Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 9

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 7

Stale Draft pages

There is a notice on Talk:West_Coast_Main_Line#Stale_Drafts about some stale drafts that could be useful to the article in question. Please feel free to help. Hasteur (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of London Buses route 403

The above article that is part of the project has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 403. Can you please have your say in this? I already have. Class455fan1 (talk to me) 08:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

There should be little need for a separate notification, since it shows up in Article alerts. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

New image, possible template

Error: Image is invalid or non-existent.

Hi, recently I created an SVG version of this. I have cobbled together an image which includes clickable signs (see right). If this is useful to the project it could be a template. Feel free to fix any links. M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 16:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Not usable on WMF projects; non-free images can't be used in imagemaps, since clicking the image has to lead to the attribution and NFC rationale. (They also can't be used on talkpages, so at some point the bot should wander along and blank this post, but I'll leave it in place for the present so people can see what's under discussion.) ‑ Iridescent 20:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Non-free image mustn't be uploaded to commons either, but that is where File:Transport for london roundels.svg is. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Given my memories of last time TfL's lawyers spotted Wikipedia trying to claim the roundel was in the public domain—and given their regular hassling of Twitter and Flickr posts for including roundels, even if it's just a photo of a tube station—I'd personally advise all editors not to use the "free use" versions, particularly if your Wikipedia account can in any way be associated with your real life identity, and even more particularly if you live in anywhere subject to the English courts. TfL might not win a case if push came to shove, but they can certainly waste a lot of your time defending yourself, and WMF Legal are unlikely to be very keen to fight Boris on your behalf. ‑ Iridescent 23:54, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

If it shouldn't be on Wikimedia commons or elsewhere I'll nominate it for deletion, but why should images like File:Underground.svg be allowed here? What steps could be taken to make an acceptable SVG version of File:Tfl logos.png? M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 08:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the image (without the imagemap links) from the articles I added it to (London Transport (brand), History of public transport authorities in London, Transport for London), and have nominated it for deletion on commons. It can also be found at User:Magog_the_Ogre/PD_ineligible/2016_January_24-27 on commons. M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 22:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

As is usually the case on WP, editors are very quick to say what is not allowed, yet very slow to say what is acceptable.

On commons, I have nominated it for deletion (someone else has as well afterwards, not sure why). No one has answered why File:Underground.svg is allowed, or for that matter

or even for this wikiproject

File:WikiProject London Transport Badge.svg

which somehow are not copyright violations. All of them (except the wikiproject logo) claim the image to be in the public domain:

This image or logo only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes. These are not eligible for copyright alone because they are not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain. See Wikipedia:Public domain § Fonts or Wikipedia:Restricted materials for more information.
Please note: The public domain status of this work is only in regards to its copyright status. There may be other intellectual property restrictions protecting this image, such as trademarks or design patents if it is a logo.

PD
Public domain
false
false

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

so why are these allowed and my upload was not? Did the authors of these contact TfL and ask permission?

For the second time, what steps could be taken to create an allowed SVG version of File:Tfl logos.png? (The clickable imagemaps are not essential, just a nice feature, so forget that). The point of creating the image was meant as a plain, simple, inoffensive attempt to make a higher quality image, not to claim ownership or public domain on purpose. A response sometime would be appreciated. M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 08:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As to why the others haven't been deleted, see WP:WAX. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just asking the question makes me assume you don't understand copyright; there's no such thing as "an allowed version" of copyrighted material. "If TfL can identify your real life identity, you'll get at best a cease-and-desist letter and at worst a lawsuit" isn't a value judgement, it's a simple statement of fact (even if Commons votes to keep the image; Commons is an obscure website with virtually no impact on the world, while en-wikipedia is the fifth most visited website on the planet, so it's en-wiki their IP department cares about). That they claim copyright on the roundel isn't in dispute, and the WMF is very unlikely to come to the aid of anyone knowlingly violating it; it's possible that it's below the threshold of originality, but unless you're prepared to defend yourself in court I wouldn't touch the LT roundel (or the Network Rail arrows) with a bargepole. Ten seconds Googling london transport logo copyright will show that TfL's lawyers are vicious regarding anything they see as infringing their IP rights. ‑ Iridescent 20:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, neither of these responses help at all, especially tossing the issue off to WP:WAX or WP:THIS or WP:THAT. I was not advocating to deleting the others, on the contrary they are very good and should be kept.

All I ask is why can't all these listed images (plus the other roundels for the other forms of transport, not the wikiproject logo) be put into one. It cannot be that hard or forbidden. But I won't push this any further, to replace the PNG image mentioned maybe just a gallery of the separate roundels could be made. Cheers, all, M ∧Ŝ c²ħε И_τlk 22:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

London Trams

Hi, I was advised to seek advice and opinions here about Talk:London Trams#Name of the organisation. The main question is whether there should be an article on TfL's tram operations, separate from the one on Tramlink. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Central line

FYI, Talk:Central line#Requested move 21 February 2016. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

London Buses route 251

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 251 on the notability of bus routes that would seem to apply to many of these articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of ex-British Rail stations with current Tramlink stations

I propose the merging of several ex-BR station articles with those of the stations on the Croydon Tramlink network that replaced them and on the same site - most notably Merton Park with Merton Park tram stop, Waddon Marsh with Waddon Marsh tram stop, Woodside with Woodside, Bingham Road with Addiscombe, the existing Addiscombe BR I feel should stay as is. The redirect from Coombe Road to Lloyd Park tram stop should however be deleted and a new article created as they were on two different sites. Your thoughts please. Nordic Dragon 09:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose such a proposal on the basis that the railway station articles have their own history and are notable in their own right. Most of the stations mentioned were on a different site to the tram stop, only Woodside is on (more or less) the same site. If anything, these tram stop articles are as about as notable as bus stop articles and would be better deleted and put into a table. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

New 2015 usage statistics for Tube stations

I have just updated all tube station articles and List of London Underground stations to include the usage statistics for 2015. The changes to tube stations articles have been made by adding {{Tubeexits2015}} to the infobox template.--DavidCane (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

TfL web pages

Blogger "Diamond Geezer" has posted a list of obscure pages on the TfL website, some of which might be useful as sources. This page is particularly interesting, featuring introductory research guides on several topics. the wub "?!" 20:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Added User List

I noticed that there was nowhere to put down your name if you are part of the project, so I added a 'members' section on the talk page. East Anglian Regional (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be the list of participants which is linked in three separate places on Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport already, perhaps? I've reverted your edit since there's no purpose having two separate membership lists. ‑ Iridescent 14:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

10th anniversary approaching

7 September will be the 10th anniversary of the project. Started in 2006 by Unisouth as WikiProject Underground to focus on the London Underground it then expanded to a broader remit as WikiProject London Transport in December 2006. We now cover all forms of transportation and transportation infrastructure within the Greater London area.

Has anyone got a suggestion of how the project can celebrate this milestone?--DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

How about a special barnstar given to every currently active editor in the project or those previously in the project who have helped with the project over the past 10 years???😜 Apart from that, I'm all out of suggestions! Class455fan1 (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines, using the existing project barnstar as a basis.--DavidCane (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Or we could crate a 10th Anniversary edition. Class455fan1 (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Get an article that is already within the project's scope to appear on main page as WP:TFA. There are currently 34 articles in Category:FA-Class London Transport articles; most have appeared at TFA, so we can choose one or more of these to nominate: Westcott railway station; Wood Siding railway station; or Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station (we can't pick London Necropolis Company, that one's excluded from consideration as TFA). If none of those three are worthy, can we get one of the current GA-class articles up to FA in two months? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that Old Kent Road, Fleet Street and Strand, London are all good possibilities for upgrade to FA.--DavidCane (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

A TFA would be a great way to mark the anniversary Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@DavidCane: @Redrose64: @Nick-D: Only just seen this thread, but I've been toiling away at User:Ritchie333/Monopoly for some time, which is a mini project to make a good topic on "London Monopoly Places". That's what led to the three GAs and potential FA targets listed above. A September deadline for that is doable, though I will not be able to do any of the stations (especially King's Cross) without an inter-library loan or finding a cheap copy of the right books on eBay. In the meantime, looking back on the GAs I have done so far, I would say Oxford Street has been the most interesting to read back, and that's my choice for an FA target. Or, on a personal note, I would go for Denmark Street, a labour of love that Dr. Blofeld and Andrew Davidson helped with greatly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, I'd opt for Denmark Street too.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Somewhere, someone asked for an article on Wonderground Map- but now for the life of me I can't remember where the article request was made! Unable to acknowledge it, sorry. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Denmark Street is more about music than transport, IMO, though that area is also dominated by Crossrail currently. And there's any amount of other articles which we might work on, from Ealing Broadway Platform 9 to my latest – the Great Turnstile. I reckon this occasion calls for something more. A meeting or event which we could attend might work. There's a couple of possible occasions in September:

the launch of the new bus hopper fare
the annual Great River Race

Ideally, we would have a boat in the race, navigating London's first main transport artery – the Thames. I have some boating contacts at Arthur Beale who might help. Otherwise we might meet somewhere on the South Bank to watch. Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Update Wotton (Metropolitan Railway) railway station has been selected for TfA on 4 September - three days too early? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Overuse of TfL roundel images

There is a great overuse of TfL roundels in templates and articles, which has lead to possible issues with MOS:ACCESS. Some of the roundel images are too small, and others look too similiary to others. For example, look at the infobox in Stratford station — it is hard for readers to identify the roundels and what they mean without clicking on each.

I looked at the TfL interchange signs standards guide PDF, and I think we should follow it here as well. According to the standards: Where the logo wording cannot be clearly printed or read at distance, the reduced rectangular logo [or pictogram] should be used rather than the roundel, the colour alone being insufficient identification. Proposed changes (in accordance with the TfL standards):

London Underground – bigger rendering of File:Underground no-text.svg
London Overground – replace File:Overground notextroundel.svg with official TfL "reduced logo" (inverted coloured roundel, see PDF page 19)
Docklands Light Railway – replace File:DLR no-text roundel.svg with official TfL "reduced logo" (coloured rectangle with "DLR" letters, see PDF page 17)
Tramlink – replace File:Tramlink no-text roundel.svg with SVG version of File:Uk tram icon.png (see PDF page 23)

Some changes can be made via {{Rail-interchange}}, while others must be done manually. I also propose we prohibit the use of the unofficial roundels that use the same color as tube lines (e.g. File:Circle line roundel (no text).svg), as these have poor readability and do not correspond to any real-world logo useage in the system. –Dream out loud (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether there are too many roundels used in templates and articles, nor on whether this leads to issues with MOS:ACCESS. The sign standard, like all TfL produced documents of this sort, is intended to guide their own internal designers and external suppliers in the correct choice, use and design of TfL's signage. Excellent as it is, it does not apply for other uses and I do not think we should not adopt it or its official designs for the use on Wikipedia. TfL can be quite litigious over unlicensed use of its intellectual property including the roundels, so it is best to avoid adopting anything that it has been official sanctioned or proscribed. For example, the current image at the top of the London Underground article, probably passes there as far use, but it perhaps should not be in use on so many other pages through {{London-tube-stub}}.--DavidCane (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

Does any one know what bridge this picture is of? - Yellow Dingo (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yellow Dingo: It's Serpentine Bridge in Hyde Park. the wub "?!" 12:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Do we have a place on the project to peer review articles before nominating them for GA Status? If so, I will open one for Buses in London. I nominated it for GA, but unfortunately, it was a fail. Also, If some members of the project could address the issues Miyagawa mentioned that are present on the article article and help improve it to meet the GA criteria it would be much appreciated. I do think this has the potential of Good Article status. Thanks guys! Class455 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Just follow the instructions at WP:PRG and put a note here to say that you've done so, also a note at WT:BUS. The last two aren't strictly necessary, since both WikiProjects subscribe to Article Alerts, so a correctly-formed PR request will show up at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Buses/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Article alerts. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64:. I will get started once I return from my holiday, and when I'm back at my laptop. Class455 (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Camden Town tube station

I'm getting somewhat fed up with the activities of Wotton railway station (talk · contribs) at Camden Town tube station, who keeps making the same changes over and over again. Discussion is limited and sometimes abusive, see User talk:Wotton railway station and Talk:Camden Town tube station#Changes to section on rebuilding plans. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussions for London buses

Hi all, here are some deletion discussions that concern this Wikiproject:

Best wishes, jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

And another here. jcc (tea and biscuits) 18:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Annual review

Since 30 September 2015, the project has added 58 articles, 15 good articles (the largest annual increase in the ten-year history of the project) and no new featured articles (we haven't increased this number in four years). Membership has increased by 2.

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)	80 (40 active)	84 (45 active)	85 (36 active)	86 (32 active)	91 (28 active)	93 (30 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,656	2,830	2,933	2,996	3,021	3,311	3,369
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21	24	27	31	33	44	59
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	24	31	33	33	33	33	33
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject London Transport/Archive 9 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station

I WP:PRODded a recently-created article, Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station and Suffolk24 (talk · contribs) has WP:DEPRODded it. That is their right: but shall I now file a WP:AFD? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

AFD. Even if a station were to have been built on the airshaft site (unlikely, as I've never seen a source that suggests Pick seriously considered it), this is certainly not the name it would have had. Some proposed tube stations like Bushey Heath/Aldenham are notable as the plans had a demonstrable and documented impact either on LT or on the areas they were intended to serve, but if we were to devote a stand-alone article to every single proposal a UERL/LUL/TFL planner ever suggested, we could probably double the size of the project with Crossrail or the Jubilee Line Extension alone. ‑ Iridescent 19:37, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 23:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

A St Anne's Road station has been mentioned in the Piccadilly line extension to Cockfosters article since this edit in June 2006 and in the Piccadilly line article (which is a mess) since this edit in December 2005, both edits were made by IsarSteve. These should be removed as well.

There is a section in Christian Barman's The Man Who Built London Transport: A Biography of Frank Pick where Barman discusses Pick's rejection of a station between Manor House and Turnpike Lane. The rejection was on functional and economic reasons. Barman does not mention a specific location proposed for a station (p. 94):

"At the northern end, where the new tracks were being built, the wider spacing of the new stations was severely criticised by local interests. A particular cause of complaint was the distance of nearly 1½ miles between Manor House and Turnpike Lane. Pick was obstinate in his refusal to put an intermediate station between these two. A railway line with stations spaced half, or even three-quarters of a mile, apart was bound to be inefficient. And moreover this Line was going to be a perfect model of the functional unification of the various forms of transport. At every stopping point between Cockfosters and Manor House existing bus and tram routes converged on the station from different directions. But between Manor House and Turnpike Lane there were no such points of confluence, the railway trains ran parallel to the road services: if a station were to be built on this stretch it would be of no help in connecting rail and road services together.

According to Eitan Karol's Charles Holden: Architect, when Pick commissioned Charles Holden in August 1929 to produce the designs for stations on the Piccadilly line's northern extension, only the ones we have now were on the list (p. 333). Adams Pearson and Holden also designed various substations on the route, so the building at St Anne's Road was probably one of theirs. It certainly was not an approved station that was dropped later, which might warrant an entry in the list of unopened stations.--DavidCane (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@DavidCane: Nice info, but some (not all) of your post would do well to be copied to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harringay (St Ann's Road) tube station - I can't copy it as I would be selective and your opinions should be attributed to you. Also, the closing admin will only look at that page, not this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we need this unsourced trivia?

Regarding the bus routes on each of the main operators pages, all of it is open for interpretation, with each user who changes the info, usually an IP, rarely providing a source as verification.

In short, can we just remove it, rather than sticking {{cn}} everywhere? Nördic Nightfury 08:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should stick CN for at least a month, then remove it. What I find sometimes is that bus operators such as Arriva update their sources monthly, so it cant be added until there's a mention of it, for example an operator change. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report is back!

Hi all, the Community Tech team has been working hard to bring back the Popular pages report. The report for this project can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Popular pages. I've made a redirect from the older link Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Favourite pages to make the link consistent across projects. If you're not happy with this change and want to stick with the older link (not recommended), please ping me and I will take care of it. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@NKohli (WMF): Interesting reading. I wonder if it's worth re-assessing some of the importance of some of our articles. I've bumped Trafalgar Square up to "Top" importance as Wikipedia:WikiProject London ranks it as this, and I don't think it's unreasonable given the viewing figures and how much traffic the article has. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie, go ahead and change the importance ratings if you think any need to be altered, but bear in mind that how an article is rated for each project should reflect its significance for the project. From a London perspective the square is a significant central space used for public events, featuring famous national monuments and is the home of nationally important buildings. From a transport perspective it is where several important roads meet, the location of a tube station and is one of the hub of the night bus network.--DavidCane (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Also (have to find the source) I seem to recall all distances to London are measured from it (or at least Charing Cross, which is effectively the same thing). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

That's true. I'd forgotten about that one - see Equestrian statue of Charles I, Charing Cross and this.--DavidCane (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it back. I've amended the link in the navbox at the top of the page. This will trickle through to those that contain it in due course.--DavidCane (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Unknown categories removed from "List of stations in London fare zone" articles

There are similarly named categories Category:Rail transport stations in London fare zone 1, etc., but I cannot assess whether those are equivalent or only refer to a subset of the "stations" in London fare zone 1.

The unknown category Category:Stations in London fare zone 1 is also referred to in Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/How to write about stations#Categories with the incorrect comment "<generated automatically by the infobox from the fare_zone fields>"; this should be cleaned up as well. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you click on a redlink category like Category:Stations in London fare zone 1 you will see its deletion log, which leads to this CfD with the outcome that one set of categories was renamed to the other. So the former Category:Stations in London fare zone 1 is now Category:Rail transport stations in London fare zone 1. So all you needed to do was update the {{GeoGroup}} templates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Just found that the Zone 2 page was updated nearly five years ago. Pity that Oosoom (talk · contribs) didn't do the others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the articles. I could have dived down that rabbit hole and spent a lot of time researching if that rationale still holds up after five years or if there have been other changes since, but in the best of cases I would have acquired a lot of knowledge just to fix five articles and then forget it, and with Murphy's help I would have missed something important and provided the readers with wrong information, so I preferred to bring that issue here to the attention of those who already know :-). --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Queen(')s Road Peckham

There is a road in Peckham named after and/or possessed by one or more female monarchs, and this road has a railway station named after it. Our article on the road is at A202 road, specifically the section A202 road#Queen's Road (singular possessive). Our article on the railway station is at Queens Road Peckham railway station (plural, no possessive). Both articles consistently use the respective spellings, but I haven't checked sources. I've just added hatnotes to both articles linking to the other based on the following redirects as they currently are:

Do people think these should remain as they are, or should they point to the same article? If so, which? (my weak preference is to keep them as they are).

There are four additional redirects to the railway station that I think everyone will agree aer unambiguous:

I will also create the following as redirects to the railway station if nobody disagrees:

I also think that the following should not be red links. Where should they point though? My weak preference is to match the versions without apostrophes, but that is weak.

I will alert WP:WikiProject London and WP:WikiProject UK Railways, the creators of all the above redirects and both article talk pages to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Thryduulf, I don't have a strong opinion on this. For what it's worth, the railway station gets about three times the views of the road (which is all the more pertinent given that the A202 road article covers more than just the Queens Road section) - [1] - which suggests that if there's a battle for primary topic, the station might come out on top. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest a dab page in this situation, it would be easy to presume "xxxxxxxxx Road" pages to be about said road, but if the railway station gets more hits, then the natural balance would be a disambiguation page. For what its worth, New Street, Birmingham, Oxford Road, Manchester and Lime Street, Liverpool are about the road, despite arguably the station being the more well known use in those cases. Jeni ^(talk) 14:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think a disambiguation page will be shouted down by the dab page project as a WP:TWODABS violation? The three cases you link to above are different as the stations use the place name first - the equivalent of Peckham Queens Road (oddly Kensington High Street and High Street Kensington tube station are the opposite). Manchester Oxford Road, Birmingham New Street and Liverpool Lime Street all redirect to the railway station. Camden Road is about the road, I've added a hatnote to Camden Road railway station. Walthamstow Queen's Road redirects to the station, we don't have an article on the street. I'm looking into other cases. Thryduulf (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

National Rail has no apostrophe - Queens Road (Peckham). Secretlondon (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'm not proposing to move the articles, but people will search for it with so the unambiguous redirects with an apostrophe should lead there. The question is where should those searches that are ambiguous between the station and the street lead. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

For the more general case, take a look at User:Thryduulf/Road and street stations where I'm slowly building up an illustration of the state of play regarding stations named after streets and roads. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

London buses route 277

A deletion discussion that concerns this Wikiproject: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 277‎. jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

New Cross Gate depot

We have duplicate articles about this depot, New Cross Gate TMD and New Cross Gate Carriage Servicing Depot. I would just have boldly merged them, but the latter is currently at AfD and I'm not sure which is the better title. Assuming that both are not deleted, New Cross Gate depot and New Cross Gate Depot should be created as redirects to whichever title is chosen. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The latter's creator isn't too happy about the AFD being filed (although they haven't commented in the AFD itself). They have created many articles for depots and stations, several are duplicates of existing content, and some have needed substantial error-correction. The problems have been discussed before, see e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 39#Goodrington carriage holding sidings. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Following the AfD I have merged the content to New Cross Gate TMD. The article needs improving, and possibly renaming. Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Art on the Underground

There are discussions on the Art on the Underground, London Underground and Piccadilly Circus talk pages to discuss potential improvements to these pages regarding Art on the Underground and art in the station itself. I would welcome your assistance. 86.13.122.76 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tubestation

moved from User talk:Useddenim

Hi, may I ask why you keep reverting my edit of this article? I gave a valid reason for the edit, while you're undoing it without giving any explanation at all. 86.153.195.14 (talk) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Amersham tube station is a perfectly valid link, so there's no reason it can't be used as an example. Alphabetically, it's one of the first, and it also appears in the top left corner of the map, making it one of the first stations than many people think of. Useddenim (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And, more importantly, there is also an article about the place Amersham. Useddenim (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's a valid link, but it redirects to an article of a different name. I don't understand why you insist so much on using a nonexistent title as an example. Personally, I found it quite confusing the first time I saw it (I initially thought the template could only be used for redirects). I also don't understand how the station's position in the alphabet affects the choice. Whereas your comment that it's "one of the first stations people think of" is just wrong - almost everyone would probably first think of a station in Zone 1 (in my case, it's either Covent Garden or Oxford Circus). Therefore, I still suggest changing the link to something else (it doesn't have to be Gants Hill, it can be anything, as long as its article has the word "tube" in it). 86.153.195.14 (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else care to chime in? Useddenim (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think 86 has a point. Amersham tube station is a redirect to Amersham station, so it does not provide a clear demonstration of the template's operation. Clicking the link does not take you an article called Amersham tube station, so a user might conclude that the template requires the "tube" part name to be entered into the template. Users often don't read all of the document section, so a tube station name that does not involve a redirect would, in my opinion, show less ambiguously how the template works.--DavidCane (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We can use {{lus|Chesham}} → Chesham, it's in the same corner and is not redirected. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem with Chesham. It might also be worth listing in the documentation those stations that don't follow the default X tube station arrangement and special cases such as the Hammersmith, Edgware Road and Paddington stations where using the basic name in the template makes a link to a disambiguation page:

{{lus|Hammersmith}} → Hammersmith,

and using the name with the usual differentiator produces a redlink:

{{lus|Hammersmith (Piccadilly and District lines)}} → Hammersmith (Piccadilly and District lines)

--DavidCane (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

DLR layout at Stratford

moved from User talk:Useddenim
moved to Template talk:DLR RDT

We've been "Jimbo'd"

Just noticed that User:Jimbo Wales himself has created an article for us. Mike Brown (transport executive) appeared on Friday afternoon following the Uber decision.--DavidCane (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Which includes three press releases and Brown's self-penned Who's Who entry among its "sources". Really fills you with confidence in the Great Leader, doesn't it? ‑ Iridescent 21:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, it's a start, maybe he can create a few more articles and show us he meets my minimum criteria for adminship. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I added the Who's Who stuff, but the interesting thing is that this appears to be the first article that Jimbo has created in over 7 years. I'm sure he has many other things to do, but it's an interesting choice after such a long hiatus.--DavidCane (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Annual review

Since 30 September 2016, the project has added 487 articles, 20 good articles and one new featured articles. Most of the additional good articles and the new featured list are the work of User:Ritchie333 from his London Monopoly locations set and his work in progress on London terminals. Membership has increased by 2.

	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017
Participants	9	47	69	77	84 (46 active)	80 (40 active)	84 (45 active)	85 (36 active)	86 (32 active)	91 (28 active)	93 (30 active)	94 (31 active)
Articles Assessed	0	1,415	1,714	2,153	2,656	2,830	2,933	2,996	3,021	3,311	3,369	3,856
Good Articles	0	4	5	10	21	24	27	31	33	44	59	79
Featured Articles	1	1	4	10	24	31	33	33	33	33	33	34
Statistics are for 30 September in each year.

--DavidCane (talk) 23:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)