Portal talk:London transport

Fair use image

I removed the picture in "selected article" section, as it is a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please remember that fair use images can only be used in the article main spaces (the main page though is considered an exception)--TBCTaLk?!? 22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Things you can do

The Things you can do list mentions Canada Water. I re-organized that article and added more info. Feel free to add more Ysignal 10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Automatic train protection system could use some info on the London Underground type of protection Ysignal 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename

This portal's title may be confusing to non-Londoners, so it should be renamed to something more specific. A better title could be Portal:London Underground, for example. 68.111.72.167 04:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The portal WILL NOT be renamed as it is not just for the london underground. Unisouth 09:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Link Spam

A user is adding London Bus Routes Fotopic to a lot of articles about London transportation. I think the external website is nice, but shouldn't be added to every single page that shows a bus. I am removing it from all the pages and adding it to Transport in London. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be added to all London bus route articles. The link should be to the gallery of the articles subject. Not many bus articles have very good pictures of the buses that operate on the routes. Unisouth 16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I did at that time: linksearch -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you think of the new look portal?

The portal has recently been updated majorly and I was wondering what you think of it? Unisouth 15:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Threat of Portal closure

I am going to close Portal London Transport if due to lack of enthusiasm for updates. Please reply within two weeks with a reason for not closing it or if you wish to become a perminant editor. Unisouth 09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For now this threat has been lifted due to a recent update Unisouth 16:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternately, you could contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals, and have it set for automatic article selection. John Carter 21:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Rotation

Do ya'll still want to change this page to an auto rotation? Let me know. Joe I 03:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

The fact about travelling through 10 stations whose names begin with the same letter is slightly misleading! You have to go through half the stations twice! HJMitchell You rang? 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Victoria line#Move?

Hello. Please see Talk:Victoria line#Move?. Thank you. Clover345 (talk) 10:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Class 378

Anybody else noted them in revenue earning service yet? I caught one (378007) from Willesden to Richmond Tuesday evening. Though the departure from Richmond seemed to be crew-only. My pics can be found within the Class 378 category at Commons. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

British Rail Class 350

An anon ip user has messed up this article. The pictures are out of place and the lede has disappeared. I don't know what further damage has been done. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Beckenham Junction station picture

I tried updating the picture to the Beckenham Junction station article, which was some years old (with "ancient" Connex signage, and lacking the small coffee kiosk outside at present). Moreover it was a night time shot. But it was reverted. I changed it back to one by User:Oxyman explaining my reasoning, but not willing to get into a revert war! Just wanted to let others know about this. 194.80.106.135 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

whether or not the image is `dated` as you say, the image you reverted is far superior in everyway. as stated here [1]. User:Rockybiggs, 13:41, 27 October 2009.

In what way is it "superior"? It is so blurry you can't even see the girls' faces properly! Why do you have this strange fixation with this particular image? There's more to the station building than just the entrance awning, and you can't see the rest of the building in the dark! 194.80.106.135 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

London Transport Barnstar

I have created a barnstar for this project. Details can be found on the templates page. --DavidCane (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

London Wiki

I am the administrator on this wiki [www.london.wikia.com]. There are 'many, many' transport-related wanted pages, and many of the pages that have been created are either out of date, or stubs (many by me - trying to reduce the backlog of blank pages).

Contributions welcome - but would prefer not to have straight copies of WP articles. Jackiespeel (talk) 15:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You would be better posting a note on the WikiProject London Transport talk page, though, given the number of stubs that we have of our own to improve, I doubt that you'll get much interest.--DavidCane (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Major London Underground Stations

As seen on the Village Pump, a template like Template:Major railway stations in Britain only for tube stations like Bank-Monument and King's Cross St. Pancras. Tez011 (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that would serve any useful purpose.--DavidCane (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Recognized content

See Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Recognised content

Notice from the Portals WikiProject

WikiProject Portals is back!

The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.

As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.

There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals. So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.

Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.

And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.

From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,    — The Transhumanist   07:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Portal talk:Canada Roads which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 16 May 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. There is consensus for the page to be moved! Mahveotm (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Portal:London Transport → Portal:London transport – London Transport is an obsolete brand, not what this portal is about. Transport of London would be the modern not-quite equivalent, but the actual topic appears to be the generic. See usage evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The Portal started out as Portal:Tube, but has expanded to encompass all forms of transport within the London region. If considered necessary, changing the 't' of transport to lower case would be appropriate, but Portal:Transport for London would not as TfL does not control all transport.--DavidCane (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for your support. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support in principle. What about "Portal:Transport in London"? Tony (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  Good idea. Less confusable with the brand, and has enough caps, and in right places, to make everyone happy, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

  The scope of the portal is deliberately vague with regard to the exact extent and boundaries of what it encompasses. Rather than limit the scope to the geographic boundaries of Greater London we generally consider the M25 motorway to be the perimeter within which anything transport related is automatically relevant, but subjects relevant beyond that still fall within the scope. For example, the London Underground runs out into Essex and Buckinghamshire and previously ran further still to Windsor in the west, Shoeburyness in the east and Verney Junction in the north. I think a rename to Portal:Transport in London is a bit ambiguous, therefore.--DavidCane (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support either option for reasons given above. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support proposal, and not opposed to the suggested alternatives. Cesdeva ^(talk) 13:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Suppport "Portal:London transport", a generic topic and the actual scope. "Transport in London" would exclude transport to/from London, and limit the scope to only transport within London, which doesn't appear to be the actual scope. using "transport of London" would just be an abuse of the language, implying a moving of London from one place to another (or it could imply the specific legal entity Transport of London, which is also not the scope). Moving on, "Portal:London transport" should use sentence case because WP is a sentence-case site; we use it in article titles, category names, etc., and portals are not a magical exception (we tolerate title case in wikiproject names, but they are internal editorial resources, not public-facing pages intended for readers, which articles, categories, and portals are).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discuss

If the portal is going to be changed to a style using minimum subpages, it might be worth doing that first. This would not be a deal breaker, it would just reduce maintenance overheads a little. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's an easy way to move a page with all its subpages, so it doesn't much matter which order this happens in. Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not yet convinced by the minimum subpages drive. I haven't examined how this works in practice yet and I've been waiting to see how it is implemented on a few other portals first before making any changes to the structure of this portal. There's some unique customisations that I need to be certain will work in any new configuration.--DavidCane (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@DavidCane: I think we'll inevitably have a 'create a sub-page' drive soon enough, when people re-realise why having all your markup in one sheet is a bad idea. There's been some good code recently though, 'transclude lead excerpt' works well in my experience. Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Certainly, making the creation and management of portals easier as a general purpose is a laudable and excellent idea - as long as it does not become a rod with which to beat "non-conforming portals".--DavidCane (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree Cesdeva ^(talk) 21:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

@DavidCane: You can see a working example of the no-subpage design at Portal:Cornwall. However there are some advanced functions used by larger portals that could benefit from some subpages being retained. And the code becomes insanely complex when using some wikitext functions. I am not completely convinced it is production ready in full yet. JLJ001 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It could sure use some help from some templates instead of all that html. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Note that only 100 pages can be moved in a move request and this request involves significantly more than 100 subpages, so this will be a lot of work for whoever decides to close it if the result is a move. Dekimasuよ! 22:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because this portal should be redirected to Portal:London) -- Happypillsjr ✉ 20:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Happypillsjr: Why did you contest your own speedy deletion nomination? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Happypillsjr, the content of this portal relate to London, but the topic is broad enough and detailed enough that it warrants its own portal. With currently 33 featured articles, 6 featured lists and 101 good articles it is also one of the most developed.--DavidCane (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

SVG Map needs updating

The SVG map should be updated to include the Elizabeth line 95.130.222.34 (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)