Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 1

Qs

Isn't this project similar to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rapid transit? Also, as this is about the Underground, couldn't it also cover the Glasgow Underground? Simply south 08:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'm interested. As a Londoner, a lifelong fan of the tube (and a near-daily user of it), this project sounds good. The LU pages seem pretty comprehensive already, but they still do need some rounding out of details on specific stations, and editorial work to make them more consistent. I've added some pics of missing stations lately and would be happy to keep on with that.

Simply south - I think there's enough info and history to the LU to warrant its own project page - but maybe you're right and we could include other British underground systems? AFAIK, Glasgow and Newcastle are the only other places with subway networks outside of London and obviously the LU would be the main focus... anyone else got any thoughts on that? - HTUK 09:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the founder of this project. Why dont you join me and we can work on the rest of the project together? Lenny 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Still is this only the London Underground (and Docklands Light Railway) or does it include the other 2 metro systems as well, as mentioned above? Simply south 14:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be against including Newcastle, which, aside from 6km of tunnel is an above-ground Metro system rather than an underground - I think including Newcastle would mean also including Manchester and possibly Birmingham, Merseyrail, Nottingham & Sheffield as well. (Yes I know only about 10% of these systems is underground - but less than half of the tube itself (and virtually none of the DLR) is... But all of this is purely my opinion only... Iridescent 23:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

These set of questions that i had were when the WikiProject was WikiProject Underground and so with the possibilities of other metros before it became WP:LT. Now there seems to be no chance. Simply south 23:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the other systems are covered by WikiProject UK Railways and WikiProject Rapid Transit so they should be OK. It was the above reasons that I changed the name to WikiProject London Transport. Unisouth 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Project banner

Rather than putting a second project banner on all London Underground articles, you can use the "Underground" parameter of {{TrainsWikiProject}}, like you can now see on Talk:London Underground. Let me know if you have any questions. Slambo (Speak) 16:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And for those pages that use {{TrainsWikiProject}} instead of {{Tube}}, the class parameter will add the article to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Underground articles by quality and the just added LUL-importance will add the article to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Underground articles by importance. If an article is tagged with both templates, then either remove the Underground=yes from {{TrainsWikiProject}} (like you can see on Talk:Tube map, for example) or ensure that LUL-importance is added when an article is rated for importance here. Slambo (Speak) 15:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Members

Small point here. You've got both a "members" and a "membership" heading on your project page. You might want to remove one or the other, or clarify in the text how they are different, as it might confuse people where to sign up. As a stupid American, I wouldn't be able to contribute to your project meaningfully anyway, but I wish you luck with it. Badbilltucker 20:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

New logo

New logo by Lenny.

I think we should have a proper logo for this project, rather than my picture plus text logo. Anyone can submit there entrys. Here is mine.

Slogan by Lenny

I think the logo is fine as it is. However I have come up with a new slogan for the project and possible for TfL. Lenny 11:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to read (the slogan). Simply south 15:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't really like the new logo. The slogan looks good, though --sonicKAI 00:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stations: standardised headings

It's been suggested so far in the project there should be a maximum of 5 headings and 7 sub-headings.

I'd already been juggling some possible headings based on the kind of information presently contained in various station articles, and divided them into the following potential areas and was intending to post them, but now the list violates the newly-added condition of 5 headings.

Here are the proposed headings & subs. Suggestions? Thoughts?

(1) ==History==
History of the station/site.

(1a)===Notable events===(*)
Previous events, eg: 7 July 2005 bombings for Edgware Road, et al; fire at King's Cross, etc.

(2) ==Today==
Include in this section the station's current status and any notable current facilities, features, design elements, etc

(2a)===Services===
First & last train times, trains per hour, etc.

(2b)===Transport connections===
List linking transport services - nearby bus routes, mainline stations, tram/riverboat.etc.

(2c)===Local places of interest===(*)
Sights and attractions located near this station.

(3)==Future developments==(*)
Any _known_ proposals for the station or the site - with references

(4)==Trivia==(*)
Some stations have additional facts or info (see [[Oakwood tube station]] for example).

(5)==Gallery==
Gallery of additional images.

(6)==See also==
Associated internal Wiki links.

(7)==References==
Footnote links to support article statements.
Related external links

(*) = optional heading, where appropriate.

- HTUK 19:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Probably rearrange the headings.

Intro to station - it serves blah and is on the blah and blah lines. Possibly zones as well. Services should go at the bottom of the page. I don't really think tph is all that necessary as most stations have trains every 5-10 mins. Also the History section should be referenced.

Ordering based on your title (i will exclude a couple)

1 1a, 2, 2c, 3, 4, 2a and 2b should be merged, 5 (Optional), 6, 7,

So order=

• a general intro (not as title though) then
• History (withouth Notable events section unless really needed)
• Today
• Local Places of Interest
• Future
• Trivia
• Services & Connections
• Gallery
• See Also
• Ref + Ext links

How about this?

Simply south 20:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes I think this is a good idea. Simply South's version is preferable but needs modification:

• a general intro (not as title though) then
• History (without Notable events section unless really needed)
• Today
• Future
• Trivia
• Local Places of Interest
• Services & Connections
• Gallery
• See Also
• Ref
• Ext links

Lenny 18:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Generally sounds ok - I agree that "notable events", and tph in Services are not really that important as entries (especially the latter). To be honest, nor is the Trivia one. I also made an omission in my original list - I meant to add that Gallery is an optional section (as Simply south pointed out), as not all the stations need loads of pics to illustrate them, and (as already stated in the main project page) longer articles are better with pics carefully interspersed rather than all bunched up together.

However, I feel the actual sequence changes suggested seem a bit 'all over the place'. The reason I proposed them largely in the order I did is that it breaks down more neatly into 3 broad progressive sections; "past" (history, possibly notable events that happened at that site), "present" (the station as it is today, including places to see, service times, etc, as they are at the time of writing), and "future". Then all the "extras" - pics (for smaller articles) and links and so on - follow at the end.

Another point: Trivia is less notable/important that Places of interest and Services/connections surely? I would think that if it is used, it should come after the more practical factual info?

- HTUK 18:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

In general, I'd support the Past-Present-Future-Extras order that you've got here, The only thing to watch out for is something that was mentioned to me recently about articles under the scope of WP:NYCS. Most of the station articles there include "External links" but not "References" because the project convention is to use the "External links" heading instead. I see this as bad form because "External links" to me means "here are some pages with additional information about this topic" while I see "References" as "these are the sources of the information in this article." I haven't seen it become a problem on tube articles yet, but this distinction is followed up through the GA and FA process, so it would be best to keep the References and External links separate. Slambo (Speak) 19:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we eventually include the other metros (excluding trams)?

I dont really know, at the moment WP:LUL includes all of London's Metros perhaps we should wait and see. What do the rest of our members think? Lenny

Should we expand the project into other transport sectors of london?

I am thinking of expanding the project to cover all transport sectors of london, one stage at a time. The first sector being London's TucTucs being launched next year. What do you guys think? Lenny 19:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If that were to happen, this WikiProject should be renamed to something like WP:Underground and London Transportation. Simply south 11:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

So that is a no then? Unisouth 08:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• If you see this project growing beyond its current scope and you want to carry it ahead for a considerable foreseeable future, I suppose you could plan an overall WP: London Transportation as Simply south suggests - presumably it would eventually encompass subprojects on London Underground rail, London Overground rail, London Buses, London Trams, London Taxis & Tuk-tuks, etc... I think it would make sense as a long term overall structure, but it would seem a bit early to be going live with diversifications given that the Underground section still needs a lot of pulling together. Just my thoughts at the moment. When exactly are these tuk-tuks being launched? I've not seen a date. (Correction: just found a BBC article that names May 2007) - HTUK 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I was meaning to still include Underground for the possibility of the other suggestion. Btw, the "chav-rolet" has been recalled following criticisms, at least thats what i saw on a news article. Oh and my answer is see what comes. Simply south 11:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Assessments and assessment categories

Since {{Tube}} includes the class parameter, and it seems to be working properly from a couple of articles I placed an assessment on yesterday (see the B-class category), I created the assessment category pages this morning. All of the Tube assessment categories are subcats of Category:Underground articles by quality and the appropriate WP:1.0 assessment categories. The articles in these categories should be picked up by the bot tomorrow morning to fill in the index, log and statistics pages linked in the box shown to the right. I'll update {{TrainsWikiProject}} shortly to sort articles appropriately if the Underground=yes parameter has been added so we don't necessarily have to have both banners on the talk pages. Slambo (Speak) 13:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

{{TrainsWikiProject}} now knows about the Underground assessment categories and will sort appropriately if Underground=yes is used. One question though... I've still got {{TrainsWikiProject}} sorting into subcategories of the more general Category:Rail transport articles by quality; do we want to suppress the more general assessment categories for Tube articles? It's simpler if we let it sort articles into both, but then the Trains assessment statistics will include some Tube articles as well as all the other Trains articles. Thoughts? Slambo (Speak) 13:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the bot picked up the articles without a problem today, so the assessment links are working now. The only item still missing was Category:Underground articles with comments, so it's there now.

The Index link in the box will take you to a list of articles sorted by quality rating with the contents of any assessment comments transcluded in the Comments column. Once we add the importance categories, this information will also be included in the list and statistics. Slambo (Speak) 14:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The importance categories are now created, and {{Tube}} will now display an importance row for articles where a class value has been assigned. I will update {{TrainsWikiProject}} shortly to include an Underground importance parameter as well so we can keep talk pages that use that template only to one template and still have subproject-specific importance ratings. Articles where the class is set to dab, redir, template, category or current (or any of the known variations of these types) will suppress the importance line from displaying.

This introduces a new project task: monitoring Category:Unknown-importance Underground articles and adding importance tags for articles that appear there. I'd like to invite other project members to chip in and help with the importance ratings since I'm one of those crazy 'Merkan types who's not as familiar with London's transportation systems (I'd probably rate something as lower importance than a local would). Slambo (Speak) 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we aquire a new logo for the project?

New logo by Unisouth.

I have received complaints about the logo about copyright issues. Also I don't think the logo isn't fixed together like other project logos. Here is my idea. Unisouth 09:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Solved → New logo appointed

DLR - WP:PR

Just thought i should note that i have requested a peer review for the Docklands Light Railway. See:

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Docklands Light Railway
• WP:PR/A#Docklands Light Railway

Simply south 22:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Should we start a project email newsletter?

I was thinking of making a newsletter that will delivered to members by email every month. I was thinking of calling it the metropolitan. What do you guys think? Unisouth 09:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tube Lines/Metronet

I've added to both of these articles but am unsure of what copyright tag Tube Lines logo comes under. They say here: that anyone can use images as long as Tube Lines are notified, but looking at {logo} classifies it under US law. Or is that ok because its where the servers are hosted? Logo image available : here and Tube Lines image library here RHB 14:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent correction to the existing directory. I noted that you added your project to the Technology section, and realized I had made a mistake by not linking all of the transportation projects, which are by definition technological, to that section. I have changed the link so that the entire transportation section is now linked to the technology section. I hope that this meets with your approval. Badbilltucker 16:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Etiquette query

Let passengers off the train first before you get on, as this speeds up your journey.

I was under the impression that this wasn't so much etiquette as the law, unless the legal status is specific to ex-BR. Chris cheese whine 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

London Underground

London Underground is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy (Talk) 02:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed format for Stations section per line

I've come up with a tabulated format for the station lists in the main part of the line articles: User:ArtVandelay13/Tube. This shows more information, such as connections, and shows the information in a clearer format. There are a few things to fix - to link the lines, and the years are all wrong, but... any thoughts? I could quite easily convert it into a template if people are keen to use it. ArtVandelay13 23:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but it's appalling. It's ugly and turns the station listing into a sprawling mess. There's absolutely no need to show the connections in Wikipedia. --88.110.235.235 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it, looks like an excel spreadsheet. Don't see a need for all the connections since the information's so easily available elsewhere - anyone that interested in the connections can look at a map. Iridescent 18:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with the above comments. Whilst I like to see as much relevant information as possible in articles, it is not really necessary to indicate each station's connections within the line articles. That information is most appropriately contained in the station articles themselves and already is. The connections are also already shown in the full station list at List of London Underground stations. The list of stations in the line articles should be kept as a simple bulletted list. --DavidCane 02:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

AfDs of interest

Just thought I would bring these to your attention...

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 157
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 130

Regan123 09:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop creating new ones

I've recently found that since the cration of WikiProject London Transport that everyone is out to create their own bus article. None of them are done that well. These articles are:

• London Buses route RV1
• London Buses route T31
• London Buses route 157
• London Buses route 181
• London Buses route 130
• London Buses route 124
• London Buses route T33
• London buses route T32
• London Buses route C1
• London Buses route A10
• London Buses route 410
• London Buses route 312
• London Buses route 328
• London Buses route 202
• London Buses route 197
• London Buses route 196
• London Buses route 194
• London Buses route 28
• London Buses route 185
• London buses route 26
• London Buses route 91
• London Buses route 75

I'll kindly ask that nobody create anymore bus articles until these are cleaned up, or we'll have more up for AfD --sonicKAI 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

OK I'll work through your list, but I do have my own "favourite routes" that are not yet written, that I'd also like to do. Also, there does seem to be a lack of communication between those of us contributing. What especially irritates me are the incorrect "start" dates of the routes. As a first measure I'll work through the list (starting 01/01.2007) giving a correct "First day of operation", if I already haven't done so.

some of my contributions so far are:-

• London Buses route 17
• London Buses route 22
• London Buses route 31
• London Buses route 36
• London Buses route 38
• London Buses route 39
• London Buses route 42
• London Buses route 43
• London Buses route 63
• London Buses route 106
• London Buses route 107
• London Buses route 108
• London Buses route 236

let me know! But for the time being, I'll take a look at the 157--IsarSteve 10:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here to say just the same thing. I think we should redirect any particularly stubby ones to List of bus routes in London until such a time they are ready to be written. MRSC • Talk 20:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility

Sooner or later someone is going to declare war on the likes of Image:RV1 blind.PNG and Image:AldgateEast Nameboard.png. Substituting images for text in a prominent part of the article is probably not a good idea. A number of mirror sites, web readers for the blind, mobile and special web browsers, and people with sight issues will have difficulty with these (for example you can't resize them with the rest of the page text). MRSC • Talk 20:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget that the article name is at the top of the page, also mirror sites are not legal. Unisouth 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have created the new DiPTAC page which allows visitors and 'staff' to request changes to articles whcih they think need better accessibility. Also urgent items can be posted under what needs to be done. DiPTAC only works for WikiProject London Transport articles but could be expanded if it is supported. Unisouth 19:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RM spree

I have gone on a proposed moving spree

• Crossrail --> London Crossrail (see talk:Crossrail#Requested move)
• Custom House station --> Custom House DLR station (See talk:Custom House station#Requested move)
• West Hampstead railway station --> West Hampstead railway stations (see talk:West Hampstead railway station#Requested move 2) - relisted

Simply south 17:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called Crossrail not London Crossrail. Although people might confuse crossrail for a railroad switch. Unisouth 14:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hackney Carriage

I see that the Hackney Carriage image has now been put into Template:Tubeportalframeless so that it looks like this:

London Transport Portal

This template is used in Template:Infobox London station, Template:Infobox Closed London station and Template:London Underground rolling stock amongst other infoboxes that were originally created when this was the Tube Portal. It also appears at the bottom of every infobox on the tube lines. I am aware that the London cabs are administered by TfL, but it seems to me that this is a somewhat inappropriate image to be used for the London Transport Portal link in these boxes which relate specifically to London Underground subjects. Previously the template had the Underground roundel sign shown below but, that wouldn't be appropriate for articles within the London Transport Portal space which were not tube related.

File:Underground roundel sign at Epping.jpg

Before the Underground sign was introduced the standard portal image was used and I suggest that this be reinstated for this template and its fellow Template:Tubeportal so that they look like this:

London Transport Portal

London Transport Portal

This has three benefits:

1. It will avoid confusing readers with inappropriate images on portal links
2. It will improve consistency with other portals which use the standard icon
3. It will improve consistency with Template:BRPortal which also appears in the London station infobox and uses the standard icon

--DavidCane 00:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I second the proposals of DavidCane. The current image causes avoidable ambiguity. DJR (T) 00:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not want the image changed until the portal.svg image has a proper transparant background as portal.gif did. If this isn't possible then an image of the plain blue roundel should be used but i dont think there is one in the commons. Unisouth 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image:Portal.svg already has a transparent background. To confirm this I have modified the Portal link to have a red background thus:

London Transport Portal

--DavidCane 00:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It's now a week since my original post and since there has been no objection to the suggested change and Unisouth's comments regarding transparency are resolved, I am adding the Image:Portal.svg image into the two templates. --DavidCane 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Further note on Transparency

I have just been looking at this page using Internet Explorer 6 rather than Mozilla Firefox 2, as I usually do, and IE 6 fails to show the transparent background of Image:Portal.svg so that the image above is displayed in a white square in front of the red background rather than with the red background showing through. It appears the problem is limited to IE version 6 as I have checked the page in IE7 and the background is shown transparent there as it should be.--DavidCane 11:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

DLR links on to do list

All done apart from stations under construction - they have no page. Messsage me on what to do. Thanks Willow177 18:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As ive heard nothing, ill assume its done and remove the job from the to do listWillow177 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DLR to-do

Do you think a to do list should be created for the DLR article? Simply south 22:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unisouth 19:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

London Underground note

I have put this up for peer review. See Wikipedia:Peer review/London Underground/archive1. Simply south 13:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

DiPTAC logo

I would like members to come together and design a new DiPTAC logo is simular fashion as Esperanza. You can do a letter or a whole logo (one letter must be in paddington or new johnston font). Post your logo or letter in the logo contestants section of the DiPTAC page. It should be in SVG or PNG format. The best 6 letters or 1 logo will be the winner and it will be the logo for DiPTAC. Unisouth 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Future transport nav boxes

I hate to sound like a grinch, but these keep on cropping up with grand headings like "under construction" where the schemes are barely more than agreed in principle. I think we need to be removing the vast majority of these as they amount to little more than speculation or, in some cases, wishfull thinking. MRSC • Talk 14:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Worse now, "proposed" is appearing too. There have been a load of "Crossrail" boxes added to articles. The chances of it getting funded and happening are so remote I can't see any merit in portraying it in this way. If every proposed transport scheme is added to these boxes, there would be more proposed lines than those in service. MRSC • Talk 18:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MRSC's comments. These additions are essentially just naive optimism on the part of the contributors! --RFBailey 20:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This has also been raised at WT:Rail, where it seems consensus is also againast sticking the Crossrail boxes in. Adding "proposed" tags does not change the fact that Crossrail won't open for at least a deacde. Chris cheese whine 20:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Individual bus route articles?

I commend you folks for your very thorough work, but I have to ask this question: Is each individual London bus route (or any other city's bus routes, for that matter) notable enough to merit its own article? It seems like a bit of overkill. Could routes be put on group pages, such as "London bus routes (100 series)" or some something similar? I don't mean to question your dedication, and I can see where individual tube or tram lines are worth an article, but maybe I just don't see why each bus route is notable on its own, by WP standards. I wouldn't think of posting an article about each of the four dozen or so individual bus routes in Birmingham, Alabama. Comments? Realkyhick 21:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This discussion was had years ago. Not every single one deserves its own article, that why we created List of bus routes in London. --sonicKAI 11:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut

Can't find one in the What Links Here (confessing I stopped at 200 articles), so have linked WP:LT here. Let me know if I missed one, or if anyone finds it inappropriate. Chris cheese whine 22:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

West London Tram

Someone has added West London Tram to the {{Infobox TfL line}} temlate with a 2008 start date. As far as I was aware, it had not been confirmed that this was going to be built and, if it is, will take four years to construct. Is it appropriate to have this on the template in this manner? Hammersfan 16/03/07, 09.45 GMT

The source information for the map looked dubious, so I tagged it {{no copyright holder}}. As for the line box, I'd err on the side of it not being there. It's linked from London Trams, and a few location articles. Chris cheese whine 10:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Station plates

Station names in infoboxes should be rendered as text, not an image, for reasons of accessibility. Particularly since the style used in the image does not appear to match the style used on the Tube. Any objections to returning what few are there to text? Chris cheese whine 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

They do use the same typeface only they are rendered in upper and lower case where as the London Underground uses upper case only. Unisouth 16:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Having only just noticed my work had been taken down, I want to clear something up, the font in the nameboards I created were actually taken from the Tube Map available on the official TfL website. This is because this font not available to me, even commercially. I could have made the name in uppercase but I was following a guideline posted on the project page at the time. McDRye 23:14, 22 March 2007

OK, but the general rule is that images should be illustrative, by using rounded corners and mixed-case, you effectively created a new format. The general consensus on Wikipedia at large is that images should fulfill some function - they should be illustrative, and demonstrate appearance, structure or concept. The sign plates at they stood demonstrated none of these. In general, we eschwew purely visual styles in favour of clarity, and "" offers no real advantage over "West Ham". Chris cheese whine 11:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The nameboards are no longer part of the project and thus are not included in the new WP:LT images category. Unisouth 11:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pending no further objections, I'm sending the lot to IfD, given they've got no real value to the encyclopedia other than to make things look good, which (as I have said) is the one thing we don't use images for. Chris cheese whine 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Chris's IfD for the station nameboards failed. (He also wanted to remove similar nameboards created for the Tyne and Wear Metro). Therefore as he appeared to be the only person objecting to their use, it is now fine for them to be added back to the station infoboxes. DrFrench 17:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

WANTED

A permanant member to update the Portal frequently with new selected pictures and articles, also update the news section with items from the TfL website and from other sources. If you would like to fill this position, remove this notice and place Portal BOT next to your name in the members list. Thank you — Unisouth

Route tagged for deletion

370 Bus Service --NE2 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Stub tagging

In a moment of extreme boredom/sadness/dedication (take your pick), I've gone through every entry in Category:Railway stations in London and {{London-railstation-stub}} tagged everything that currently qualifies as a stub under WP:WSS rules. That should make the ones in most urgent need of expansion easier to find. Since there were only 202 entries in the category, there will be some stations that have slipped through the net, if anyone spots them. At some point, I'll make a start of expanding some of the sorriest one-line stubs into proper articles or at least expanded stubs, along the lines of what I've done to the three Cromer stations. However, my knowledge of London railways pretty much stops at the river (quite aside from the fact that I won't have time to do that many. - iridescent (talk to me!) 17:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages appearing in category:London Underground

See my comment on the category talk page

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 16:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

New WikiProject: buses

I have created WikiProject buses to manage articles about buses and bus routes, including their history as streetcar lines. --NE2 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)