Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 5

Condition of the Wikiproject London Transport page

The project's third birthday is approaching next Monday, and I think this project page (not the Portal page) is in dire need of a good spring clean as there are a number of sections which seem to be dead now and there seems to be no coherent order. The scope section could really do with a rewrite as well.

The following sections appear to be unused:

• News
• WikiProject London Transport Milestones
• Project outreach

The following sub-areas appear to be dormant:

• Taskforces - the buses taskforce has no members and the others have only two or three.
• Requests

Any suggestions for what should be kept, what should go and anything that should be added? --DavidCane (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not much has happened really from what i see. The news section has really been taken over by the Met and same for Milestones. Requests are happening everywhere except the requests page. I'm not sure. Simply south (talk) 10:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, since there have been no specific comments, I am going to start an improvement exercise on the Project Page. This may mean things move around a bit or disappear for a while. The aim is to get rid of a lot of the redundant stuff and modernise the page and sub-pages and make it look something like the WP:LONDON project pages. --DavidCane (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The complete reformatting of the WP:LT pages (including this one) is now complete. Hope you like the colours! Information has been reorganised for easier and clearer access and a batch of dead-ends and cobwebbed corners have been eliminated. If you discover an orphaned corner which I have missed, let me know and I'll give it the new look. --DavidCane (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

redirecting

Someone has been redirecting buses pages which they don't find notable, in some cases pages had enough info, and still developing. I've undid three pages what I found, like London Buses route 356 so if you find any more can you please undo the redirect edit, thanks.Likelife (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't tell anyone I told you this, but what you can do is have a look at the User Contributions for your 'troublemaker', and act accordingly. This should, at the very least, narrow your search! (see here for contributions of the appropriaate time-span -- there's quite a lot!)

However, having looked at this prolific editor's record, they must have had a good reason for making the changes, so I would suggest acting cautiously and perhaps ask for (their?) assistance in improving the pages to avoid the issues raised.

EdJogg (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You have recreated the articles but are still failing to show that they meet WP:N in any way. Are you going to do this or shall I send them to AfD? Jeni ^(talk) 12:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I have some train and train station pictures. Please see my gallery at User:Tyw7/gallery. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 23:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

London transport related article up for deletion.

Notified here because this is the relevant project. The London School Buses article is up for deletion. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London School Buses--Oakshade (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Public transport access"

Further to the deletion of the former {{nearest tube}}, etc. partially because they were 'decorated with roundels'; and partially due to the expressed preference for only including this information as narrative text. User:Cherryguy93 is adding a table of "Public transport access" to the front of articles such as London Eye and V&A Museum of Childhood. Some of the tables have roundels. Can I ask if we have a view on this? I'm happy to have the information included - at the end of the article (not the most important element in an article); but don't want to find us having to go through another 'removal' exercise, as when the templates were deleted. cheers Kbthompson (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally endorse removal. Quite aside from the whole "we're not a travel guide" issue, these are unmaintainable unless someone's planning to watchlist and maintain every article in London. London buses change their routes more often than some people change their underwear. If anyone wants to find out how to get to-and-from particular places, TfL Journey Planner will be delighted to oblige. – iridescent 16:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, totally endorse removal. Cherryguy93 has done a great job with graphics for individual London Underground lines, but as Iridescent said, TfL is the place to go for such information, not Wikipedia. WilliamH (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject London Transport to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

North and West London Light Railway

Interesting article, but needs some work: North and West London Light Railway. MRSC (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Baker Street and Waterloo Railway

New article on Baker Street and Waterloo Railway just uploaded covering the pre-LPTB history of the Bakerloo line. That's the last of the Yerkes tubes done. Going to nominate this for GA. --DavidCane (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was promoted to Good Article on 16 November and has now been nominated for Featured Article here. --DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was promoted to Featured Article on 10 January 2010.--DavidCane (talk) 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Portal nomination

I have nominated Portal:London Transport for Featured Portal status. The nomination is here, if anyone wants to keep follow what's going on.--DavidCane (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the candidacy was ended rather abruptly before matters were resolved. I'll wait a bit before trying again. --DavidCane (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Succession boxes for Underground lines

Resolved

 – Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure whether to raise this here or at Portal talk:London Transport. User:Cherryguy93 has been adding succession boxes to eleven of the Underground line articles (East London Line excepted) - Northern line for example:

To me these look like trivia of little practical use; many of them cover periods when "xxx line" was not even a recognised term. Opinions? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the best place to discuss this. I'd also noticed them being added and agree that it's both trivia and misleading because the current names are often much more recent than the infrastructure they cover. The term London Underground itself didn't come into use until 1908 and most of the lines were under separate ownership until later than that. I think the succession boxes should be deleted as they are not encyclopaedic content. --DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I note that User:Sunil060902 has amended several of these boxes; it just goes to show that the "start" year for various lines can be contentious, except for the Victoria line (being the only one opened entirely under a "line" name, and having no sections transferred from another line). --Redrose64 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I have informed both the above editors of this discussion... it's only fair, because they might not be watching this page. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, honestly I think they are superfluous myself. However, I made it clear on the W & C article that that line is, officially, LUL's newest line, since 1994 (think about it!). But I have no objection to the info boxes' deletion.

My take on this is:

• Met 1863 - OK, identity retained as Met line
• Dis 1868 - OK, identity retained as Dis line
• Nor 1890 (& 1906!) hmmm, identity blend of two distinct lines
• Cen 1900 - OK, identity retained as Cen line
• Bak/Pic 1906 - OK, to an extent = Bak and Pic lines
• Cir 1949 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
• Vic 1968 - brand new, so OK
• Jub 1979 - brand new, so OK, plus part of Bak (ex-Met), but new idenity
• H & C 1988 - first used officially, hitherto parts of Met & Dis
• W & C 1994 - former L&SWR and BR, then transferred to LUL that year

I'm not sure, reading the ELL article, that there was a firm date when the ELL became a separate identity. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of them myself, I only made a minor correction to them so at least there wasn't a "loop" if you went before the Northern Line back to the Circle line. Eraserhead1 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I see that DavidCane has removed ten of them, W&C excepted; I've now removed that one too. Yay! --Redrose64 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

East London Bus Group

Can someone help me out here please? User:Experting is insistent on bunging in a list of routes they run (they've not even put it in a good place, putting it right in the middle of the operations section and getting in the way.) I keep reverting by explaining in the edit summary, they revert by just saying things like "yes there is".

I believe that, when we have Selkent and East London (bus company) which detail the routes each subsidiary operates, having an unlinked, unexplained mass of random numbers on the article of the parent company at East London Bus Group is unnecessary.

It's got to the point now where me reverting doesn't achieve anything, so can someone help please. Any opinions? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

See the user's contributions, and the reaction of others to those edits. He seems to have an attitude problem, placing inappropriate and/or overstrong warning templates on other users' talk pages, whilst ignoring (and also removing, but that's not a crime) the warnings placed on his own talk page. Might be a matter for an admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks for that. I will try and do it soon! Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 15:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Platform layout

What are our thoughts on the platform layouts that appear in many articles such as Bow Road tube station? Is this essentially duplicating the succession boxes or is this something that adds value to the articles and should be encouraged? Interested to hear some views... MRSC (talk) 11:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that they take up too much space in the article, disrupt the formatting and don't provide anything much of value. In most cases they do little more than repeat the succession boxes. Unless there is a particular reason to provide details on the platform layout (for example, the unused platforms at South Kensington), I don't see that there is a need to detail which direction on a platform the trains run (standard left-hand running applies in most cases anyway). Cherryguy93 is the editor who has been adding these, so it would be appropriate to invite his views. --DavidCane (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There are occaisions when the direction of the line is reversed e.g. the Northern Line at Bank and London Bridge, The Central Line at White City and variuos points on the Victoria Line. Simply south (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That can usually be dealt with in the text, as I think we already do. --DavidCane (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really like them myself, as (i) space-filling; (ii) of little encyclopedic value; (iii) not completely useful to the public. Further, at all except the simplest one- or two-platform stations, platform uses do change, as service patterns change. It would be a bind to keep the diagrams up to date as well as the text. I have seen them being added, and also removed, from station articles by other users, and wondered what I should do myself; however I have neither added nor removed such diagrams, until definite policy has been laid down.

I think I saw recent comment from User:AlisonW and User:SilasW about such diagrams. Forget where though; maybe an article talk page? --Redrose64 (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think there are two interesting things about platforms, which side of the train they are and where the exits are (though maybe that should be kept "secret" as TfL seem to make a point of not publishing that information so people don't all cram into one carriage). If that information can be expressed well in a diagram maybe they are worth having. Eraserhead1 (talk) 19:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your views. I wonder if these are really needed on simple stations with two platforms. It is so easy to describe these with prose and the existing nav box. This is also by far the most accessible way of presenting the information. Once you get to more complex stations with at least four platforms these diagrams might be helpful, but they also hide some degree of complexity such as platforms that are not neatly parallel or perpendicular to each other. If we were to keep these for more complex stations, we might be able to improve their appearance and keep them consistent by use of templates. Another thought is that National Rail now produce these layouts themselves example. We could simply link to these. MRSC (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since, according to the above example, the layout diagrams are available at an official location, we must be wary of breaching copyright should we produce our own. If we must have them, I would prefer a link to the NR page as per above example; these could be incorporated into the infobox quite easily. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we describe the layout in prose and then link to the relevant plan on the National Rail website as the reference. Unfortunately I don't think there isn't something similar for LUL stations? MRSC (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My comment (at User_talk:SilasW#Platform_layouts) related to the fact that these 'layouts' are pretty much totally useless in every case. For example, Hammersmith tube station (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines)#Layout purports to tell use something. But given we don't even get told where North-S-E-W are the reader who doesn't already know the station has no useful information passed to them by the diagram. In this case we know it is a terminus, yet the double-ended arrows suggest trains go in both directions (to the same place!). Further the use of 'thick' and 'thin' platform edges isn't explained or consistent. Personally I'd have thought 'thick' meant a wall, but it seems not - except on some. Then we come to the maintenance issues. Each one is a manually-created table! Leaving aside the ethics of using tables for non-tabular information, this makes it difficult to 'read' the coding by others. At least route maps use templates and, if these platforms are to survive, I would suggest they need to be 'templated' too. If we are to have station layouts in any case they would be better served by a line drawing placing them in the context of nearby roads and the station entrance. The current platform layouts do nothing for the reader and I would be content to see them go. iirc they appeared without discussion? --AlisonW (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest we do not remove these for the sake of it, but once the article contains prose explaining the same information and a link to an external source (where it exist) we then remove them. MRSC (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, anyone who decides they want to have a go at turning these into prose, please check the layout of the article. I'm finding loads of transport-related articles where the usual See also > References > External links etc. order has been altered. MRSC (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Something similar has recently popped up at WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 17#Platform layouts. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the consensus on these? I have seem somebody removing some of them and I am inclined to put them back unless there is a solid consensus here otherwise. Does that consensus exist yet?

My view is that these diagrams can work well and add value for complex and terminus stations. A diagram can be much more easily comprehensible than a description. The way they are collapsed on Stratford station possibly shows a good way to use them without cluttering the articles. Stratford benefits a lot from having these diagrams. The situation with its platform 3A is cumbersome to explain in text but very clear from the diagram.

Having said that I like them for complex stations leaves me unsure what to recommend for less complex stations. Should we have them for consistency or leave them out as superfluous? I can see an argument for consistency.

If these diagrams do have a future then maybe we need to look into making some templates for them so that they are easier to insert and maintain with a consistent and tidy appearance. The template could even include the collapsing.

--DanielRigal (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If we are to keep and standardise the diagrams, here are some changes I would recommend:

• Platform edges should be made yellow. People are used to the yellow lines on platforms in real life so that should make sense to casual viewers.
• Double arrows should mean that the train goes in both enters and leaves the station at that end of the line, either because trains run in both directions or because it is a terminus platform.
• Compass points need to be provided and used consistently.

Finally, I would say that I can't see any copyright issues at all. These are our own diagrams. The layout itself is not copyrighted. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aside from a very few stations with extremely complex layouts (someone mentioned Limerick Junction as an example; I find it hard to think of an example in London), I see no benefit at all to these. They're clumsy and intrusive, ridiculously large, and give information that for the most part isn't appropriate for inclusions in the first place. Unless the platform layout itself tells an important part of the station's story that can't easily be explained in text (the disused platforms of Harrow and Wealdstone, for instance), I don't see how platform-by-platform descriptions are any more appropriate than timetables. – iridescent 22:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be the someone removing them and have been doing so, gradually, for most of this year. I haven't made a concerted effort to edit all of these diagrams away, but, following the general agreement at the beginning of the year that they didn't provide anything useful, I have been removing them, if I find them, from articles that I visit for other reasons.--DavidCane (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. It looks like I am in the minority here so I won't put any more back without special circumstances. I would ask that they be retained when the station is complex and the diagram is reasonably correct and tidy. Losing the diagrams for Stratford, for example, would be a genuine loss to the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to be contrarian, but I see the current diagram at Stratford station as a perfect example of what's wrong with this approach, as it's extremely misleading and would confuse anyone not already familiar with the station. The high-level platforms at Stratford don't neatly line up like this; platforms 4a and 4b are tiny bay platforms about a quarter the length of the mainline platforms, platforms 11 & 12 are sited at a 45° angle to platforms 3–10a, as are the new platforms 1 & 2. – iridescent 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the main value of the diagram in its showing the directions of movement at each platform and the broad order they are arranged in, which is not consecutive. I find it more readily comprehensible than the huge wedges of text describing the platforms. Collapsed as it is, I see it providing some value and not intruding on the space of the rest of the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Abandoned London Underground projects

Anyone know what's going on with Category:Abandoned London Underground projects? All the articles in it have been removed but I can see no category to replace it. Personally I thought it was a useful category for grouping, well, abandoned Underground projects - the "what might have been" stories. Where are these articles now? Cnbrb (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Now here: Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and here: Category:Proposed London Underground lines. MRSC (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks

This is one of a number of London rail and underground-related categories which I have encountered whilst cleaning up uncategorised categories, and a whatlinkshere on Category:Abandoned London Underground projects check brought me to this discussion.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that Category:Abandoned London Underground projects was emptied and then blanked. That may have been a good decision or maybe not, though like Cnbrb I am surprised to find that there is no longer a "what might have been" category ... and whatever view anyone takes on the merits, this should not have been done out-of-process. A proposal to delete should have been listed at WP:CFD so that any objections could be considered before the category was depopulated.

In this case, I was going to suggest that Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines should be placed as sub-categories of Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but a quick peek at those categories suggests that they contain a mixture of abandoned and live projects, so that wouldn't work.

Blanking a category is acceptable if it is a new creation and blanked by its the only editor who had edited it, but this was a well-established category. I'm sure that this was done in good faith as a sincere effort to improve wikipedia, but it should not have been blanked. It doesn't take long to list a category at WP:CFD, so please can editors remember that any future renamings, mergers or deletions of categories should be done through WP:CFD?

In this case, it seems to me that the editor who depopulated Category:Abandoned London Underground projects should look for input after-the-fact, by explaining here the reasons for the category's depopulation and asking whether that step has consensus. If not, it should be repopulated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a good idea to recreate it. It had things like Bakerloo line extension to Camberwell, which if you read the article isn't really abandoned. A new subcategory of Category:Proposed London Underground stations would be a good idea for the stations that were planned to be served by Underground but then the plans were cancelled. Perhaps Category:Cancelled proposed London Underground stations. MRSC (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons why depopulation of a category is a bad idea is that after the fact it's difficult to see what was in the category, because there's no single place to look. Is there a list anywhere, or can you you cobble something together? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see from my edit summaries that all the actual "plans" are now in Category:Proposed extensions to the London Underground and Category:Proposed London Underground lines. The rest are stations now contained in Category:Proposed London Underground stations. I suggest the actual plan articles be left categorised as they are now. There are so few of them; and their very nature makes a division into "abandoned" and "current" somewhat impractical. Category:Proposed London Underground stations should be subdivided to create a replacement for Category:Abandoned London Underground projects, but needs to be more accurately named and I'm still not sure what it should be called. Category:Stations formerly proposed to be served by the London Underground perhaps. MRSC (talk) 15:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles suitable for inclusion in this category might be those listed in the navbox Template:Closed London Underground stations under "abandoned plans". It seems like it might not have been all that underpopulated after all. The replacement categories described above don't really fill the gap - they only list what was proposed, so the only way the reader can discern if a proposal is still current is to go in and read each article individually. The new names suggested like Category:Stations formerly proposed to be served by the London Underground are cumbersome and unsatisfactory. In short I'd conclude that there wasn't anything wrong with the category in the first place and nobody can think of a better one to replace it, so why lose it? Cnbrb (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Former single platform tube stations and Category:Single platform tube stations

I'm thinking depopulating these categories. It is far too granular and if we are categorising by one platform, why not two or three? MRSC (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. --AlisonW (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, do NOT do that.

If you think that a category is no longer needed, please propose its deletion at WP:CFD. Out-of-process deletions, however well-intentioned, are disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Any other views before going to CFD? Is this something we should be categorising by? MRSC (talk) 15:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely CFD if you insist. There are procedures to doing these things rather than acting on a whim. (And for what its worth, I'll be opposing) Jeni ^(talk) 16:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to get some views on how we should categorise our articles. Accusations of "whims" is a failure to assume good faith. If we think this category is a good idea, we can look to extending it to Category:Two platform tube stations etc. MRSC (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal to depopulate out-of-process may be what triggered Jeni's ABF. However, I think that MRSC has now moved beyond that idea. --17:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Chelsea-Hackney

When Crossrail 1 was just a proposal we didn't allow succession boxes on the articles. When the funding was secured we started to include this. However, we currently have succession boxes for Crossrail 2 (Chelsey-Hackney). This project is currently merely a "safeguarded route" with no sign of much support or, crucially, finance. Following our existing practice, should these be removed? The articles are already categorised as "Proposed Chelsea-Hackney Line stations" and have {{Chelsea–Hackney line navbox}} at the bottom. MRSC (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, Chelsea-Hackney is just another nice-to-have scheme, which may well go the same way as so many earlier schemes (Central Line to Denham anyone? Northern to Bushey Heath?). See

• Garland, Ken (1994). Mr Beck's Underground Map. Capital Transport. ISBN 1-85414-168-6.

in which there is a suggested future Underground diagram, showing the proposed Chelsea-Hackney line in pale green (I can't check which page, it's back home & I'm on hols, but it's towards the end). The point is: 15 years on, and I've yet to see actual digging begin. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should be removing the succession boxes as they imply a service that exists or is about to, when in reality the route hasn't even been agreed, let alone funded. MRSC (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, although the proposed line would suit me quite nicely! Kbthompson (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

London Overground template

(Another thought strikes me) After the London Overground template was subst'd, it leaves a lot of articles with 'opens in 2010' in the text. That will need to be adjusted when the (fast approaching) time comes. They're no longer neatly linked into anything. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 11:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You can use AWB to search for the exact phrase that was subst'd in all Category:Districts of London articles. That should find most. MRSC (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - joy! - but not yet; I'll wait til it opens. 8^) Kbthompson (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear it may be sooner than expected. It certainly looked ready at Hoxton the other day. MRSC (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Er, are you sure that what you saw was indeed Chelsea–Hackney line, and not the East London Line extension works? --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

[Conflict] (This bit was about ELL!) Scheduled for June 2010; but as you say, at Dalston Junction there appears to be a certain 'readiness' for action. I would guess they are waiting on the 14-week north London line closure to complete works associated with the 'Dalston curve' to allow services to Highbury. They seem ready to run test trains, as track and signalling are in place. Kbthompson (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Former services

The next thing I want to tackle is the "former services" succession boxes added to articles such as on West Brompton station. These are less-than-useless in my opinion. They don't mention the date the services became "former". Worse still, they often include services that have simply become part of another line or network. Taking the West Brompton example, the box implies that there is no longer a service on the WLL to Kensington (Olympia). My instinct is that these templates should only appear on articles about stations that are completely closed and should either give the date they relate to or relate only to the services on closure. For all other articles a pictogram of the local area, something along the lines of the one found in Broad Street railway station (London) (but including dates) would be much more useful. Any thoughts? MRSC (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways because it's not confined to London. However, restricting it to closed stations will prevent it being added to (a) junction stations which remain open although one or more of the routes has closed (West Drayton for example), and (b) intermediate stations which remain open, but the adjacent atation has closed (neither Tottenham Court Road tube station nor Holborn tube station mention British Museum in their succession boxes, although that station was between them, and it mentions both in its own succession box). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

London bus garage codes

A number of internal links to garage sections now do not work because the garage codes have been added to the section headers, affecting the # operator in the link in the source wikipedia page. I have AWB so I can hopefully fix this pretty easily and quickly, but if you want to help, just PM me  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did undo the user that made these edits a number of times a few months ago for precisely that reason. Obviously I didn't catch them all, or he has made more since. (Sorry, can't remember who it was off the top of my head) Jeni ^(talk) 13:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, this time the person concerned, User:Andymacp, appears to be new to Wikipedia. It's not insurmountable to leave the codes in place and to update the links, as that's possible with AWB. I will begin the task towards the end of the month when I'm a bit less busy with other non-WP stuff if I receive no objections.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the codes should be in the titles, title's aren't really there to convey extra information, but to break up the sections. That said, I'm not a member of this project, and I'm not heavily involved in editing down that way, so if there is a greater consensus, go for it :) Jeni ^(talk) 16:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they ought not be in the section titles themselves - particularly as they are meaningless to an unedified reader - but the work involved in removing may be greater than making do with re-formatting the broken links. I think the addition of Garage codes takes nothing away from the article, so why not? It may require a little more pre-thought than I first estimated to satisfactorily resolve this. Can anyone assist with a suggestion of their own?  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 13:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Banner discussion

Please could people look at WT:TWP#Removal of WikiProject London Transport as a sub-project or part of the banner? Simply south (talk) 16:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Answer given there. Hopefully the fix should work. --DavidCane (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Class 313 dispute

Hi, a dispute has erupted at the Class 313 page over images, and I was hoping some other interested parties could help us reach an agreement.

• Talk:British_Rail_Class_313#Image_dispute

-mattbuck (Talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Newsletter subscription

Another issue to be addressed is, please could people indicate in the next month at the feedback page, my talk page or in this discussion whether they still want to recieve issues of the metro. A lot of newsletters seem to be going to redundant pages. Simply south (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

South Kensington tube station nominated for Good Article status

South Kensington tube station has been nominated for Good Article status. --DavidCane (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Has been promoted to GA.--DavidCane (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

London Forest

I just created this article and have no idea which categories or templates in belongs in. Any suggestions? Alzarian16 (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Find another article which covers a similar subject and see what categories are on that. Then find one which covers a different subject in the same part of the country, and borrow some cats rom that too. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked on Capital Citybus to get categories, but I thought there might have been a template I didn't know about. It seems there isn't, though I can't help feeling that here should be. Thanks for the suggestion. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

London bus route articles

There seem to be many articles on specific London Bus routes. Some even have route maps on them showing different places the buses stop at, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. In addition to this many of the articles contain unsourced material or just reworded information from the unofficial London Bus Routes website. ZoeL (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Also, many Underground and railway station articles now have a list of bus routes (examples Acton Town; Ealing Broadway; Greenford; Southall). Do we have policy on those? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There used to be far more route articles. Take a look at this - all of these used to have individual articles, and now exist only as redirects to a list. The ones that survive do so because they are notable. A couple more were for a time redirects and have since been restored - ironically, they're generally the best sourced of the lot, as they've had to be to justify their recreation. London Buses route 187 is a good example. Lists of routes serving stations are totally differrent, but they do help to provide context to the significance of a location as a transport hub. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced by that. The information has been sourced from the londonbusroutes.net website. This is a personal site and has no affiliation to tfl. The other source also appears to just be a personal website. Anyone write about their local bus routes and post the information online but that doesn't make then notable. It should also be noted that the article contains a route description and frequency information. Again wikipedia is not a travel guide. ZoeL (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I redirected many of them quite a few months back, they simply weren't notable. To be honest I should have redirected a hell of a lot more, but I chose to err on the side of caution. I'd support anyone who chose to have another run through as a second opinion to weed out those which are left which really shouldn't have an article. Jeni ^(talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You did a good job getting rid of virtually pointless articles like London Buses route E7, and few dispute that. But as to using londonbusroutes.net as a source: surely it is exactly this type of site, an independent and seemingly reliable secondary source, which does show notability. Official sites are WP:PRIMARY and should be avoided. Frequency information and route descriptions are vital to showing the importance of a route in its main function of transporting people between locations, and not simply travel-guide information. A few surviving articles probably should be removed, but certainly not everything or even a majority. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually londonbusroutes.net isn't a reliable source and technically shouldn't be used. That said, I do feel that a source, albeit an unreliable one is better than no source at all. Jeni ^(talk) 11:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly you're right about the reliable source business, which is annoying as we could use this site to source nearly everything. On the other hand, we could probably source most of it old issues of Buses Magazine which is a reliable source, if anyone can be bothered to go through looking for them. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you can't use TfL as a source, as 1), it is a primary source as mentioned above, and 2) they have absolutely no past information on bus routes, so it's useless. Using Buses Magazine would be so time consuming it wouldn't be worth it. The whole issue has been discussed many times before. The notable articles are notable, and the others (bar a few remaining), have already been redirected. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 23:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

So loet's get rid of the genuinely non-notable ones, source the notable ones and put the whole issue to rest. I'll volunteer to do the redirecting, although if anyone else feels they could do a better job I'd be happy to give way to them. As for sourcing, if we all source about 20 each that should clear a large proportion of the backlog. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think TfL is a fine website to use, simply to remark that the route exists, and its times and so on. The personal site should not be used. Sadly, the author sadly neglected to state where they got their information from, and so it's completely unreliable. The best kind of sources are probably old route maps and timetables, and possibly old flyers. Libraries will have stuff like that. Aiken ♫ 23:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) In the absence of any responses I've decided to start, mostly focussing on redirecting but also adding sources to some. To date I've redirected 14, sourced 7 and removed 2 inaccurate Unreferenced tags. The sources aren't always the most reliable, but they do support the text. I'm not making as much progress as I'd like to though, so I'd be grateful if someone could help me out to speed things up a bit. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Update

Unfortuantley User: BrownHairedGirl has been through and PRODed and AfDed some article, which confuses the matter. I'm not sure what to do really. What are the articles everyone thinks are really notable? Bendies 12, 18, 25, 29, 38, 73, 436, 453 probably. Then Routemaster routes inc 9 and 15. What about 11, 24, 36? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 20:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I've "!voted" as procedural keep since we are already having this discussion. A mass AfD of articles is not going to help at this time. Jeni ^(talk) 22:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

And I've also removed the PROD's since this discussion is currently in progress! Jeni ^(talk) 22:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It is also interesting that User:BrownHairedGirl is opting not to take part in this discussion, instead she is continuing to mass AfD bus route articles. Jeni ^(talk) 22:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Just for reference, its the following routes which have been nominated:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 42
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 183
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 237
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 331
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route E8

Jeni ^(talk) 23:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Jeni, you have removed PRODs on articles which make neither a claim to notability nor provide any evidence of it, and have made no effort to improve them. So I will AFD them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could contribute to this discussion, rather than making disruptive, pointy nominations. Jeni ^(talk) 23:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to stop the snippy remarks and discuss the subject at hand. My opinion is that if a route has a frequent service, and/or a significant history, and/or extensive news coverage, it should be kept. Otherwise, they should be redirected to the main list. Same should be applied to West Midlands. Service 187 does not look at all notable to me, btw. Aiken ♫ 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree on 187, but we disagree on the wider principles.

You are entitled to your view, but the tests you suggest are not wikipedia's notability criteria as set out at WP:GNG. That's why I am taking the contested PRODs to AFD, where the community as a whole can make a decision on whether t wants to follow your approach of applying a massively lower notability threshold to bus route articles than to other topics. Sadly, route 187 is one of the PRODs which was contested, and the AFD is now being disrupted by bogus procedural objections from an editor who clearly didn't even read he nomination. :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that's just the minimum I expect :) Aiken ♫ 02:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this miniumum is less than GNG. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"extensive news coverage" is less than GNG? Anyway, as I said, minimum. There are further things that should be in an article. In fact I think I might get creating a new route article! Aiken ♫ 02:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"extensive news coverage" and/or various other things. The "or" is crucial.

Your criteria above would have us keep an article on a route with frequent service, even if it had no news coverage at all, ever ... so unless someone had written a book on the route, the article would all be based on primary sources an/or original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a route with a frequent service would pick up news coverage. Maybe I worded it badly but I assure you I fully understand the criteria (bear in mind I am somebody who prefers stricter standards on inclusion). Aiken ♫ 02:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, To stop the deletion of London bus pages why don't we merge them together like how all the night routes are merged together.C.bonnick (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Further to this: see WP:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 77 and WP:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 384, and possibly some others I don't know about. I've begun to source some of these more reliably, but if anyone has some more offline sources they would really help. Perhaps we should try grouping related articles together into larger, more notable 'blocks' of routes. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You can obtain reprints of old London bus maps from, amongst other places, the LT museum shop in Covent Garden, and the Ian Allan shop in Lower Marsh, SW1. Not every year is covered: generally, years significant in London Transport are covered, such as 1933, 1962, 1969. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps are not evidence of notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean that routes on maps were necessarily notable I meant that the maps could be used as sources to say that such-and-such a route was in operation between certain points in certain years. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

These maps are evidence of notability for the following reasons:

1. They are not just maps but also provide route details in text form
2. They are not the original documents or facsimiles but are modern works which present the information in a consistent format. They are used as secondary sources of historical information and perspective, showing the evolution and history of these routes, which is exactly our scope
3. They are still in print and may be readily purchased. This demonstrates that there is a readership for this information and a professional source of supply. The items are thus not ephemera but well-recognised works covering these topics.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've decided to enact my suggestion of sourcing information to Buses Magazine, which was initially rejected as not worth the effort. The impending threat of deletion to my mind now makes it very much worth the effort. London Buses route 66 was the first to receive this treatment, with partial success - it's been widely praised, even by BHG, but still looks likely to be deleted! Alzarian16 (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, please take another look at what I wrote about 66 "Alzarian16 has done great work sourcing the facts in the route 66 article, and the result is the only bus route article I have seen so far which has sources for all its facts ... but none of those seems to me to amount to substantial coverage". That's why I still support its deletion, for the reasons eloquently set out below by Aiken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much how I described it: you praised the article but still want it deleted. I wasn't saying your comment was wrong or the reason for deletion wasn't fair, but just that I disagreed with it. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a noble effort, but my problem is I still cannot see how the route is notable. You can easily source stuff, especially to specialist publications such as the buses magazine, but it doesn't make it notable. Most routes are, generally, run of the mill everyday things. A minority have been discussed quite significantly in major publications, such as national newspapers, published books and so on. These are the ones which will be kept.

The route 66 article is a good effort, which describes the route and is sourced, but it fails to give any indication of how or why it is worth an article. It fails to explain its impact on the areas it served, no major news-worthy events, and it fails to do the most important thing: read like an encyclopedia article. In my opinion, these routes are very interesting, but they are not for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I think that effort would be better off on another site - maybe Wikia? Aiken ♫ 17:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that even articles that get deleted can be recreated at a later date with all the appropriate sourcing etc. An AfD doesn't prohibit later recreation if sufficient information and sources come forward. That's what I intend to do in the West Midlands. Jeni ^(talk) 18:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and I'm sure when you recreate them they'll show that they are notable - not just through the fact they exist, but through multiple, independent sources that discuss them significantly. Aiken ♫ 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Out of all of the London routes, how many could reasonably be combined into single articles? In Birmingham I combined quite a few routes into "corridor" articles, such as West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor, or into "town" articles, Bus transport in Bromsgrove. Could this format be ported to the London articles? In particular, I think the table I used on Bus transport in Bromsgrove may be the way forward for many individual articles, it would just be a case of working out an appropriate way to group the articles. Thoughts? Jeni ^(talk) 16:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Such groupings are only valid where it can be demonstrated that the association is notable. In the case of the West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor, there seem to be no sources supporting this conception outside of Wikipedia and its clones. It may thus be considered improper synthesis or OR and this makes the material harder to defend at AFD. A grouping is only sensible where the routes have poor notability individually and the group name is more notable. A possible candidate is the group of services which have an E prefix in London: E1, E2, etc. I suppose that E stands for Ealing as that is their hub but I don't recall ever hearing a common name for this group. Browsing a little, I see it said that such prefixes originated in the Bus Reshaping Plan of the 60s but there don't seem to be good sources to back this up. FWIW, an unreliable source has the following scheme:

A = Airport/Airbus B = Bexleyheath, Bromley D = Docklands E = Ealing EL = East London (tube replacement bus services) G = St George's Hospital H = Hampstead Garden Suburb, Harrow, Hounslow K = Kingston P = Peckham PR = Park Royal R = Roundabout (Orpington), Richmond RV = River (Thames) S= Sutton, Stratford T = Tramlink U - Uxbridge W = Wood Green, Walthamstow X = Express

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Grouping routes based on the road they operate along is no different to grouping routes based on the city they operate in (see List of bus routes in London) which is definitely not original research. Not exactly sure how you came to that conclusion to be honest? Jeni ^(talk) 18:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The road is only similar to the city idea if the bus route is limited to one long major road such as the Uxbridge Road, so that the road includes and defines the route. If a road is just part of the route, e.g. Oxford Street, then it is an arbitrary decision to choose that particular road as the defining one. To return to your example, West Midlands Bristol Road bus corridor, who decided that Bristol Road defined this bus corridor? Where are the sources?

To avoid trouble generally, it is best to start with a good source and work from that. By building on good sources, we are immune to all the usual criticisms - notability, OR, NPOV, etc. I have started looking through the sources and their structure is usually based upon one or more of:

• the vehicle type, e.g. Routemaster
• the method of operation, e.g. Bus Rapid Transit
• the region or town, e.g. Watford
• the company, e.g. Trimdon Motor Services
• the route, e.g. Route 66
• the period and associated changes, e.g. deregulation

Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We don't have the concept of bus corridors in London, certainly not in the nomenclature of TfL. The nearest approximation is where one long route has been divided up over time into smaller overlapping sections. The 5/15/115/N15 is an example. Although I would say this is more implied through numbering than explicitly stated. Not sure if there are any third party sources that identify this.

What might work in London is to create articles looking at borough-level transport infrastructure and related policy. TfL has Local Implementation Plans for each borough with an annual budget. [1] There are also performance reports prepared for each borough [2] and convenient lists of all bus routes that enter the borough. Quite a few routes are contained within a single borough and I would suggest splitting the rest within each article into those that are radial to central London and those that are not. The councils publish information relating to the LIPs [3] and, crucially, there is third party commentary. [4] MRSC (talk) 20:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No "bus corridors" in London; this is mainly because the buses in London have been, generally speaking, coordinated both continuously and centrally for 77 years; they didn't suffer like those in Birmingham or Manchester where several companies were banged together in 1969, another upheaval in 1974, and finally Thatchered deregulated in 1986. Just stand outside the BBC studios on Oxford Road, Manchester and watch the buses. Total cock-up nightmare - how many operators does the 41 actually need? The one thing that was appreciated in 1986 about London's buses was that anarchy would simply cause more harm than good. So, one operator per route; no here-today-gone-tomorrow routes; and no bus corridors. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and E is definitely Ealing. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, working at a borough-level would be comparable to the Bus transport in Bromsgrove article (its only a relatively small town... Bus transport in Birmingham wouldn't work because of its size), I asked for a bit of feedback on IRC about the format and responses seem to be good. Using the table format that I used there would allow extended details to be given for each route without all the AfD arguments. Obviously, notable routes would still retain their own articles, with a {{main}} link. Out in the sticks up here, many of the smaller operators aren't notable enough for their own page, so it also doubles up as a useful place to give details of those, though I suspect most of the London based operators are notable enough for their own pages?

I'm still working on the principle, any suggestions? In my opinion it needs a map (its on my todo list), and more pictures (not on my todo list, my camera hates me). Forgive me for not being totally London-centric in all of this, I'm not a Londoner! I think it's good to flesh out ideas that can be ported to all areas of the country (even though this is a specific London page!)

On a slightly related note, List of London school bus routes and List of Night buses in London may benefit from the table layout, as it stands they are pretty unruly pages that are very difficult to extract information from (though certainly don't warrant individual articles). Jeni ^(talk) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles at borough level would be a good idea. We would need to be careful though that it doesn't look like a travel guide. Another question is exactly what information should be included, articles like London Buses route 5 contain quite a bit of information about the history of the route but this doesn't make it notable. Many bus routes around the country have a history you could write a long article on but at the end of the day this is wikipedia and not a bus enthusiast site. ZoeL (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Buses in London frequently cross borough boundaries, and I guess that most of them do: I struggle to think of any bus which operates only in one borough, apart from a few obscure local services such as the P3. So I wonder if it might be better to write articles which reflect the actual structure of London Buses, such as the local companies (London General, London Central etc). Not sure on that; it's just a thought.

Another idea: is there scope for more coverage of bus garages? There are only two articles so far, both weak: Ash Grove Bus Garage has a single source, and Fulwell Garage is completely unreferenced.

However, I have commented elsewhere that thematic articles may be a better way to go. e.g. Privatisation of London bus services is still well below good article standards, but the privatisation process was so controversial (lots of public debate, many strikes) that there must be plenty of sources to create a good featured article. Similarly, Articulated buses in London needs a cleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The same sources that would be used as the backbone to write garage/operator/region/theme articles, are the exact same sources that cover each and every London route in minute detail. I've still got no idea how, when used for a garage/theme/regional article they represent notability, yet when used for a route article, they don't. MickMacNee (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

To me (I can't speak for BHG, obviously) it's not a question of notability but of practicality; in many cases where there's not a lot to be said about individual routes, the same material is better off in a few long articles than a lot of short ones. Notability doesn't apply—it's not a question of anything being deleted, but of how it's arranged; many of the articles (picking London Buses route 295 at random) would be more useful to the reader as part of a sortable table listing termini, dates of operation and types of bus used, as that way the reader could click on the "sort" tabs to bring up (say) all routes using Dennis Trident buses, all routes in the 250-300 range, all routes terminating at Clapham… but without losing any of the information currently in the article; the list could contain links to routes like the 73 which do need a long commentary. See List of bus routes in Manhattan for the kind of thing I mean (and for proof that it's workable to do this on a city-wide scale). – iridescent 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability is the central question, she is selectively putting up for deletion some routes based on lack of coverage in sources, whereas she clearly doesn't know anything about the sources. Your suggested list is hardly practical, especially if the info you want to know is in any way historical. If anything it is more a violation of NOTTRAVEL than individual route articles. Route 295 you randomly picked has got tons of historical info, that is just going to be junked because it apparently can be listed. Well, I frankly cannot see how you are going to replace that info in lists, and trying to do it in only in summary articles is just wasteful repetition - it will have to be spread across articles about 5 or more different vehicle type pages, three different operator articles, and god knows how many regional/garage articles. None of which will ever link together because someone has deleted the one thing that does link all that info, the route article! Yet what BHG seems to have no concept of, is that the source material for all of these articles is exactly the same. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there are at least two issues which concerns me.

One is the practicality point mentioned by Iridescent: if there's not much to say about each route, then combined articles are a better way to present it than dozens of stubs. Those combined articles are also more easily monitored, to prevent them being filled up with lots of unreferenced material, as has happened with so many of the current articles. What Mick doesn't seem to have noticed us that London Buses route 295 is a) devoid of footnotes; b) appears to have no sources listed which in any way cover history section; c) includes a precise listing of the route which seems hard to square with WP:NOTTRAVEL. I really do hope that this project does not follow Mick's advice of taking 295 as some sort of example of stuff-that-ought-to-be-preserved, because it's a perfect example of the sort of appallingly sub-standard article which doesn't survive at AFD.

The other issue, though is article quality. If there is "significant coverage" in reliable sources per the GNG, then there is scope for an encyclopedic article which actually tells the story of the bus route, rather than producing the sort of mess created with route E8, when an editor cobbled together a bundle of trivial mentions to make a messy synthesis (see Talk:London Buses route E8). That's why notability matters: it's not just a matter of the principle that encyclopedia doesn't cover trivial topics; it's also a quality assurance test.

Mick says that I seem to have no concept of his assertion that "the source material for all of these articles is exactly the same". I dunno quite what he means by that, but AFAICS there are two issues there:

1. The source material for many of these articles as the currently stand is indeed exactly the same: primary sources (London Buses, TfL, bus companies) and unacknowledged synthesis of material from fansites. There are very good reasons why policy is quite explicit that articles shoukd be constructed in this way
2. Mick may also be refering to claims made by him and others that there is a huge pile of reliable secondary coverage of these routes offline in specialist publications. That may or may not be the case; I simply don't know, and I'll believe it when I see evidence of it. But simply waving a hand in a few general directions and saying "there's lots of material out there" does nothing to either remove or improve the dozens of deeply crufty articles which currently exist. I have no objection to someone doing the research and writing a properly-sourced encyclopedic article, but the problem is that in meantime we have all these piles of unsourced cruft. WP:V is a core policy, and simply saying that there are probably sources out there doesn't fix anything; it just ensures that the mess continues on an open-ended basis.

That's why it's best to redirect or delete most instances of this low-quality mess, and have it recreated if and when someone what's to produce at least a proper stub. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Another proposal

The thread above is concerned largely with how to group the bus route articles. This proposal focusses on which articles should be grouped and when this should happen. I suggest the following plan of action:

• Over the following three months, all bus route articles should be properly sourced (the figure of 3 months could be changed if users would prefer a longer/shorter timescale).
• Once this process is complete, the articles should be assessed for notability.
• Those which clearly demonstrate notability should be left in their improved condition. Those which do not should be grouped along the lines decided by the above proposal.

Thoughts, anyone? Alzarian16 (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has no deadline - unless or until somebody is prepared to define how you establish notability for a route without with reference to actual topic specific sources rather than simply resorting to Wikipedia buzzword bingo of 'GNG' etc, then setting deadlines for action is meaningless. I've got no wish to do edit anything in this area while articles are under threat of arbitrary deletion simply by soliciting a bunch of WP:JNN votes from people with zero topic knowledge. You say 'properly sourced' and 'clearly demonstrates notability' as if you think people actually know what you mean? I certainly don't for this topic, and I've created articles on subjects such as art, films, politics, architecture, sport, biographies and many more. And also knowing something about this subject too and written various articles on it, I've said about a million times that the average info in every single route article can be verified a hundred times over using the sources suggested to write other theme/region/garage/list articles. The issue is defining what is significant coverage so that others have the first clue what it is and what it isn't for bus routes, and whenever I say this, people ignore it, or start talking about something completely different. MickMacNee (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those are all fair points, although the trouble with WP:DEADLINE is that it often leads to no-one doing anything and the article being deleted. It may be possible to use a "common sense" definition of notability, although this could lead to inconsistency between each assessor. I could also add to the proposal a line saying that "no deletions should take place until this process is complete". Would this improve it? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I, and I am sure others who watched the Afd debates play out, have zero clue what you and others would even consider a common sense assessment of whether a route has been properly sourced or not. Without a proper definition, the proposal does nothing except hurry up the random deletion of more route articles. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I can understand your concern, but it is not true that this proposal would "hurry up the deletion of more random route articles". I explicitly asked if adding a sentence saying that "no deletions should take place until the process is complete" would improve the proposal, thereby negating that possibility. What would lead to deletions is either doing nothing or combining route articles without sourcing them first, which is exactly what this proposal attempts to avoid. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: start with some triage

At the moment there are dozens of articles on London bus routes which come nowhere near meeting the notability test of WP:GNG. I know that some editors would like to see some guidelines for bus routes which would provide some more specialised notability test than GNG, but from the discussions at AFD and DRV I can't see much chance of any such guidelines reaching any sort of consensus. Of course, editors are free to try, but it would be wrong to proceed on the assumption that any such guidelines will be approved.

It suggest that the first thing to do here is a triage exercise. It seems to me that there are the routes could quite quickly be divided into three groups:

1. Articles which clearly meet the GNG as they are
2. Articles have a reasonable prospect of being sourced with significant coverage to meet the GNG, which should be tagged as needing more sources and being of unproven notability. This will require some sort of criteria to be set out first, but I suggest that some combination of facts such as having a long history, a frequent service, and passing through or into the West End would probably be some of the factors which would help identify routes where sources are most likely to be found.
3. Other articles, which should promptly be redirected to the List of bus routes in London.

From what I have seen so far, very few articles currently fit in category 1, and the tricky bit is identifying the criteria for category 2. If the criteria are too loose, then the whole exercise will be rather pointless, in which case we'll back at AFD. Personally, I think that much better results are achieved when the members of a project take charge in this sort of quality control, so I'll be very happy to support a moratorium on further AFDs if there genuinely is a cleanup exercise underway which leaves some sort of a trail so that the assessments can be monitored; but if the situation simply remains one of editors saying "no deadline" and asking that nobody does anything about the many dozens of articles which contain lots of unreferenced text and no evidence of notability, then (as Alzarian16 points out above), inaction by the project will lead to other forms of cleanup.

It's important to note too that the articles in category 2 don't just remain in the present sorry state. There are various options on how to deal with them, such as: a) tag them to identify the improvements needed; b) reduce them to stubby length by removing all the unreferenced material; c) redirect them to the list, but tag them with {{R with possibilities}} and keep a list of those with potential for expansion.

How does that sound? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Fairly good, but I would suggest a fourth option for category 2 articles: source them to easily available online resources, and tag with {{notability}} where the sources don't really show this. One limitation of the previous cleanup attempts is that they've (understandably) focussed on redirecting articles, so those that survived were rarely improved. The AfDs have shown that some decent sources are available offline, but not everyone has access to these and adding them will take time. Use of online sources would at least mean that the articles were sourced to something while a serious search for offline sources takes place. Any clearly non-notable routes could of course be redirected, although these should be in a minority as many have already been dealt with. Thoughts? Alzarian16 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• These choices seem to be a false dichotomy. The correct choice is between either having information about a bus route because it is notable, culturally significant, &c. or having nothing at all. If a bus route is nothing more than a mere cipher then it merits no coverage. The list of routes should only be used as a navigation aid for the notable route topics, not a substitute for it. If the route network as whole is notable then the objective would be to have a text article which discusses its evolution and development. A simple tabulation of routes is not appropriate content per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO.

From what I've seen of this and other similar topics, the route article is a better vehicle for textual narrative than a table of numbers. Each route can have one or more photographs of representative buses on that route and so will form a nicely rounded and balanced visual package of text, stops, infobox and photos. The current coverage seems close to this so I'm not seeing the problem which requires some urgent programme. If it works, don't fix it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that it doesn't really work, at least not at present. I'd love to see every route have an article, but they don't all meet notability guidelines. The ones that do often don't show it; many are totally unsourced. Since your work at London Buses route 68 suggests that you have access to a number of good quality offline sources, I would very much like you to be involved in the sourcing effort. If the articles aren't sourced, they'll probably be deleted at some point in the future. Any help you can offer to prevent this would be greatly appreciated. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The notability guidelines are provided to help us, not to hinder us. Equally useful guidance may be derived from the old riddle:

Q. How do you eat an elephant?

A. One slice at a time.

This suggests that a sensible way forward would be to take a promising route article such as route 68 and work it up into a featured article or at least a good one. This seems a feasible task in that it is limited in scope and would encourage us by the success of the endeavour and the plaudits which the contributors would share. We would then have a good model for further work which would go more speedily by benefiting from the example of the first. Then, after we have done a few such examples, we could take stock again.

This approach is a positive one in that it is based more upon the carrot than the stick. As this is a volunteer effort, we must depend upon such intangible rewards to motivate our efforts. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A bus route article unrelated to London, but a decent model nonetheless for a task like this I came across is this. That is what I call a notable route: actual significant coverage, written widely in a variety of sources. It even has a song written about it! Aiken ♫ 21:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good old 192, Piccadilly Gardens (red side)-Hazel Grove. I used to get that to Longsight... where did the years go? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

192 is one of the best articles of the type I've seen. But it isn't neccessarily useful as a basis for others as even most notable routes don't have that much coverage! As for Colonel Warden's idea of getting one article up to GA class, this would be nice to have, but it wouldn't help the other 300 or so articles of the type, just that one. I think a more general approach which could benifit all notable route articles is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Umm, folks, I used the word triage because I was talking of a first step; that's how triage works in medicine, and that's how I intended it here. Identify what's already in reasonably good state, what's hopeless, and what in-between stuff needs further examination ... and then get down to more thorough checks of the state of the middle category.

Sure, some editors may then set to work improving some of the category 2 articles, and may do that early on in the process. Some of those routes may indeed turn out to be clearly notable, but others will turn out to have nothing but trivial coverage. So the second pass on the category 2 will send some of them to category 1 and some to category 3.

However, the success of the process depends in part on how systematic it is and in part how credible the assessments are. The systematic stuff is important, because as Alzarian16 points out, previous efforts seem to have focused on redirecting the cruft without actually identifying what needs improvement ... so it has left a lot of articles in a very poor state with no sign of any evidence that the relevant projects see any problem ewith that. The credibility of the assessments is also important; if this project's efforts just turn out to be an exercise in putting a "notable" tick-mark beside a largely-unsourced piece of which has two trivial secondary refs synthesised into a dodgy assertion, then others are still going to take this material to AFD.

I note that Col W disparages the idea of lists. But what about lists such as the List of bus routes in Brooklyn, which give a meaningful summary of the route's nature and history? That seems to me to work rather well, so why can't it be used here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• List of bus routes in Brooklyn seems a poor article which violates numerous policies and guidelines. So far as notability is concerned, it is almost completely lacking in independent sources. The idea that we should delete articles on notability grounds to create OR like this seems absurd. Greater Manchester bus route 192 is a much more promising article. The main issue there is that the article has a history which makes links between the current service and a variety of older services under other route numbers such as tram route number 35. It's not clear how well this is supported by the sources or whether it is a form of synthesis. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

  Pointing to the Manchester 192 as an example of how to proceed doesn't really get us very far, because as the busiest bus route in the UK (according to its operators), it's bound to attract a lot of coverage. Routes which are less busy (and therefore usually less high-profile) just aren't going to have as much material available.

  The Brooklyn list may be lacking in sources, but there seems to be agreement on all sides here that the topic of London buses is notable, so I'm not sure why you seem to think that the List of bus routes in London would fail the notability test. Meanwhile, however, the individual articles remain in woeful state. You don't seem to like my suggestions on how to proceed, but do you have any suggestion on what to do other than just leaving them in a mess in the hope that they will all someday be rewritten to at least the standards of the Manchester 192?

  AFAICS, the logical conclusion of your arguments is to just delete the List of bus routes in London, regardless of what happens to individual route articles. Is that really what you want? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion appears to be in danger of petering out, despite seeming agreement that we need to take some sort of action. How about we create a page to list bus route articles by category as suggested, then improve those which need it? Alzarian16 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Central London Railway

New article posted at Central London Railway. --DavidCane (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Has been promoted to GA. Now off to be a FA candidate.--DavidCane (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Add Buses to SGN?

Its been suggested that if Buses are added to Wikipedia:Notability (streets, roads, and highways) it might help protect their articles from deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not any kind of guideline; it's a personal essay by User:Sebwite written to replace a proposal that was rejected in December. Adding arguments for or against anything to it will have no effect on anything. – iridescent 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Entry and Exit data

TfL has now published tube station entry and exit data for 2009 here. Time to update the infoboxes. --DavidCane (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Colour for Overground/East London

I believe that the orange colour used for London Overground and the East London Line should be consistent. It's found in many Wikipedia pages, and there are several ways of doing it.

Method	Value	Effect	Notes
Template {{LOG color}}	e87722	█
{{London Overground navbox}}	ff6600	█	hard-coded
{{LUL color|East London}}	ffa300	█	hard-coded
{{LUL color|London Overground}}	10069f	█	value obtained from {{LOG color}}
Colours list, entry for London Overground	FF7518	█	used to hard-code colours into rail route succession boxes
Colours list, entry for East London Line	FF9900	█	haven't found where this might be used
The word "orange"	FFA500	█	used in platform layouts

As you can see, there are three values which differ subtly; and some are hard-coded into pages, others obtained from templates. Articles such as New Cross Gate railway station (and the others on the E.L. line up to Dalston Junction and beyond) have rail succession boxes with hard-coded FF7518, presumably obtained from the Colours list. This differs from the colour in the navbox, but it's only noticeable when the two colours are positioned close together, as with Wapping where the succ box is close to the navbox. It's also noticeable with Whitechapel, where the same succ box exhibits two differing oranges.

I believe that hard-coding should be restricted to, say, the definition of the colour within the {{LOG color}} template, everything else obtaining the value by reading that template. However, the first question is: which colour value should be used? Then we can set about using a template instead of hard-coded values. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We shouldn't be using any orange other than #ff6600, which is TfL's specified corporate colour for web representation of Overground services. – iridescent 11:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, but didn't they change the colour when Overground started? That strange ELL colour looks like the old one to me. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I intend to do. Starting somewhere like Surrey Quays, work through all the route succession boxes which mention a past, present or future London Overground service. When I encounter a hard-coded colour value (whether FF6600, FF7518 or FF9900) on a present or future London Overground route, change this to a transclusion of {{LOG color}} (the value of that is FF6600, which according to page 11 of the abovementioned PDF is correct). For the few cases of abandoned routes (Whitechapel-Shoreditch), I shall use a transclusion of {{LUL color|East London}}. Later on we can worry about whether FF6600 is the right value for the latter; it's a simple matter to amend it to the slightly paler FF9900 when it only occurs in one place.

Also I shall amend the relevant entries in Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Colours list to use similar template transclusions, not hard-coded values. To see the style that I intend to use, see the first three entries under Pre-grouping there. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Contrast of #FF6600 on white is also better than orange on white, so I'll do this sort of thing too. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, this is TfLs full list of official line colours (pages 18–19). – iridescent 17:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That doc has Pantone and CMYK, but no web-friendly RGB. Instead try this one (page 24, section 2.11). For future ref, the parent page for these, and other, downloadable PDFs is here. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, done all that. One q remains: given that FF6600 is the correct colour for present and future London Overground services, should the colour for former East London Line services (such as Whitechapel-Shoreditch) match that, or be the slightly paler FF9900? Samples above. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The ELL doesn't appear in the current Colour Standard, but page 4.5 of Issue 2 (apparently deleted) specifies #FF9900 as the web-save representation for the ELL (different from LOL). AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Project banners for navboxes

The eleven LU lines each have a navbox, all of which bear {{WikiProject London Transport}} on their talk pages (Template talk:District line navbox didn't, until I added it). Two of them (District, added by me, and Metropolitan, added by Slambo but modified by me) also bear {{TrainsWikiProject}}. The rest (B, Cen, Cir, H&C, J, N, P, V, W&C) don't have TWP.

Questions:

1. should the {{TrainsWikiProject}} banner be present or not?
2. If it should be present, should it carry (a) |Underground=yes (my preference); (b) |subway=yes (Slambo's preference, his reasoning being that it adds the page to WikiProject Rapid transit) (c) both; (d) neither?

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it's an artefact of the Met and District having begun life as mainline companies using standard-size trains, which were absorbed by LT. I strongly support the TWP banner being present and think all London Underground pages should have the TWP banner rather than the standalone LT one, with a slight preference towards "LUL" over "underground" or "subway" in order to differentiate it from Glasgow. – iridescent 18:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

? {{TrainsWikiProject}} doesn't have a |LUL= parameter - it has |LT= which is an obsolete synonym for |Underground= (note capital U); but using |LT= doesn't give quite as many features as |Underground=. For example, |Underground=yes produces the London Transport Portal boxed link, whereas |LT=yes doesn't. Also, if the talk page has a /Comments sub-page, |Underground=yes will place the talk page in Category:London Transport articles with comments, but |LT=yes won't. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at the moment, but that would just be a case of code-tweaking. A while back, a bot tagged everything in these categories with {{WPLT}}, and everything on this list that didn't fall into the LT remit as {{WPLondon}}; presumably if we decided to standardise on the TWP banner the same bot could do the same. – iridescent 19:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

|Underground= is actually the obsolete synonym which is a hang over from when the project was Wikipedia:WikiProject Underground. |LT= was added in October last year to match the current project name, but the coding was not fully implemented, hence the missing functionality. |LT-importance= is also the preferable synonym of |LUL-importance=, but, in practice most of the shared banners still use the older parameters. I agree that, where appropriate, the {{TrainsWikiProject}} should be used, although not everything in Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport relates to trains, tube or stations. There are plenty of articles on buses, roads, bridges, etc. that would not be appropriate in the parent project, so any bot instructions would need to be done fairly carefully. As to whether is should be |Underground=yes or |subway=yes, my view is: both.--DavidCane (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the navbox is within the scope of all of these projects (Trains, London Transport and Rapid transit) and the banners do not indicate ownership of content merely that they are within the scope of related projects, I don't see a problem with listing them all. I use subway=yes on the TrainsWikiProject banner instead of Underground=yes on pages where the London Transport banner is already listed to avoid redundancy. Slambo (Speak) 13:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

While it's a relatively trivial point that doesn't affect how the articles are displayed, there are a couple of slight issues with "subway" in this context. One is that, in British usage (and to the confusion of many tourists) "subway" has a different meaning of a pedestrian tunnel; the other is that, despite the name, less than half of London Underground actually qualifies as a subway; most of it (by both passenger usage and length) consists of assorted surface heavy-rail lines that have been absorbed by London Transport at some point. LT is gradually addressing this, with a U-Bahn/S-Bahn style split into London Overground and London Underground taking place, but huge swathes of London Underground such as the sprawling inter-urban network of the Metropolitan Line are still heavy commuter railways, not subways, by any reasonable definition. – iridescent 14:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether the parameter is called subway or not is a discussion that is better served at Template talk:TrainsWikiProject (I have no strong opinion on this question). The point here is that the navbox is within the scope of all three WikiProjects, and that is why I tagged the box's talk page with the TrainsWikiProject banner and included subway=yes. Slambo (Speak) 14:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I should comment that I altered the just-mentioned |subway=yes (on Template talk:Metropolitan line navbox) to |Underground=yes, on the grounds that I have normally encountered the latter rather than the former on LUL-related pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

UERL page

Following recent page move, a discussion has been started at Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London Limited. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Docks Heritage Railway. Simply south (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

London Buses route 433

I stub-sorted this a while ago, moving it in the process, so it got onto my watchlist. A recent edit makes me look again and wonder if the whole article is a WP:HOAX. I'm not a London Transport expert but you lot are! Please could someone check it? Thanks. PamD (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Google is your friend. – iridescent 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Roundway

Notification to anyone who might be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Roundway. As this will help set a precedent for where we draw the "how important does a road need to be to warrant its own article" bar, it potentially affects quite a lot of articles in the project scope whichever way it goes. – iridescent 14:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Colours, again

Today, a number of colour templates have had their hex values altered: {{DLR color}}, {{Tramlink color}}, {{LOG color}}, {{LUL color}} also the article Tramlink. The source for these changes was apparently the Pantone colour values on TƒL Colour Standard Issue 3, pp.4-41; the editor's reasoning may be seen on my talk page. The disadvantage as I see it is that the TfL hex triplets are easily checked, but Pantone conversions are not. What does the Project think about this? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Use TfL the TfL hex triplets, no question at all. PMS values are for print use, not screen display; TfL issues those html hex values for a reason. We should be matching the colour values of TfL's website, not trying to match a print tube map. – iridescent 19:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TƒL isn't always consistent from one web page or document to another. (Possibly different sources/software programs/conversions?) These new ones at least seem to look right. Useddenim (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

TfL have specified "web for screen" hex values (see p. 30). Those are what we use. There is nothing to discuss. – iridescent 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the {{DLR color}}, I note that the current colour specified by Useddenim is the hex value #00afad. I'm not sure where this has been specified as the best match for Pantone 326, but this site says that #00B2A9 is the 100% match whereas #00afad is only a 97% match. It actually does not matter which is the best match, because if TfL specfies a hex value alternative why should we use anything else? It is, after all, the definitive primary source, not a third party's "best match" choice. --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus being that the official TfL RGB hex triplets are preferable, I have reverted {{DLR color}}, {{LOG color}} and {{LUL color}}.

I have amended {{Tramlink color}} so that the general colour is that specified by Trams basic elements standard, Issue 2 March 2009. Regarding the tramlink line colours, I could not locate a download from TfL Design standards which gave those explicitly (whether RGB hex triplets or any other method); but on that website, at Tram maps, there is Tramlink network map analysis of which has yielded two line colours, which I have placed in {{Tramlink color}}. I have amended the article Tramlink so that it now pulls all its non-black/white colours from {{Tramlink color}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Methodology of your analysis? Useddenim (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Go to the JPEG mentioned above and save it locally. Open the local copy using Microsoft Paint (mine is ver. 5.1). Select "View, Zoom, Custom" and choose a zoom level such that the green route lines are nice and broad (big enough so that you can use the mouse pointer on the individual pixels).
2. Move the image around so that a good big portion of the lime green line representing Routes 1/2 is visible. Select the "pick colour" tool (it's the one which looks like a glass eyedropper touching a pale blue smudge). Move the pointer to the centre of the lime green line, keeping to an area of solid colour well inside the line, avoiding the edges, station tabs and the interchange rings, all of which can affect the colour of adjacent pixels. Click. Bring down "Colors -> Edit colors...". Click on "Define Custom colors". This shows that the colour components have decimal values Red 193 Green 215 Blue 46; note these down.
3. Repeat step 2 several times, using various points selected from different sections of the line to make sure you get consistent values.
4. Take the noted values for the colour components and convert them to hexadecimal, giving C1₁₆, D7₁₆, 2E₁₆ and concatenate giving the hex triplet C1D72E.
5. Repeat steps 2-4 for the darker green of Route 3; this yields Red 124 Green 194 Blue 66; converting to hex these are 7C₁₆, C2₁₆, 42₁₆ so the hex triplet is 7CC242.

You will see here that those are the exact triplets that I used. I invite others to verify my work. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into a discussion about the relative merits of different software packages, I would just like to note that Photoshop – not Microsoft Paint – tends to be the choice of professional graphic designers.
fin Useddenim (talk) 17:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I downloaded the same map, opened it in Photoshop (using the embedded colour profile to prevent colour shift), then the eydropper tool (0 tolerance, no anti-aliasing) to find my RGB values. Useddenim (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This leaves only the article Tube map where the section Line colours still looks a real mess. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm open for suggestions of a clearer way to present the information. I had considered a coloured timeline, but concluded that it would have occupied too much space and would not have been any more informative that listing the dates as shown currently. Useddenim (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Also to be fixed are the Xxx_line_logo.PNG's in the infobox on each of the individual line pages (altho' the Northern one is probably OK…) Useddenim (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Central London Railway - Heads Up

Central London Railway will be "Today's Featured Article" on the main page tomorrow, so it may get visited by the vandals over the next couple of days. --DavidCane (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Route boxes

Should Hammersmith tube station (Hammersmith & City and Circle lines)#External links have the District and Piccadilly services in the routebox; similarly, should Hammersmith tube station (Piccadilly and District lines)#External links have the H&C & Circle services in its routebox? They were added by DReifGalaxyM31 (talk · contribs), removed by me and added back in by DReifGalaxyM31. To me, they're unnecessary duplication of information. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No. They're two different stations which happen to share a name. – iridescent 17:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not.--DavidCane (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed these and similar "transfer" interchanges that appear at Wood Lane/White City and Tower Hill/Tower Gateway. I'm checking other similarly close stations.--DavidCane (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Participants Update

I have just checked the activity of all of the users on the participants list. Out of the 81 listed users, only 44 users are actually currently editing on wikipedia (have made an edit within the last six months or so). A large number have been dormant for a year or more, a number of accounts are non-existent and a few have been blocked. I have tagged these as appropriate. Whether all of the remaining users are editing project articles, I haven't checked.--DavidCane (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Added self. Absolutely no idea why I didn't do that before; at the latest, I should have signed up on 30 November 2009 which is when I first posted here. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Call for Nominations and Votes

Activity on the Voting page seems to have dried-up recently. We currently have two selected article nominations, three selected picture nominations and six selected biography nominations, but all-bar-one of them have just the support of the original nominator.

Come on guys, time to nominate your favourite article, picture or personality for appearance on the Portal page. Have a go, it's quite painless! Copies of previous selections can be found here, here and here. --DavidCane (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Category:Transport architecture in London

Is this a useful category? Most of the articles in it shouldn't need to be - they should already be in their appropriate railway/tube etc subcategories, which are then redundant to this one. So on the whole this just seems to add an intervening layer of categorization, without adding obvious value. For comparison, no other cities seem to have "transport architecture" or "transportation architecture" (according to the fantastic grep tool) and there is no obvious reason for the railway station subcategory not to just be a subcat of "buildings and structures in London by type". Should airports etc be included here too? The one saving grace I can see at the moment is that notable architects who worked on London's transport infrastructure have a place here. TheGrappler (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between "buildings" and "architecture". As the historic focal point of world trade and the cradle of the mass-transit revolution, London is unusual in having so many architecturally significant transport buildings. The US has Category:Listings related to transportation on the National Register of Historic Places and its children (Railway and subway stations on the National Register of Historic Places in New York City and the like), but there's no real English equivalent to the NRHP—Grade I listing is used far more sparingly, and Grade II listing too indiscriminately. – iridescent 12:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no doubt this is true, but it doesn't seem to make the category purposeful since most of what it contains actually is in "building and structure" subcategories anyway. Should the airports and bridges also belong in this category? It seems to mostly be a rail category at the moment, with a few exceptions. TheGrappler (talk) 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)