Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 12 |
LU photography rules
An ip user nominated File:Borough tube station lifts 01.jpg as potentially unfree for violating LU's rules on photography. The nomination was declined on the grounds that the file is on Commons (it hasn't been nominated there), but there is a brief exchange at File talk:Borough tube station lifts 01.jpg people here may be interested in. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think it possible that it isn't just about this photo or LU per se. Have a look at these contributions and these contributions and in particular see their interaction with the revision history of the Elevator article and the status of this photo, then read this editor's (or one of these editors') beliefs about English in Wikipedia ("the British English wikipedia users will stop at nothing to stop wikipedia from using an AmE word"). I would prefer to assume good faith but I do wonder if the photo got nominated in the hope that the word "lift" could be removed from Elevator. Just a theory though. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- From what I have seen I would agree with DBaK. I've been watching this IP for a while along with a couple of others which I suspect are the same user. It's someone who has a serious chip on their shoulder about the use of British English and will stop at nothing to remove it. Interestingly from the WHOIS info it appears to be a doctor from Cancer Research UK. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I suspect that the UK's liberal freedom of panorama laws would mean that these images would survive deletion nominations at Commons (if there's nothing stopping people from positing photographs of items in museums surely there's no barrier to taking photos of train stations which are open to the public?). There's a good summary of the laws at commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Interesting re the lift/elevator thing. I did think it was was very odd photo to use to comment about something as generic as LU photographic rules but didn't think to look for a pattern in the user's contributions to link it to something else! Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- Surely Freedom of Panorama concerns photographs taken from a public place, such as the street? I am certain that all railway stations in the UK, including those of London Underground, are private property; I'm pretty sure that London Transport - or one of its successors - took out a byelaw preventing the taking of photographs on LU property. Their main concern is that a train driver could be dazzled by a flash. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- There is not a chance that the lift is copyrighted in the first place. There is no copyright for utilitarian objects, neither in the United Kingdom nor in the United States, and a lift is obviously utilitarian. Also, in the United Kingdom, freedom of panorama also applies indoors and even if an admission fee (for example a train ticket) is payable to enter the location. Therefore, freedom of panorama clearly applies in the London Underground.
- I think that the IP means that is it somehow prohibited to use photos created in the London Underground if the photos were created in violation of the photo restrictions. This is pure nonsense; see for example v:Museum photography. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think there was a similar issue raised a year or so ago, about photographs taken in places in the UK where the owner had expressly restricted photography. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can recall it and what the outcome was? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Commons take on this would be that the photographer holds the copyright, and any issues arising from the photographer taking photos of/from places they shouldn't are between the property owner and the photographer. LU (or anyone else) cannot claim copyright just because the photo was taken on their property, and, if Freedom of Panorama were an issue, a station would be categorised as a public space anyway, regardless of ownership. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- So in short, if it is illegal to take photos in the London Underground, then London Underground might be able to sue the photographer for trespassing or a contractual violation or something, but it doesn't affect how Wikipedia can use images created in violaion of the photo restriction. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I don't think LU care that much really. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The TfL Byelaws don't include any byelaw prohibiting photography without permission, the terms and conditions for the grant of photography rights on the tube don't refer to any such byelaw, and the TfL conditions of carriage (see clause 4.5) prohibit flash photography, but not other photography. So it seems that people who've bought a ticket and are travelling on the tube with that ticket have the right to take non flash photographs incidental to their travel without needing to get any special permission. Bahnfrend (talk) 20:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, and I don't think LU care that much really. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- So in short, if it is illegal to take photos in the London Underground, then London Underground might be able to sue the photographer for trespassing or a contractual violation or something, but it doesn't affect how Wikipedia can use images created in violaion of the photo restriction. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- The Commons take on this would be that the photographer holds the copyright, and any issues arising from the photographer taking photos of/from places they shouldn't are between the property owner and the photographer. LU (or anyone else) cannot claim copyright just because the photo was taken on their property, and, if Freedom of Panorama were an issue, a station would be categorised as a public space anyway, regardless of ownership. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- I think there was a similar issue raised a year or so ago, about photographs taken in places in the UK where the owner had expressly restricted photography. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can recall it and what the outcome was? Lamberhurst (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- Surely Freedom of Panorama concerns photographs taken from a public place, such as the street? I am certain that all railway stations in the UK, including those of London Underground, are private property; I'm pretty sure that London Transport - or one of its successors - took out a byelaw preventing the taking of photographs on LU property. Their main concern is that a train driver could be dazzled by a flash. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
- From what I have seen I would agree with DBaK. I've been watching this IP for a while along with a couple of others which I suspect are the same user. It's someone who has a serious chip on their shoulder about the use of British English and will stop at nothing to remove it. Interestingly from the WHOIS info it appears to be a doctor from Cancer Research UK. Fraggle81 (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Making references more useful and informative
Hi, I am looking for a couple of volunteers to help make references more useful and informative and to preserve and link to archive copies of the referenced material. e.g. this recent edit fixes a number of issues:
- Convert bare references to use {{cite}} template to make them more informative and to avoid {{linkrot}}.
- Add
|archiveurl=and|archivedate=to all web references in case the original referenced material ceases to be available. - Remove redundant accessdate information as it is not needed where a date-stamped article has a date-stamped archive copy.
<ref name="">{{cite web | url= | title= | last= | first= | work= | publisher= | date= | archiveurl= | archivedate= | deadurl=no }}</ref>
- References which include the article title, author, publication name, publisher and publication date are much more useful to readers than a bare URL. The {{cite}} template provides a simple way to add that extra information.
- Replace web with news for newspaper references.
- Add
|format=PDFor|format=DOCafter the|url=parameter where appropriate. - Archiving the referenced web content also preserves a separate copy just in case the original URL stops working.
- Adding archive data to references through the
|archiveurl=and|archivedate=parameters is further aided by the fact that the Internet Archive Wayback Machine now supports on-demand archiving of content. - Once the original publication date and/or archivedate have been recorded, the accessdate is somewhat irrelevant and can be removed.
Similar work is needed on the majority of rail and tube station pages, but there is just too much of it for one person to tackle in a reasonable timeframe. Most pages seem to have about half a dozen references. There's a couple of thousand pages to review. I am aiming to look at around 50 to 100 pages per month. It would be useful to have a couple more volunteers working on this to spread the load. Anyone up for that? -- 79.67.255.56 (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Popular pages tool update
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
C Stock withdrawal and S Stock on the District
I've been away and am now catching up. I note there's been some unsourced changes about the rolling stock used on the Distict line ([1], H&C line ([2]) and Circle line ([3]). Anyone have a source for these? Edgepedia (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- I haven't been able to find any reliable sources for the withdrawal of C Stock on the H&C and Circle lines. According to the District Dave forum, on 10 February the diagrams for these lines only scheduled S Stock,[4], but the poster at the time said this had no guarantees. It also seems that a C Stock train could run if there is disruption or a relief driver has not been passed on S Stock. [5] Claims have been made that S Stock worked on the Wimbledon branch on 9 February,[6] and that S Stock entered service on District line Wimbledon-Edgware Road on 23 February.[7].[8] says that four diagrams remain until May (ish). [9] says that C Stock is expected to be officially withdrawn with a rail tour on 29 June.
- Whilst these are not RS, they cast doubt on the changes made by the IP. Any reliable sources for this? Edgepedia (talk) 13:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
TfL Website
The TfL website has just been updated, breaking most of the incoming urls. I've replaced quite a few on the London Underground article with archive.org caches, but there must be a lot of links in other articles that are now dead. Edgepedia (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- I saw that. It's a right pain. It fills me with wiki-weariness - once you change all the broken links, you'll have to do it all again when TfL next update their website in 5 years' time. I just wonder if there's any point any more. Making use of the archiveURL parameter in refs to point to the Web Archive can help, but it just seems to be a pointless exercise otherwise. Sorry if that's not a very positive attitude! Cnbrb (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Templates for deletion
I've {{db-t3}}-tagged all of these:
- {{Baker Street navbox}}
- {{Bank/Monument navbox}}
- {{King's Cross St. Pancras navbox}}
- {{London Overground}}
- {{London Underground}}
- {{Stratford navbox}}
- {{Waterloo navbox}}
— lfdder 18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor here... do you prefer comments on individual "talk" pages, or here?
In this article, there is an internal inconsistency between two references to car 14233/54233. Under 'Wartime Losses', it says "DM 14233 was damaged during bombing and one end of the car was destroyed. This was repaired using an end of Q38 Stock trailer 013167, which had also been badly damaged. The rebuilt car entered service renumbered 54233 in 1941.[4]" (the reference is to Bruce 1983). Later, under 'Withdrawal and preservation', it says "The driving motor 54233 was the one that was rebuilt using one end of a Q23 trailer in 1941.[14]" (the reference is to BRC [10]).
At that latter reference, it says: "The 'P. stock' car No. 14233 ... was partially destroyed in an air raid .... Shortly before, on 7 September, the Q38 stock trailer 013167 had been damaged in an air raid .... The work was a success and the rebuilt car entered service on 15 September 1941, at the height of the ‘Battle of Britain’ as 14233.... In the early 1960s ... [it] received number 54233."
I have fixed the Q23/Q38 mistake, but the question of when it was renumbered to 54233 is harder to resolve as Bruce is not available online.
Manolan1 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thankyou, this edit was correct. I do have Bruce 1983; but it only supports part of the two preceding sentences, and certainly not the number 54233. As you probably know, renumbering from 1xxxx to 5xxxx went with conversion to CO/CP stock - and that began in 1955. Another book that I have gives the CO/CP conversion of this car - and therefore the renumbering from 14233 to 54233 as February to June 1963.
- For a change that is specific to one article, we would normally put the main discussion on the article's talk page - i.e. Talk:London Underground O and P Stock. Optionally, we would leave a short note here drawing attention to that discussion. See WP:TALKPAGE --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Template:London bus operators has been nominated for merging with Template:Bus companies in Greater London. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — lfdder 17:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
London Buses - Performance link dead
Template:Infobox bus line is used on "London Buses Route X" articles. At the end of this Infobox there is a link to "Performance" for that route on the TfL website e.g. London Buses route 350. However the TfL website has been reorganised and all these links are now dead. Crookesmoor (talk) 08:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
A treat from TfL for those attending Wikimania
I've just found out that TfL are running steam train trips on the Hammersmith and City Line (which runs through Barbican station, the closest to the Wikimania London 2014 venue at the Barbican Centre) on the Saturday before and the Saturday of Wikimania:
Steam on the Underground: Centenary of the Hammersmith & City Line Date: Saturday 2 and Saturday 9 August Not on Sale
We’re giving you a second chance to experience steam on the underground, as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Hammersmith and City Line. The train will be made up of Met No. 1, Met Milk Van, Chesham Set, the beautifully restored Jubilee Coach 353, and the 1920s Sarah Siddons electric locomotive. There will be five public journeys throughout the day. The first run will go between Northfields and Moorgate (steam hauled); the next 3 runs will go from Moorgate to Hammersmith and return to Moorgate (electric hauled out, steam back), and the last run will run from Moorgate to Northfields (electric hauled, steam assisted).
More information is at the London Transport Musuem website, where tickets will be available when released (I don't know yet when that will be). Based on previous events these tickets will be expensive and sell out fast, but it might be possible to see the trains from a station or on the above-ground sections of the route. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Just an aesthetic concern, but I noticed that User:Lfdder has made a series of edits changing the coloured title bars of London Underground & Overground navboxes from a solid colour to a template which puts the line colour as two boxes at the side, while the navbox title is now the standard pale blue. For example, the London Overground navbox has been changed from this to this; the Victoria line has been changed from this to this... and so on.
Personally I preferred them the way they were before. They looked good on pages where several were present, overall a colourful and pleasing effect which was in keeping with Tube aesthetics. I think this has been lost now. Did this change come about as the result of a discussion I've missed or is this just a unilateral decision? I would like to see them go back to the original bar colours instead of the bog-standard light blue. Does anybody agree/disagree? Cnbrb (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that at the time; and I made no complaint, since the previous versions often violated MOS:ACCESS. More specifically, the links in the navbox title bars were normally white, not blue, which goes against "Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers." If the link had been blue, it would probably have failed the contrast requirements, especially for the Piccadilly line. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Point taken, but there are various ways to clearly identify links, e.g. underlining; colour is not an absolute requirement for differentiation. MOS:ACCESS is not very specific on this point.Cnbrb (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's ironic that the red box containing this discussion falls foul of accessibility rules by having dark blue links on a red background (I can barely read them myself) but nobody rushes to change this. I think the navboxes look really poor now, they were fine before and there were no accessibilty problems as the white links provided enough contrast. Now they just look clunky.Cnbrb (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikiproject London Transport at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Help - weird transport edits
Please have a look at this. Editor is on bizarre transport vandalism spree. I am not sure I can keep up with them - can you please help? Thanks DBaK (talk) 07:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Currently blocked. Phew. I see that Redrose64 has had an encounter with perhaps the same editor - very similar IP address. We may need to keep an eye out for their next IP. Cheers DBaK (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, it's the same sort of pattern as 175.137.139.1 (talk) - starts out by making subtle changes which don't alter the page size, mainly altering figures up or down by 1 - something that recent changes patrollers won't spot (they have no idea if a station was opened in 1907 or 1908, or if there are 28 trains or 29, etc. so don't recognise it as vandalism). Once you start reverting, they get more blatant: next comes the content removal which doesn't break the page layout; and after you've warned them, they start making content removals which do break the layout. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Accident Articles needing expansion/cleanup
I was reading the Kings Cross Undergound Fire article and decided to browse the other articles available and spotted three articles which I have listed below:
- Charing Cross (Northern line) tube crash
- Charing Cross (District line) tube crash
- Stratford tube crash
Two, Charing Cross (Northern Line) and Stratford tube crash were created by the same user Hyperman 42, the Charing Cross (District line) was created by the user EmleyMoor.
All are unsectionated articles with no lead sections and seem to be entirely based on official accident reports, though there are no inline citations. The Stratford article appears to be a straight copy of text from LTC Rolt's book "Red for Danger". I am at present trying to locate my own copy of the book to confirm this.
I do not have the resources/time at present to give these pages a thorough overhaul, so if anyone has the means please feel free. Graham1973 (talk) 11:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- It's not a straight copy from RfD - it's too different. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- The two articles I created are brief summaries of the accident reports, though the Charing Cross Northern Line accident has had significant additions from another editor. Some phrasing is similar to Red for Danger (which itself is based on the accident reports) but they are not straight copies. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, having rechecked, it's more complicated. I originally wrote the Charing Cross article to describe the District Line crash but it then got edited to describe the Northern Line one instead! EmleyMoor then created a new article on the District Line crash. I guess it was confusing (and a remarkable coincidence) that two crashes occurred near the same station in the same year with similar, very rare, cause of failure. Hyperman 42 (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment on the WikiProject X proposal
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Metropolitan Walkers
How notable are individual Ramblers groups? Although the Metropolitan Walkers appear to be the only ones with an article or is it more an advertisement? Simply south ...... sitting on fans for just 8 years 23:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Expert attention
This is a notice about Category:London Transport articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Annual review
Since 30 September 2013, the project has added 25 articles, two good articles (Holborn tube station and Denmark Street) and no new featured articles. Membership has increased by one, though the number of active users has again decreased.
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | 9 | 47 | 69 | 77 | 84 (46 active) |
80 (40 active) |
84 (45 active) |
85 (36 active) |
86 (32 active) |
| Articles Assessed | 0 | 1,415 | 1,714 | 2,153 | 2,656 | 2,830 | 2,933 | 2,996 | 3,021 |
| Good Articles | 0 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 21 | 24 | 27 | 31 | 33 |
| Featured Articles | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 24 | 31 | 33 | 33 | 33 |
| Statistics are for 30 September in each year. | |||||||||
--DavidCane (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Peer review of Victoria line
Hey,
Just want to let you know I've submitted the Victoria line article for peer review. I started some inprovments, but want to see how it can be further improved, especially for clarity, as I feel it may be lacking that in places.
Thanks, Backreach (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Category:Proposed railway stations in London
I found that this category had a surprisingly large number of articles within it, and on closer examination it seems some are actually former stations, without any discussion around reopening (for instance Crouch End railway station. Any objections if I browse through and remove those that don't belong? Grunners (talk) 19:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear - in trying to reply helpfully and politely I am probably going to show my ignorance ... sorry. But here goes. I can't comment on others but in the example you mention, Crouch End railway station, it is a member of Category:Proposed London Underground stations which I think then gives it by er er inclusion (??) membership of Category:Proposed railway stations in London, yesno? Now it depends how you interpret "proposed" and I suppose I'm hoping that this is specified somewhere ... if it means "currently proposed" then yes basically it is not correct, but if it means "has ever been proposed" then it's a lot warmer, because if Hitler had held off invading Poland a while longer we'd have had Crouch End tube station on the Northern line by now, along with all the others along the LNER line from Finsbury Park to Alexandra Palace. So yes CE was very much proposed/intended/whatevered at one time, and the question of this category becomes one of semantics. I hope that this helps, while fearing that it does not. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
- This category was discussed in 2011 when it was said that it covers (1) proposals for which a credible scheme exists; and (2) abandoned credible proposals. A suggestion was made about creating a sub-category to cover (2). So, Crouch End should be covered as falling within (2) but I'm less sure about others such as Carpenders Park. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- Carpenders Park is in the cat because there is apparently a proposal to run Bakerloo trains out to Watford Junction again. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I like that idea Lamberhurst, perhaps something like Formerly proposed railway stations in London? Grunners (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it fits in here but please note that at least one such, but rather more specialized, subcategory does exist: Category:Unbuilt Northern Heights extension stations ... does this kind of idea help us? DBaK (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to distinguish between active and defunct proposals. The original suggestion by Redrose64 was Never constructed London Underground stations which to my mind at least carries the idea that these were serious proposals which were abandoned at a fairly advanced stage. It's also worth mentioning that the parent is Unbuilt railway stations in the United Kingdom. Would Redrose or DavidCane who contributed to the original discussion have any comments on the creation/naming of a subcategory (into which Unbuilt Northern Heights extension stations would go)? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think that you refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 6#Abandoned proposals. That wasn't a suggestion to create Category:Never constructed London Underground stations but an observation on its content - it already existed, being created by MRSC (talk · contribs) at 07:18, 13 January 2010. It's since been renamed Category:Unbuilt London Underground stations following a WP:CFDS filed by Armbrust (talk · contribs) at 22:43, 6 August 2014. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I think it would be helpful to distinguish between active and defunct proposals. The original suggestion by Redrose64 was Never constructed London Underground stations which to my mind at least carries the idea that these were serious proposals which were abandoned at a fairly advanced stage. It's also worth mentioning that the parent is Unbuilt railway stations in the United Kingdom. Would Redrose or DavidCane who contributed to the original discussion have any comments on the creation/naming of a subcategory (into which Unbuilt Northern Heights extension stations would go)? Lamberhurst (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it fits in here but please note that at least one such, but rather more specialized, subcategory does exist: Category:Unbuilt Northern Heights extension stations ... does this kind of idea help us? DBaK (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
- This category was discussed in 2011 when it was said that it covers (1) proposals for which a credible scheme exists; and (2) abandoned credible proposals. A suggestion was made about creating a sub-category to cover (2). So, Crouch End should be covered as falling within (2) but I'm less sure about others such as Carpenders Park. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
WikiProject X is live!
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Updating Project Page
Can someone please help update the project page, especially the task awaiting attention area. Also, can someone please update the Articles needing clean up page please?
Thank you for your attention. Vincent60030 (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you think needs updating. As far as I can see, the items on the To do list still need to be done. The Clean-up page is automatically generated by bots based on cleanup tags placed on article pages by editors and cannot be manually edited.--DavidCane (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
AfC submission
See here. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- This is not a notable bus route. It was previously turned into a redirect in 2010.--DavidCane (talk) 11:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Three Bridges, London
I've created an article on Three Bridges, London - Brunel's solution to the issue of how a canal, railway, and road ought to cross each other at the same site. I made extensive use of one particular source, to the extent where it got flagged by a bot. I've rewritten as far as possible to make the text more original, but would really appreciate more eyes on the piece. Grunners (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Preparing for TFD merge
Hello, I've started a discussion about the start of a TFD merge, and the template involved affects this project. The discussion is here, and all input is welcome. - X201 (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Aldwych tube station at TFA tomorrow
Aldwych tube station will be today's featured article on the main page tomorrow.--DavidCane (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Monopoly
Having done a bit of work on Park Lane recently, I came up with a mini-project to basically improve all the places on a standard UK Monopoly board. The progress chart is at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly
I cheated a little bit, using the Tower of London for Jail and Battersea Power Station for Electric Company, mainly so I could put a FA and GA on the board. Most of the articles are, as you might expect, in start class. It would be great if people can chip in and even get all the articles on the board to C class - better than nothing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright cleanup
There are a lot of derivative copyright violations of the London Underground map related to this wikiproject from this user, if someone wants to go through them and nominate for deletion. – czar 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Where best to place accessibility information in station pages?
I would like to add accessibility information to the station pages. While TFL does publish a step-by-step access guide, it's confusing and lacks detail. It will tell you if a station has no access, or how big the gap is between the train and platform - but not how many steps there are (which is useful for cyclists and others for whom stairs are navigable but a nuisance wanting to optimize which station they pick).
Is this best added in the info box, to an existing section, or as a separate new section? Advice gratefully received.
wg (2015-09-02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wherever you put it, it should not duplicate existing content and must be referenced. A lot of recent additions of this type were reverted, for instance this one because escalators were already mentioned in the section "The Station today" - with a reference. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that - but for accessibility information to be maximally useful it ought to appear in the same location in every entry, whether or not there is duplication (and one option is to remove the duplication from the *other* sections, I would think). The problem is that really the only way to find out how many steps there are at station is to go and count them, which obviously can't be referenced, which I recognize is Wikipedia's standard. I think this information belongs in Wikipedia, but I am quite prepared to simply go create a web page of my own and hope people find it. - wg (2015-09-02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- The "Connections" section is for interchanges with other rail lines and bus routes. Not for how many steps the stairs have - which is not really encyclopedic. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have understood and taken on board your point about the Connections section; hence my coming here to ask where to put accessibility information - we can argue later about the details of what should be *in* that information. - wg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm assuming you all know that only about half of London's tube stations are accessible at all, right? - wg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have understood and taken on board your point about the Connections section; hence my coming here to ask where to put accessibility information - we can argue later about the details of what should be *in* that information. - wg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 10:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- The "Connections" section is for interchanges with other rail lines and bus routes. Not for how many steps the stairs have - which is not really encyclopedic. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw that - but for accessibility information to be maximally useful it ought to appear in the same location in every entry, whether or not there is duplication (and one option is to remove the duplication from the *other* sections, I would think). The problem is that really the only way to find out how many steps there are at station is to go and count them, which obviously can't be referenced, which I recognize is Wikipedia's standard. I think this information belongs in Wikipedia, but I am quite prepared to simply go create a web page of my own and hope people find it. - wg (2015-09-02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.135.154 (talk) 21:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Move
FWIW I have requested at move at Talk:Croxley Rail Link. Simply south ...... time, deparment skies for just 9 years 13:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Annual review
Since 30 September 2014, the project has added 290 articles, 11 good articles and no new featured articles. Membership has increased by five, though the number of active users has again decreased.
| 2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participants | 9 | 47 | 69 | 77 | 84 (46 active) |
80 (40 active) |
84 (45 active) |
85 (36 active) |
86 (32 active) |
91 (28 active) |
| Articles Assessed | 0 | 1,415 | 1,714 | 2,153 | 2,656 | 2,830 | 2,933 | 2,996 | 3,021 | 3,311 |
| Good Articles | 0 | 4 | 5 | 10 | 21 | 24 | 27 | 31 | 33 | 44 |
| Featured Articles | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 24 | 31 | 33 | 33 | 33 | 33 |
| Statistics are for 30 September in each year. | ||||||||||