks? Could somebody with access to the source used to construct this section rewrite it without the ambiguity? --82.37.33.133 6 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)

There are around 50 per year [1]. I will update the article. NickF 6 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)

A recent edit says "There have also been a number of derailments in recent years, none of which have resulted in serious injury or loss of life." Perhaps someone knows the longest temporal gap that has ever been between two derailments, so that the article can then say something like "Although no more than [x time] has ever elapsed without a derailment, those in recent years have not resulted in serious injury or death." I love the Tube. President Lethe 01:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Schematic map

Where is the tube map we all know and love/hate? Is its copyright too restrictive? --Taejo 7 July 2005 14:00 (UTC)

I have added some links about TfL copyright policy to my talk page. I also made a start on a Tube diagram that could be developed as a royalty-free alternative to the official one. I note that Ed g2s has also made some significant contributions to this with his geographically-accurate diagrams, but this is specifically designed to be a jump-off diagram with clickable buttons for stations. --DominicSayers 13:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The Tube map article does include images of maps—and links to external sites with more. President Lethe 01:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Triva

I think there's an inaccuracies in the Trivia section:

Oxford circus and Bond Street also have no buildings at or above ground level.

In the case of Oxford Circus this is not strictly correct. The Exit from Oxford Circus on the corner of Oxford St and Argyle Place is through the traditional red tiled Underground building. Presumably the Bond St entrance was of a similar, long demolished design.

No, what was demolished at Bond Street had an elegant façade in Portland stone and glass, designed by Charles Holden. Demolition was only a few years ago, to make way for the shopping centre above the ticket hall.

It's also not correct that Westminster station has no associated buildings at or above ground level. It was reconstructed for interchange with the Jubilee Line, and to be the base of Portcullis House above; the ticket hall occupies part of the ground floor of the new building. 80.2.144.114 17:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Line data infoboxes

After a discussion on Talk:Waterloo & City Line I've had a crack at Infobox#Transport_for_London_railway_lines|an Infobox to standardise the way basic data on individual lines is presented. Should we consider using this on line articles, with the current table of lines reformatted horizontally and moved to the bottom? I think it's fairly nice (the line colour's the background of the header), so unless anyone objects I'll go ahead and do this soonish. --Mpk 18:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Having made a few infoboxes myself, I've made a few changes and drafted it here: Template:Infobox TfL line. Perhaps we should merge it with the existing template that lists the lines? ed g2s • talk 20:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Much nicer! I was trying to think of how to link to other lines, but a list of all of them seems rather cumbersome in the information-dense environment of an infobox. Maybe just a link to the LU category page would do the trick? I can track down various other bits of data to expand the line-specific boxes a bit as well - "number of interchanges" and "amount of line in tunnel" are two possibilities. --Mpk 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The line pages already have the list-of-lines infoboxes on them, so it's either combine them, or have two infoboxes per page. ed g2s • talk

I've combined the two, and the effect is reasonably pleasing (although I think it would be nicer with a dividing line between the two parts of the box, which seems to be beyond my table-formatting skills). Installed the Infobox into Waterloo & City Line - if nobody strenuously objects I'll roll them out to the others in the next day or so. --Mpk 23:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Getting a little messy?

The main LU article seems to be suffering from a form of Wiki decay - in particular, the second half is degenerating into a list of conjecture, trivia and pop culture references, which I'm not too sure belong in the headline article. The style also wanders around all over the place - for instance, the Underground is probably what it should be called in an encyclopaedia, while the underground and the tube seem to crop up throughout the article. It seems to me that a little spring cleaning is necessary. I'm wondering if it would be a nice little project to try and bring a little more structure to the LU and related articles (lines and stations) - the line articles in particular are highly variable in quality, and while the lists of stations in them are useful, I can't help but wonder if they couldn't be presented in a slightly more elegant form.

There's a WikiProject dealing with London articles already, but I wonder if anyone else would be interested in working more specifically on an overhaul of London transportation (LU, DLR, etc) pages? I think they could be a lot better than they are. --Mpk 22:45, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I support the idea of a London Transport WikiProject. It should be cognizant of the work of the New York City Subway and Stations WikiProjects. It would be good to arrive at a consensus on how to describe these systems. --DominicSayers 14:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Largest such system"?

The first section of the page calls the Underground "the oldest and biggest such underground system in the world." However, the New York City Subway page says the Metro has a higher ridership, a longer track, and more stations.

Would it make sense to clarify that claim?

Jeff Bowman 23:14, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

LU is certainly the oldest (there are sections of alignment in NYC which opened in 1863, the same year as the Met, but they were originally vanilla overground railway rather than underground). As far as length of track is concerned, this is trickier - for instance, do the calculations for the Subway include every running line (which would be four for those lines which have express and local services) or just the total length of its alignments? New York Subway suggests the former, as someone's also added up all the bits of track in depots and yards to produce the final total. NYC unquestionably has more stations - hundreds more - although the overall area served is possibly lower due to the design (or lack thereof) of the system's layout.

Having recently been in New York, though, I'd definitely say that two statistics for which the Subway really comes out on top are "Most confusing" and "Least passenger-visible information on platforms"... --Mpk 10:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

So, again, how shall we clarify by which specific criteria the Tube is superlative? Writing "design (or lack thereof)", "Most confusing", and "Least passenger-visible information on platforms" seems not to move us much closer to the answer. President Lethe 02:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Tidying..

The headline article seems to be suffering rather from wikirot, and it's far too long. I'm tidying things up a bit in an attempt to get the page size down a little and remove some of the repetition. Most notably:

• Most of the PPP stuff has been moved to the LU History entry - frankly, several dense paragraphs of figures and political detail so high up in the main article isn't exactly appealing to the average reader, and I know it gave me a headache..
• Terrorist attack bits have been cleaned up - the 7 July things were duplicated, so I've moved them to one entry in the historical bit of the headline article. I'll also amend the 21 July stuff to "attempted explosions" as they didn't exactly work properly.
• The "popular culture" bit is on my hitlist for moving to a seperate page, and "Trivia" is mostly, er, trivial stuff. The links list could use trimming as well, as it's a little bloated with "Look, here's my page which happens to mention the Underground" entries. --Mpk 10:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

And a bit more this evening:

• I've made a quick pass through the article making the name of the system more consistent - the London Underground, less formally the Underground, and the Tube when used in contexts like the Tube map. Before, it was jumping around all over the place, and I think it's a bit neater this way.
• Casually trimmed a bit of the judge's quotes from the H&S trial of a few years ago - an interesting event, but probably not worth more than a sentence or two in total on such a busy page as this. --Mpk 22:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ticket prices

You know, there's something I missed as a first-time visitor to this page - it would be interesting and useful info to have some ticket pricing available - the only thing I (think) I saw was a smudgy £ 6,00 on the photo of the ticket... --Janke | Talk 14:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of different types of ticket and a lot of different ticket prices, so a full list would make for a tedious and lengthy table which would very quickly go out of late. I've added a link to the Transport for London ticket pages. --Mpk 15:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

The link is good, but a bit buried in all the other stuff... No, I didn't mean that there should be a complete list, just an example or two - for instance, the New York Subway page states that the basic fare is $ 2.00 - and that's nice to know, I can compare it with the 2 euro fare here in Helsinki, for instance. So how about it - is the price of a single ticket within central London too much to keep updated? ;-) --Janke | Talk 06:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It can be found here Travelcard Zone 1. MRSC 10:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it's easy for the NYC Subway, which has a flat fare for virtually all journeys. The price of a Zone 1 single in London is going up to £3 next year (currently £2 if issued on paper), but since hardly anyone actually buys zone 1 singles unless they're planning on only making, well, one journey that day (even a one-day travelcard is enormously cheaper) it's not really appropriate for a direct comparison. The zonal system also makes it harder to compare fares across systems - you'd have to look at the various zonal variations of single fares (and they're priced differently if on paper or Oyster pre-pay) and Travelcards and so on. Direct comparisons of fares on different transport networks are, in short, very hard to do (unless you're the Daily Mail and know what result you're looking to show). --Mpk 11:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"largest such underground system"

In what terms is it the largest such Underground system, surely it is smaller than the NYS and the French metro if my memory serves me correctly.

Never mind, I just read the article up above, but it certainly can be disputed, as I had a little argument earlier about this earlier, came here to check, and bang it showed I was wrong. It may be wise to change this to "largest underground system using tube-profile and sub surface tunnels."

That amendment doesn't really make too much of a difference, though. "The largest system with a mixture of tube and sub-surface running" just makes it look like we're trying to find some metric which will make the system the biggest. The different metrics which would make sense are things like:

• Route miles covered (total length of alignment covered by lines in service)
• Track miles (add up all the running lines, even if they're in parallel. I understand that the NYC subway wins on this metric if you add in all the sidings and stuff too, especially given the fast tracks)
• Stations served
• Area covered (total area within the catchment area of the network)
• Passengers carried per annum

I think what I'm trying to say here is that you can make just about any system you want appear to be the biggest if you choose your metrics correctly. Maybe a bit of research is necessary to work things out for London vs Paris vs NYC, but I'd say that the first metric (route miles covered) is the fairest and most reasonable interpretation of "biggest system". London is certainly the oldest, and probably the deepest-running (unless somewhere else gets deeper than the Northern Line at Hampstead).. --Mpk 17:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think some of the former Soviet systems get deeper than Hampstead. Thryduulf 16:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Using information available on Wikipedia articles, this is the figures I find for the first metric (route miles covered) and for the number of stations:

• London Underground: 253 miles, 274 stations
• NYC Subway: 656 miles, 475 stations
• Paris Métro & RER: 490 miles, 626 stations

Hardouin 03:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• • The German Wikipedia gives only 244 miles of tracks to the New York subway. Hardouin 04:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The difference is probably counting/not counting parallel tracks. Thryduulf 10:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• I'm not sure you can count the RER along with the Métro as well when looking at Paris - if that was the case, there'd be a very good case for a number of London's suburban railways being included in the London count. --Mpk 15:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • RER is just a fast metro, that's how it's understood. It's very different from suburban railways. RER do not terminate in central Paris railway stations, it crosses central Paris though tunnels and reaches distant suburbs in the open, much the same as the underground does in London. Please note that besides the RER, there is also a suburban railways network in Paris. These are two separate things. According to official figures, there are 505 miles of suburban railway lines in the Paris metropolitan area, which adds to the 490 miles of RER and Métro lines. The suburban trains call at 201 suburban train stations, which adds to the 626 RER and Métro stations. You can find the figures here. So it seems to me the boastful mention of the "largest such underground sytem in the world" should be removed. Hardouin 00:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed this as well. The NYC Subway article says: "between 416 and 475 stations (depending on how connected stations are counted; the MTA uses 468 as the number) and 656 miles (1056 km) of mainline track. When non-revenue trackage in shops and yards is included, the total comes to 842 miles" While the tube article says: "The Underground currently serves 274 stations and runs over 253 miles (408 km) of lines." So obviously this article can't say that it's the biggest -- unless one of these numbers is off. Any idea which one is? The easiest fix is to change the london system to say, "one of the largest" like the new york one does. --Quasipalm 19:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I am editing the article then, replacing "largest" with "one of the three largest". Hardouin 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The London figures are route miles, which is the normal figure used in comparing the length of road or rail systems. We wouldn't say that a 100km six-lane highway is LONGER than a 110km four-lane highway. In which case London still is ahead of New York. http://www.nycsubway.org/faq/factsfigures.html gives the NY subway route miles as 230 to London's 253. "Track miles" for London are 538. New York comes out ahead on track miles owing to having three or four tracks along much of its length. The Paris Metro should not include the RER lines. If we include RER, which is a separate system, then we should also include in London figures the Docklands Light Railway and Thameslink (which runs underground through London City centre), and possibly other suburban networks, and in New York include PATH, Metro North, LIRR and so on. If we are trying to compare the entire urban/suburban rail network of each city I would imagine Tokyo would win easily on length, stations and passenger numbers. But we're not - we are comparing, specifically, heavy-rail underground/subway rapid transit systems - of which London Underground is the longest. Busiest system - Moscow wins by a long way. London is probably the most extensive system (ie reaching furthest from the city centre) but I don't have any proof of this. Amersham, the most remote station, is 43km from central London.

NB 2 of the RER lines are managed by RATP. They are are still not regarded as part of the Paris Metro. The other lines are managed by SNCF.

Exile 11:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the station furthest from the city centre, looking at [2] which gives subway maps on the same scale as each other, the San Francisco BART and Madrid might have stations further out. However as no numbers are given (just an approximate 1km = 7 pixels scale) its not easy to make a direct comparison. Also, I'm not certain where on the SF map where the city centre is. Thryduulf 19:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"City centre" in San Francisco is a somewhat-nebulous concept, but you wouldn't be far wrong if you took the big four Market Street stops (Embarcadero, Montgomery, Powell, and Civic Center) as the centre of the BART system.

Atlant 23:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Atentats

While I can't forget the shock when the Underground went into attack (and I don't want to go into detalis, but it affected me more than other tragedies of the new millenium - just one day after London won over Paris and my city and I enjoyed it!), I find the splitting of the history in "Atentats" and "The rest" a bit annoying. It's not like nothing happened in the last century. Plus it's feeding the tendencies in the kind of lunatics who might believe they will get a place in heaven and in civilized world history.--Luci S 07:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

New Years Strike?

I heard on CNN that the union there (the RMT, I think?) plans to call a New Years Strike. Does this count as a newsworthy story, seeing as how we just got over ours? Pacific Coast Highway(Spam me!) 31 December 2005

The strike is on at the moment but it is only station staff and not the drivers so not anywhere near as major as the NYC one. Eight hours in and the stations highlighted in red on this page [3] are currently closed due to lack of staff (although this keeps changing). All lines continue to run and probably will througout the strike. MRSC 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia / Pop Culture

The lists of trivia points about the Underground and pop culture references thereto are getting far too long to be on the headline page. I'm going to move them off onto their own pages if nobody objects. Well, if not too many people object, really. --Mpk 01:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nobody objected so I've done this, and categorised the various bits of information to boot - see London Underground Trivia and London Underground in popular culture. --Mpk 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ticketing / History

I intend to split off most of the Ticketing section into a new article of its own, leaving a shorter summary in its place - there's definitely room for a quick rundown of ticketing in the main page, but the current section rather dominates the rest of the article. Also, the "Future developments" section might be best moved into the existing History page and a summary rolled into the current historical summary. Any objections? --Mpk 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Willkm 23:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done this today - see London Underground ticketing. --Mpk 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Experts needed?

User:Odong saw fit to slap an expert-review-needed tag on the article, which I think does it a bit of a discourtesy. If anyone can point out any major areas where factual analysis is needed then I'd be delighted to put it back, but I didn't really think it was fair to tag the article in its current state. --Mpk 19:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• To be honest I saw the need for a complete review of the article, I found it to be poorly written with various inaccuracies! I can't comment on all of them as I am not a 'Tube historian' however such people do exist and I think that the current article though substantial does not do justice to the underground network. There needs to be more attention to certain topics such as why the underground tunnels are different shapes and also how the tube was responsible for the development of successful underwater tunnelling for the first time. How about the fact that steam trains use to run on the underground?? Why haven't these topics been appropriately discussed?? It is a very VERY wide topic in tunnelling and engineering which needs to be explored entirely! Not to mention the vast number of disused stations which lies beneath the city which I'm sure will intrigue many!--Odong 21:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• I apologise if it was a bit pre-emptive by the way --Odong 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Can someone write a decent article about the cut & cover tunnels as well as deep level tunnels! --Odong 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• How about someone write about the 1929 original road map style tube map and the reason for switching to the current circuitboard map and the fact that it was designed by one of the engineers who decided it would be more clear if likened to a diagram with no angle greater or smaller than 45 degrees --Odong 21:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind me, but there's a great start-up article about tunnels here. Deano (Talk) 21:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the stuff you're talking about can be found in History of the London Underground (as linked from the top of the History section - it certainly covers the early steam workings and advances in tunnelling shields. If you want to point out inaccuracies, then feel free to do so, or hey, correct them. Tube map (also linked from within the article) covers the history of the Tube map. Thing is, this is the headline article — it's pretty big as it is — and so there isn't space for a full coverage of everything Underground-related, much of which is split out into other pages. I know a few places myself where the page needs a tidy (the Ticketing section is about to be split out to another page, for instance), but if you want to contribute, then of course you're more than welcome to do so. --Mpk 21:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Closed stations

• Will do soon, big question does anyone have a comprehensive list of disused stations and their dates of closure--Odong 22:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Closed stations are mostly covered on the individual line pages - see Piccadilly Line for a good example. A comprehensive coverage of them would most likely dominate the main page too much. --Mpk 23:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We have Closed London Underground stations without dates of closure. See the sites linked from there (and buy the Connor book, too) if you want sources for further information. --rbrwr^± 23:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Also, the excellent Mr Feather's CULG has opening and closure dates for all stations, I think. --Mpk 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Flash?

I really don't think the whole blurb on flash photography is nessecary. The "no-flash" rule is pretty common across the globe, as it's not helpful when barreling in to the station at 35+ MPH. Pacific Coast Highway (Leave a message ($.25))

That'll be why I keep seeing people taking flash photos on platforms, then. You wouldn't believe how many people pull the "Here's me standing in front of the train as it pulls into the platform!" stunt. The rule may be not uncommon, but it's amazing how many people don't know about it. --Mpk 00:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's okay to raise public awareness. About the whole diving in front of the train thing, they call 'em 12-9's here. Always an increase during the holidays. |Pacific Coast Highway (Leave a message ($.25))

Historical factoids

I've clipped the historical factoids from the line table in order to keep its size down. The individual line pages include plenty of historical data anyway, and the footnotes were taking up a lot of vertical space. --Mpk 20:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox facts

So an anon changes the Annual entry/exit figure in the Tufnell Park tube station infobox. There is no source listed for this info, nor any date. I have no way of verifying it at all. I can walk to the station and verify every other fact except the opening date (which at least doesnt change). Inclined to just delete this info from the template if it remains uncited unverified and subject to change like this. Anyone prepared to fix this? Justinc 01:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Entry and exit figures can be verified at: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/performance-update/entriesandexits.asp--Pedantic of Purley 06:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

404 not found. Justinc 11:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tube/company/performance-update/entriesandexits.asp seems to work fine for me. --Mpk 18:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Working now, and it turns out that the current figure is correct. Still begs the questions of whether we want such information in infoboxes without references in teh box. Maybe they should all be footnoted. Personally I dont like undated information - its more almanac than encyclopaedia. If the figures are worthwhile, then they are worth having for every year so you can compare. If they arent, dont have them at all. Would be an improvement to add the year and a hyperlink to the source on each one. Justinc 23:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A hyperlink would be good, perhaps using the format: "<exits> (year) [link]" (e.g. "2.4 million (2005) [4]"). Thryduulf 17:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Tube maps

I reverted the addition of the tube map to this page as the copyright issues are dubious at best. --Mpk 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Rail infobox

London Underground

Overview
Headquarters	London, England
Locale	London, England
Dates of operation	1863–present

I wanted to add this box to the article, but I wanna check for some inaccuracies first. Correct at will. Pacific Coast Highway (blah) 03:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

We could be more accurate if required, adding the fact that it is 55 Broadway, London. Tubechallenger 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the name of the country is the United Kingdom. "London, England" is generally only a term used on the other side of the Atlantic. --Mike 11:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Too Rose-tinted?

I use the Tube nearly everyday. This article, although informative doesn't mention how frequent delays are (any data on the scale of this?). Perhaps a list of causes should be included: signal failures, defective trains, "passenger action", non-availability of staff etc etc. - the things that daily Tube users are all too familiar with. Snow & heavy rain are almost guaranteed to bring the system to its knees. Without this info, the article lacks something in the reality department.

Feel free to add it if it is verifiable and can be written in accordance with the NPOV policy - i.e. report the facts that there are lots of problems, citing reliable sources for this, don't write a rant. Thryduulf 00:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Full Period

Okay, this is stupid beyond words. I had a look at this lovely, well-written article and noticed that in the section on typography someone had written a strange multiple choice thing offering 3 different words for full stop with a '/' between. Since this didn't seem appropriate style for an encyclopedia, I thought I would reduce it to a single term to stop this strange contruction spoiling the loveliness of the article. Since the article is written in British English and is on a British topic, I chose the British English word (Full Stop). Carlton then reverted me, saying this would 'exclude' international readers. I replied on Carlton's page that I didn't think it would, since it can be guessed in context and is fairly self-explanatory. Thinking I had better check if there was likely confusion, I looked at our article full stop. (Note it is at 'Full stop') It has this to say:

A full stop or period, also called a full point, is the punctuation mark commonly placed at the end of several different types of sentences in English and several other languages. A full stop consists of a small dot placed at the end of a line of text, such as at the end of this sentence.

The term full stop is less common in the United States and Canada, but is generally differentiated from period in contexts where both might be used: a full stop is specifically a delimiting piece of punctuation that represents the end a sentence. When a distinction is made, a period is then any appropriately sized and placed dot in English language text, including use in abbreviations (such as U.K.) and at the ends of sentences, but excluding certain special uses of dots at the bottom of a line of text, such as ellipses.

The term "full stop" is also used, vernacularly, to terminate a phrase or thought with finality and emphasis, as in "I told him I was leaving him, full stop." The term period is used in the same sense in North America but also to some extent in the UK, having fallen less completely out of use in this context than as a general reference to the punctuation mark.

This tells us a) Although less common in the United States and Canada, it is occasionally used in certain context. Hence people should be able to work out what is meant. b)It has fallen completely out of use in the UK, except in the import usage of terminating 'a phrase or thought'. c) The second Paragraph refers only to the United States and Canada. This supports my experience of Full Stop being BE and Period being AE, with both sides generally understanding each other. So I changed the mass of words back to full stop, but wikilinked it in case people were confused.

User:Pacific Coast Highway reverted me, commenting that if having it linked to avoid confusion was ok, it should be fine to write [[full stop|period]] instead, editing it themselves to that. This, of course, completely missed the point of tidying the style.

I then foolishly (yes, I know. Bad) reverted after this too (yes, evil, bad, I was cross), and was reverted again by User:Preslethe (hope I've spelt that right).

The wikipedia:Manual of style tells us to use consistent usage throughout an article. This argument is stupid beyond belief and I obviously won't be editing this for a while to let it calm down. However, sooner or later this style matter will need to be fixed if this article is to be the best it can be. After all, the point is that it is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. It is supposed to conform to a high standard of writing, as well as being clear to all readers. Hey ho, now I've written this up I can sleep. Sorry for rambling, but I felt the need to get this out. What started as a consistency thing seems to have been changed into a weird patriotism/My English Is Right Because It Sounds Right To Me thing. But I could just be misreading people due to tiredness.

Happy editing. Skittle 03:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to edit your own names in my post, so they link right. Skittle 03:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Skittle,

I was the person who originally added the bit about the punctuation in the typeface, some months ago. I chose the 'all three' wording with the slashes.

I'm an American who has lived several years in Britain and has contacts with English-speakers from many countries around the world. It's my habit to try to use the word most likely to be understood by my audience or to use the one that is least ambiguous (example: chips is ambiguous, but neither crisps nor French fries is).

Your desire to rid the article of as many slashes as possible is understandable. In a long (and almost certainly futile) letter I once wrote to the editors of The New Oxford American Dictionary, one of the problems I pointed out was the 'ugly' (and inconsistent) use of slashes in some of the introductory matter.

Earlier today, when I saw that someone had cut it down to just full stop, I was annoyed, but didn't do anything about it. I was annoyed because I'd never sided with the "This article is about something British and so must use British English" argument anymore than I'd sided with the "This article is about something American and so must use American English" argument.

Then, I was happy to see that someone had restored my 'all three' wording.

Later in the day, I discovered the little battle that had gone on. I thought that whoever had decided to link the term (whatever term) to the article about the punctuation mark had a good idea: I'd had the same idea. I also thought it was reasonable for someone to change it so that the visible part of the link was the word period, though perhaps getting a little petty. When someone changed it back so that the visible word was full stop again, I thought it even pettier—not because it was for full stop instead of period, but just because it was yet another volley in the little battle.

I confess that, when I saw this, I was annoyed at the battling and thought "Well, I'll jump in and make it say period again" (ridiculously, as if that would somehow negate the previous attacks between other editors). Then, I calmed myself down and thought not to. But, then, I decided to investigate the matter. I read Wikipedia's recommendations about national varieties of English—and, of course, the Tube definitely deserves a BrE article by those guidelines. But, then, I thought to check on the names of the punctuation mark and see whether one was used in more countries than the other.

One of the first things I found was the sentence in the second paragraph of the "Full stop" article, the one about a distinction. It seems I didn't ponder this sentence, specifically its connection to the rest of the paragraph, long enough before taking it as good enough reason to make period the visible word.

But, indeed, the distinction mentioned is a national one.

In light of all that, I would accept any of the options: 'all three', or full stop, or period, or even point. And I accept the arguments for full stop.

I will say (though it shouldn't affect the choice of words) that I can just see someone reading an article about trains and thinking "full stop" is a train's sitting still.

This explanation probably has more detail than most want to read. But I was impressed by your enlightened attitude (letting things calm down, acknowledging your own crossness), something I've not seen explicitly expressed by many other Wikipedians, and thought I, too, should offer a calm explanation, perhaps as some kind of redemption for my hastiness.

And, yes, you got my name right.

Cheers. :-)

President Lethe 04:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is stupid beyond words. No argument here -- though probably not in the sense you mean.

Rather than bore the readers senseless, I'll boil it down for you:

Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds": applicable here, since the mindless consistency -- mindless, because its only rationale IS consistency for its own sake -- conflicts with the purpose of the article, to inform an international readership, with a minimal amount of confusion.

Americans read this article. Canadians read this article. ESL students -- who, as far as I know, mostly learn American English -- read this article. If you want to inconvenience readers like those just so you can wave the Union Jack for its own sake, maybe you should find another venue for your patriotism/language parochialism.

What started as a consistency thing seems to have been changed into a weird patriotism/My English Is Right Because It Sounds Right To Me thing. Inserting the word "foolish" before "consistency" and "by me" after "changed" would make your statement more accurate. The current statement, on the other hand, is utter nonsense. And, free clue/clew? Assuming stupidity on the part of readers and implying it for other editors (Now it's wikilinked so you can see why, and those with a small vocab and limit ability to read in context can broaden their minds) due to your inability to understand a point made to you? Not on.

P.S.: Speaking of consistency -- what's my name, again? --Calton | Talk 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Preslethe, I think you get where I'm coming from. And I was getting silly, tired and cross. I hadn't thought of full stop having a train-related meaning, so I can see potential confusion there. I would have thought it being in typography made the meaning clear, but maybe not. I'll leave it for the rest of the community to decide.

User:Calton, sorry for getting your name wrong. My only defence is my extreme tiredness. I think you underestimate the range I cover with 'This is stupid beyond words'. I do not exclude myself. However, I really would suggest you read the Wikipedia Manual of Style wikipedia:manual of style since you seem to be implying all articles should be written in American English, and that consistency of styles doesn't matter. And it wasn't about understanding a point by me, I was directing (as in guiding, not instructing. Careful words...) you to click on the link to see where it implied the term was known in America.

Happy editing all. Keep up the good work. 57.66.51.165 08:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seeing this seems to have become a wholly innapropriate setting for some mindless jingoism, let me first state that I'm British. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and what is more it is an encyclopedia that is intended for a global english speaking audience. That means not just British people, not just US people, but also (and in some ways perhaps even more importantly) people from third-world countries speaking english as a second language. I don't much care what the MoS says on this subject, it seems self-evident to me that the most important thing we need to do is make Wikipedia as open and accessible to as many people as we can. Whilst style is important (and the original / seperated list was ugly), it surely comes second to usability. If the two terms need explanation to make the text accessible, then we owe our readers that explanation. Then we can worry about style, and MoS, and suchlike. I've made my attempt to provide a more stylish, but explanatory, text. -- Chris j wood 15:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good solution, although I don't necessarily feel the word is likely to be misunderstood. We have assumed people will know the word 'punctuation' and linked the word used for '.' . But good compromise, all things considered. Skittle 15:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pasted in from Chris j wood's talk page:

Thanks for making the link in "London Underground" read "full stop or period". I myself was about to try to settle the thing by making it say "full stop (period)" when I found your edit. I hope this little fire is out now. President Lethe 15:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add my thanks; it's clear, looks tidy and reads encyclopedically (if that's a word). Nicely done. It's a lovely article by the way. Skittle 15:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually have one small problem with the wording. Whether we use parentheses (curved brackets) or not, I think period should come first. This is not at all about national varieties of English, but simply about the placement of adjectives. This is something I often pick up on. For example, I prefer that "most beautiful, prettiest, loveliest" be changed to "prettiest, loveliest, most beautiful", so that it doesn't seem that "most" is modifying "prettiest" and "loveliest". I'm sure many think it's petty of me. But this is the same reason for which, I think, we shouldn't make it seem that "full" could possibly modify "period". I also tend to like shorter links. This is why I advocate a change to "period or full stop" or "period (full stop)", with whichever word(s) you choose being linked. I'm reluctant to make the change, because I hate the look of edit battles on the history page; but I will make the change if you guys don't object. (Also, I'll duplicate this little discussion at the article's Talk page; I hope you don't mind.) President Lethe 16:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, as far as I'm concerned. I don't 'hear' the problem in this case, but that's probably because I am familiar with the phrase 'full stop' and so hear it as one word. Maybe we should ask someone who hasn't edited the article to make the change, to make the history look better :-) Skittle 16:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean about not 'hearing' the problem. I don't really 'hear' it either. But it's the kind of thing I can see as a problem for a few readers—and, when a problem can be avoided with such a tiny fix, my philosophy is "Why not?" As I said, my experience of communicating with users of English from many linguistic backgrounds and varying levels of English fluency leads me to have a lot of little "Choose x instead of y, to avoid confusion" 'rules' in my head for making English clearer without dumbing it down. If someone reverts my "period (full stop)" change, which I just made, I'll probably just let it sit for a while or let someone else take care of it, for some seem not too calm at the moment. President Lethe 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(Jumping right in here...) Either "period (full stop)" or "full stop (period)" would be fine by me. In the interest of making our encyclopedia as accessible as possible to as many people as possible, I think both terms should appear, but to me, it isn't worth debating which comes first.

Atlant 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (FYI: Native Am. Eng. speaker)

What is with this insistence of having "period" as an explanation for full-stop in this article? As far as I'm concerned a period is an amount of time and a synomym for menstruation. Good God someone above was even suggesting putting it BEFORE full-stop have having full-stop in brackets. Do I think I should that I should go to all of the American articles and put British versions of all the Americanisms in brackets after every instance? So do I put "... car (carriage) ... [as in railway carriage]", "... sidewalk (pavement)...", "... eggplant (aubergine)..." etc etc. No I don't. Good Grief full-stop is even wikilinked. Jooler 17:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The point, as several of us have made perfectly clear, is to make Wiki accessible to many different English speakers, not just the ones who listen to Radio 4 and, by their own admission on their user page, "[do] not understand the American English language and bloody well [don't] want to". And I'll note, for the record, that your revert just now broke the Three-Revert Rule.

Atlant 17:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So for consistency, do you think I should go to all articles about American subjects and put Britishisms in brackets after evey Americanism? Jooler 17:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tell you what I'll make a start now - on Cuisine of the Southern United States - Jooler 17:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jooler, I don't necessarily object. The eggplant–aubergine thing actually seems quite reasonable to me. Such a change can so easily make a sentence's vocabulary understandable by more readers without making them click on a link to find out another dialect's name for the same thing. And that's the same motivation behind mentioning both period and full stop in this typography section. President Lethe 17:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And in the process make articles unreadable. I note that it was you in the first place who sparked off this row by putting in "period / point / full stop" Jooler 18:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(My wording stood for five and a half months, through about 300 edits (just a quick estimate), with nary an objection. President Lethe 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

I agree with this as well. Here in my household, my wife says "Aubergine" and I say "Eggplant", and if I wrote an article requiring a reference to this vegetable, I'd likely find a way to include both names. (I also reali[sz]e this isn't everyone's opinion on Wiki, but I like to fall to the "more accessible" side when in doubt.)

Atlant 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I call your attention to WP:POINT before you get yourself in further trouble?

Atlant 17:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And what Sir are you doing on this very page by making reverts to my edits? I note now that President Lethe has just replaced the text so that is now says "period (full-stop)" "period (full stop)" (corrected for Preslethe's sake - for all the difference it makes) - unbelievable. Jooler 17:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My change was to "period (full stop)". Please, quote others as accurately as possible when commenting on what they've said; it helps avoid confusion and accusations of dishonesty, inconsistency, and sloppiness. President Lethe 17:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a poll. (Let's also end it soon and get on with our lives.) President Lethe 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• I vote for any of these, as long as a link is somewhere in the wording: "full stop (period)", "full stop or period", "period (full stop)", "period or full stop". (From an American who regularly uses various American, British, Canadian, and international forms of English.) (My last comment for at least a good while, in accordance with my recommendation to get on with life.) President Lethe 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say about this. My gut says "if we change this article to say anything other than 'full stop' (being consistent with the BrE language of the BrE article as per MoS), we should really go and change every BrE and AmE term in every article to fully explain itself inline. And that's just crazy."

I think the MoS guideline is there for a good reason, to avoid this kind of conflict. My most relevant insight here: When I'm reading an article in this fine encyclopedia we're working on, I quite often do not completely understand a term used in the article. Sometimes that's because it's a technical term in a sphere of knowledge I am not yet well informed in, but it has happened sometimes that it's a word in one dialect of English or other that I simply do not know. Fortunately, when that happens, most often that term is wikilinked, so that the explanation of that term in context is a single click away. We use wikilinks to allow users to understand concepts they are not familiar with all the time, why is this an exception? With this thinking in mind, I vote 'full stop' with wikilink, and think that's probably the best approach to take in any case where a wildly different term is used for the same concept in different dialects of English.

Just to add my tuppence on the internationalisation issue raised here, 'period' is no more a valid universal term for the punctuation mark in question than 'full stop', an English speaker who doesn't know AmE will probably start thinking about menstruation when they hear 'period'. — Estarriol ^talk 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I would also concurr with the MoS guideline (and hence 'full stop' with wikilink). For better or worse, there are different dialects of English, but only one english wikipedia, so compramises have to be made. If an article is about an american topic, I expect the american dialect, if it's a british topic, the british dialect would be used. Having all versions in the same article is just too unwieldy, or we'll end up with writing like "colo(u)r" and "american/british/canadian/australian", (if only a sub set of dialets are added, as here, we'll have Australian english speakers wondering why there is a US english version on a british topic,but no Oz one). For cases where there is no generalised word possible, we should just have one version (wikied if need be) and the MoS guidline suggests that in these cases it should match the dialect of the country the topic is about, in this case, British english and "full stop". Regards, MartinRe 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for "full stop" linked to the explainatary article. Also well done to Francs2000 for protecting the page AND adding this little tiff to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars (I was just going to add it myself) MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As the votes are getting lost in the comments, I have taken the liberty of breaking them out below - Chris j wood 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Funny how one Briton had me convinced that a simple linked "full stop" was fine, and then three other Britons (two for both terms, and one for just "full stop") and an American with a wife who says "aubergine" got me to think it should have both terms. Anyway, I leave my vote where it stands (to pad what seems to be the minority), though I've lost interest in it one way or the other as long as it's linked. President Lethe 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is an article about a British topic in an international encyclopedia. I note that the article uses both US and metric units -- by the logic I've been reading above, it should be using metric only to confirm to EU standards. Reducing clarity and usefulness merely to conform to some form of language provincialism is foolish consistency: serving the entire readership -- not just those who want to vigorously wave the Union Jack -- is what the ultimate end should be. - Talk 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The imperial system is still heavily in use in Britain, particularly when it comes to distance and speed. Hence miles, not the metric kilometres. However, it is good practise to provide both when it comes to units, since confusion is extremely likely. Skittle 23:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "US units" are actually the imperial (aka English) units and are the most commonly used in non-technical situtations in Britain. The majority of the LU system (JLE is Metric, I can't remember whether the Vic is imperial or metric, but everything pre 1970s is certainly imperial) was designed and built in imperial units, it is operated in imperial units (e.g. all the speed limits on the system are in mph). All of this is beside the point however as Skittle points out. Thryduulf 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that people want to use British English in British articles and not have to put US explanationary things in brackets (or worse vice versa as above), as per the MoS. So I think the article should be unprotected, so we can move on. Jooler 17:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Roger that. 81% consensus is a supermajority enough. Unprotect, keep as it is and get on with it. BigBlueFish 19:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for 'full stop'

1. - Estarriol 22:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. - MartinRe 23:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
3. - MrWeeble 11:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
4. - Ian3055 15:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
5. - (And list on WP:LAME) Henry^Flower 15:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
6. - Bob schwartz 16:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
7. - This is an article in British English about a British topic, so the British English term is most apropriate. I agree with Henry that this deserves an entry on WP:LAME. Thryduulf 18:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
8. - As per Thryduulf. The link to the full stop article explains itself. RicDod 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
9. - As per Thryduulf. josh (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
10. - Frankly this is utter nonsense, British English topic = British English terms. Fraslet 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
11. - What a joke. As a Brit, I don't envisage looking up New York City Subway in the near future, yet I have already visited London Underground before hearing about this. It's bound to have a higher British readership. British subject, British users, British terminology. On top of that, in the UK the word period has strong connotations of menstruation. BigBlueFish 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
12. - As per everyone who's voted in this section. BillyH 19:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
13. - In this case, WP:STYLE is quite clearly an ass. Another vote for WP:LAME. --Mike 20:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
14. - Jrgnet 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
15. - --Myfanwy 15:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
16. - As per Thryduulf. fchd 16:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
17. - per Thryduulf. JeremyA 03:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
18. - English rather than American words should be used to describe English topics. Matt 13:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
19. - Jenks1987 15:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
20. - As per Thryduulf. OSmeone 16:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
21. - Pacific Coast Highway (blah • how to beat gas prices 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Votes for 'period' and 'full stop'

1. - President Lethe 18:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. - Chris j wood 13:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. - Atlant 16:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
4. - Calton 23:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC) This is an article about a British topic in an international encyclopedia.
5. - Pacific Coast Highway (blah) • how to beat gas prices 01:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC); list on WP:LAME

Neutral

1. - I have my views (opinions), and have made them clear (expressed them), but mainly (mostly) I want stability. Skittle 18:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe my poll idea wasn't so great. Wikipedia:Voting is evil. Anyway, yes, Skittle, I go back to what I said in my first post to you: I think "full stop" is fine—though I also don't have a problem with mentioning period. I'll let others handle this. President Lethe 18:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

At least it will be interesting to watch, if nothing else. I'm waiting for it to get later over here, then the hoards of American editors will come.... :-) Also interesting that most British editors assume Americans don't use the word 'period' for menstruation; I'm fairly sure they use it in Family Guy (man). Anyway, you're cool Preslethe. Just thought you'd want to know. Skittle 19:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :-) I hadn't gotten that impression about British editors' ideas about Americans and period; but, yeah, period is the main American word for menstruation. The only other non-slang, non-clinical term I've ever heard anyone use is cycle, but in old-fashioned context.

It's interesting how some other European languages (e.g., German, French) name some punctuation marks for their physical appearance (for example, German for period is Punkt (point); colon is Doppelpunkt (double point)), while English names are based on their role in the language, especially from the times when people thought of a colon, or a period or a comma or an apostrophe or an elipsis, not just as a mark on paper but as a certain element of language. This is true even in the British switch from period to full stop. ... I've always found quotation marks a more straightforward, and more accurate, term than inverted commas, though. ... Cheers. President Lethe 20:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It must be that time of month

Also interesting that most British editors assume Americans don't use the word 'period' for menstruation; I'm fairly sure they use it...

We Yanks use it. I'd guess it's the most common term that isn't some oblique or even offensive euphemism.

Atlant 11:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to butt in or be rude but what has menstruation got to do with the London Underground? Simply south 12:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

One of our "more competitive" editors above seems to only think of menstruation when he hears the word "period". This is just a tangent from that discussion, now brought to its own header.

Atlant 13:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe what Americans don't understand is that British people assume the meaning of menstruation first. Because it's not used all the time, we don't automatically identify the context as punctuation. Of course at a second glance one realises it's means a full stop, but by that time it's awkward prose. It's a British subject, with other British terminology throughout the article. Nobody is going to get mental images of tampons from the term "full stop". And that, as the Manual of Style states, is that. BigBlueFish 20:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, anyone who gets images of tampons from either term in a paragraph under the heading "Typography", in a sentence reading "The new typeface is noted for the curl at the bottom of the minuscule l, which other sans-serif typefaces have discarded, and for the diamond-shaped tittle on the minuscule i and j, whose shape also appears in the full stop and as the origin of other punctuation marks in the face" might also get strange looks. Then again, tittle might also conjure up strange images. Whenever the protection is removed, we should link the word to the "Tittle" article (seriously). (I think menstrual concerns about this sentence are as silly as my 'train standing still' concern (which was a joke). :-)) President Lethe 21:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh no! I just realised i misread what you put up there. I think now there has been a misuderstanding. Simply south 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC) :(

Calm down folks

I have requested this page to be protected, so this pointless (ho-ho! :) edit war can be resolved calmly. Regards, MartinRe 17:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should use blobdot rather than period? (*ducks under cover - luckily the Americans won't get the joke*) Noisy | Talk 18:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) President Lethe 18:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I have protected the article until this issue is sorted. Twenty reversions in 24 hours over this issue is just silly. -- Francs2000 22:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too strict with my definition of reversion, but I think "Twenty" is hyperbole. Editors went back and forth with different things. Some edits were indeed simple reversions. But many other instances of 'reversion' were more like "A, B, modified A offered as compromise", not plain old "A, B, A". President Lethe 22:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to help lighten up over this thoroughly ridiculous argument, users should zoom in on Image:London Underground subsurface and tube trains.jpg and take a look at what the train driver things of this discussion ;) BigBlueFish 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:-) The train on the left brings back fond memories of the Metropolitan Line on its way south from Northwood and Moor Park. President Lethe 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fares

Despite loving care for full (or partial) stops, no info at all about fares on Tube. Surely the Mayor's strategy is lost: "Between 1984 and 1999 the real price of public transport fares increased by over 40 per cent, compared to a slight reduction in the cost of motoring."

This Yankee wonders: What has been the history, say 1925-2005, of fares on Tube?

Craig Bolon 00:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted to do such a survey, I'm sure that it would fit best on London Underground ticketing rather than the headline article (which is getting rather bloated again - maybe time for another chainsaw edit..) --Mike 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Technical details?

Is this article the right place for technical details about the track system and so forth? I was looking for some details on the electrical supply system and how the track system works, but there is nothing in this featured article. Would it be possible to include some of the stuff that is at Railway electrification#Fourth Rail, or at least a link from this article to a suitable article? Thanks. Carcharoth 21:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking just for myself, I'd welcome the sort of information you're proposing to add.

Atlant 23:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, technically speaking, you aren't supposed to cut and paste large amounts of text between Wikipedia articles. In practice it happens a lot, but it does technically contravene the GFDL. You have to attribute the source. What probably needs to happen is for someone to start a section, summarise what is at Railway electrification#Fourth Rail, and link out to it. Or just track down the editor who wrote most of what is there. Maybe cut and paste with attribution in the edit summary is easiest after all... Carcharoth 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

? Seriously? I'd have thought it was bad practice to copy and paste between wikipedia articles further than the very basic facts, just because you are duplicating data. Better to include it in one place that is linked with a brief explanation. However, the rewording and citing sounds more like what you do for an external source. As for hunting down the editor who wrote it to attribute them, that's nonsense. Everything you write here, you release all claims to. Nothing about the GFDL for internal transfers of wiki-editor-written copy, surely? Please give a link to somewhere this is mentioned. Skittle 15:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was bad practice to copy and paste between wikipedia articles further than the very basic facts, just because you are duplicating data.

That's always been my' understanding as well. As with any collection of data sets, as much as possible, you don't want things duplicated because the duplicates eventually drift out of sync (usually, about ten minutes after the duplicate is created :-( ). So for this reason we want, as much as possible, to "factor" the data so each datum exists in just one place. (Obviously, we violate this somewhat in the interest of human factors: not requiring the user to click a zillion articles to learn about one basic topic.) But I certainly don't think licensing comes into play in intra-Wiki actions.

(Proper factoring, of course, can become a heated discussion, as our "full stop/period" discussion just above proved. ;-) )

Atlant 16:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you both said, but just to clarify, the sort of thing I was thinking about is what is said at Wikipedia:How to break up a page; Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages; and Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. Sample quotes are:

• Important: Whenever you break up a page, please note the split (including the page names) in the edit summaries.
• Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history. (The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires.) If you come across a cut-and-paste move that should be fixed by merging the page histories, please follow the instructions here to have an administrator repair it.
• When a cut-and-paste move is done, the page history of an article or talk page can be split among two or more different pages. This is Very Bad, because we need to keep the history with the content for copyright reasons.

In this case, as it is not a full page move or merge, I guess the first bit applies. Make sure that the edit summary says that material has been copied and pasted from Railway electrification, and hope that that is enough to allow proper attribution of all the text.

On the other hand, I recently came across Wikipedia:Editing_policy_pages, a debate that arose because some policy pages were changed without people noticing. I've also noticed that some policy pages can be very out-of-date. Which is rather worrying. Difficult to know sometimes whether you are really following the same guidelines as everyone else... Carcharoth 02:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This page is enormous already - it needs cutting down and more bits moving to seperate pages rather than more detail adding to it, especially as the detail you're looking for is already available elsewhere. This is what links are for - please use them rather than just copying stuff in! --Mike 13:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've added the link, but had to create a new section because there was nowhere for the link to go. Part of the problem is that this article is lacking in the technical side of things. It is a great article for the history and the current state of the system, but this should, IMO, be balanced with technical stuff. And if there is no subsidiary article (eg. for the history there is History of the London Underground), then this article is the correct place for it. Carcharoth 18:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved into the "Lines" section, as single-sentence sections are kind of inefficient as far as use of space is concerned. I agree with you that there's probably a good place for a "Technical details of the London Underground" subsidiary article. As the article stands at the moment it's a whole lot techier than it was before things like long lists of trivia and pop culture references got split into their own articles a while ago, but there could still be more detail. --Mike 22:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)