User talk:Vincent60030/Archive 1

Image galleries

Hi, please don't gather the images into a gallery (as you did at e.g. Kennington tube station with these edits), unless the policy on galleries is satisfied. I am particularly thinking of the first paragraph, beginning with the sentence "Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text (see WP:MOSIMAGES)." Very often an article will have a small box near the bottom right, stating something like "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kennington tube station." That is generated by the markup {{commons category|Kennington tube station}}, and is usually a better alternative to a gallery. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for notifying me, sorry for the inconvenience caused.Vincent60030 (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Btw I was just trying to give others the convenience to see the pictures directly. If there is another link for it and no pictures then it will be very troublesome for them. Sometimes if the Internet broke, they cannot view the picture.

Thank you.Vincent60030 (talk) 05:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have started doing this again. As I noted on this edit, which you reverted without explanation, a gallery is unnecessary (see WP:IG) - all of those images are in c:Category:Moor Park station and a {{commons category}} is already present on the article.

In addition to that, you have started removing history sections, and seem to be replacing them with extra detail in the infobox (example). The infobox is supposed to supplement, not replace, the article's text. The text should be referenced, which makes it unnecessary to put the refs in the infobox. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried to make the gallery as simple as possible because I saw the commons category. However, if you want me to remove the gallery section, it will be bad because it is easier to just click and look at the picture of the station or other pictures of it. If I were to leave it all in the commons category, as I have told you in the last message, is very troublesome for some pictures. This way of putting the gallery not only benefits viewers from Wikipedia, also they can be attracted to view more pictures in Wikimedia. Of course, if that station, for example King's Cross St. Pancras is too big, and has too many files, I will leave it in the commons category. But as you see, for those I have edited are pretty minor stations and I made viewers look at the basics of the station. That's all!

About the history thing, I might have made it too long in the info box section. Sorry for that but may I ask for your opinion of how to make the info box to have important dates? And then the history section is brief so I just cooperated it into the info box. If I can't do so, how would I also make the history not in note form?

Thank you for your concern. Please reply as soon as possible. Vincent60030 (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As explained at WP:IG, images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text. You need a very good reason to put them all in a gallery, particularly where the amount of text in the caption goes to more than a line or two. Why not write some text (with references) describing the platform layout? You could then put one or two of these images alongside that text.

The sort of things that belong in the years/events part of the history section are the key dates: opening, renaming, closure. Reconstruction is normally only included if the new station was on a different site from the original. We would normally omit the introduction and cessation of specific services, although on the London Underground, where some stations have been transferred from one line to another, we might include that information; but this is always supplementary to and a summary of the main text. See for example Acton Town tube station - compare the "Key dates" part of its infobox with its History section. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok then but how do I find references for station layouts? That is quite difficult though. Do you mind if you can suggest some references for me please?

About the history section, I will try to do so. Thank you. :) Vincent60030 (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The books published by Middleton Press and written by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith (and others) usually have plenty regarding layout. For example, Moor Park is covered by

• Mitchell, Victor E.; Smith, Keith (February 2005). Marylebone to Rickmansworth. Midland Main Lines. Midhurst: Middleton Press. figures 98–100 and map XXIV. ISBN 1-904474-49-7.

Books about the Metropolitan Line (and indeed the Underground in general) also have information, particularly in those chapters where the quadrupling of the Harrow-Rickmansworth section is described. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to ask but how do I read about it? Do I have to buy it? :( By the way, for all those minor stations do you mind if I just put a gallery without a reference please?

Thank you. Vincent60030 (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Books don't have to be bought: they may be borrowed from public libraries. The ISBN number that I gave is a link: clicking this will give a list of libraries, in that are links to tell you which of them have it in their collections. Even if the nearest one to you doesn't have it, they will be able to obtain it through interlibrary loans.

Please do not add more image galleries. I have tried to explain why not. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject London Transport

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to the London Transport WikiProject! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of London's transport system.

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

• Starting some new articles? Our Manual of style outlines some things to include. The project also provides templates to help you make the perfect article.
• Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department has rated the quality of every London transport article in Wikipedia.
• Suggest an interesting London Transport fact for inclusion on the Did You Know? section of our portal.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around!

— From the members of WikiProject London Transport

I noticed that you had added yourself to the list of dormant users rather than active users. I have moved you to the correct list.--DavidCane (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for doing so for me. By the way, who is/are rating the related articles? If you are one of them, could you please check my recently edited Central line article and rank up that article (if it has improved or expanded to a certain extent)? If you are not ranking it up, please notify me and tell me the reason :p. And if it is, just tell me. :)

Article assessment can be done by anyone with an understanding of the assessment criteria (though its best to avoid assessing articles where one is the main editor), though I completed the process a few years ago and keep an eye on the project's assessment table to see if there are any new unassessed articles appearing.

Assessment is based on two components: quality and importance. These are assessed according to criteria which can be found at WP:ASSESS (see WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ for FAQs on the process). Basically, quality is an assessment of the standard of content that an article contains with regard to completeness and referencing. Though good articles and featured articles tend to be longer, length in itself is not a criteria as long articles that are poorly referenced will not satisfy the higher quality criteria.

importance is a rating of how important the article is to the WikiProject assessing the article. You may notice that an article's talk page may have assessments from multiple projects with different levels of importance as it will be considered to have different importance for those projects. For example, the assessments at Talk:Central line show that the importance of the article is considered to be low by WikiProject Trains, mid by WikiProject UK Railways and high by WikiProject London Transport depending on how key the article is to the scope of the project.

Both quality and importance assessments are subjective and often lag behind the development of an article. Looking at Central line, this should probably have been reassessed as a B class article a couple of years ago. Only the good article and featured article assessments are formally undertaken and these are done in accordance with sets of criteria specified for the grade (see here and here).--DavidCane (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok then, but are you free to rate it and how do you rate an article? By the way, I have fixed Imperial Wharf railway station's reference but do I need to add a reference for it since it is an abandoned plan? - Please check the article. Thank you. Vincent60030 (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

In what way was this edit "fixing a reference"? You removed a {{crystal|section}} tag, and also removed a reference, both without explanation. The sentence that you added was unreferenced; see WP:CITEBEGIN for how to add references. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but now I have added some references for Imperial Wharf railway station and also Liverpool Street station. Please check it out and re-rate those articles. :) Thank you. Vincent60030 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't use blogs or forums as sources, see WP:SPS. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. By the way how do I make my user page look more interesting? Vincent60030 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Another type of reference to avoid are the ones where a search needs to be performed. URLs used as refs must take you directly to the webpage which supports the content. Please also see WP:CITEBEGIN#Manual referencing for information on constructing refs. In particular, please note that there must be a space after the URL, except when a template like {{cite web}} is used, when the space is optional. Constructs like <ref name=Hammersmith & City line timetable> aren't valid. Refs don't always need to be named, but if you do need to name them, information is at WP:NAMEDREFS.

User pages are editable like any other. Most of the relevant guidelines are at WP:USERPAGE. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hainault depot

The article Hainault depot has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject is non notable

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Meatsgains (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Meatsgains, may I merge all the Central line depots into one page? May I also do so for other lines too if needed? Please reply as soon as possible. Vincent60030 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)