Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport

Shortcuts

• WT:LT
• WT:TfL

WikiProject London Transport was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 5 September 2011.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

A series of unannounced moves have been made by @Faisalisonline which are linked to the earlier discussion § Misleading edits to articles on the London Overground lines:

• Gospel Oak to Barking line to Gospel Oak to Barking line (Suffragette Line)
• Lea Valley lines to Lea Valley lines (Weaver line)
• Watford DC line to Watford DC line (Lioness line)

and by BlueSpectre5:

• Romford–Upminster line to Romford–Upminster line (Liberty Line)

Bazza 7 (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have all been reverted: Lea Valley lines by Amakuru (talk · contribs); the rest by myself under WP:RMUM. I'm considering applying a move-protection. I note that Faisalisonline also uploaded a copyrighted Tube map to Commons and added it to the Tube map article; it has since been deleted so I reverted the changes to the article. I shall shortly serve a notice to User talk:Faisalisonline. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64, @Amakuru: Thanks. Bazza 7 (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been receiving delete/change warnings from you two editors—Redrose64,Bazza 7 and Amakuru—and even in my fury as the deleted victim, I realize they're within their rights according to Wikipedia guidelines (article integrity, notability, etc.; article quality, etc.; opinion strength, etc.)—the only solution is to negotiate. Or, at least, discuss. Therefore, I should find out from these two editors what's wrong with my articles from their point of view so that I can more effectively change what's necessary before deletion. In addition, it may help to go on the Wikipedia talk page to solicit the opinions of others to see what other more seasoned editors have to say, or the dispute resolution page for a less biased opinion. But for now its really your decision. Faisalisonline (talk) 17:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also speaking of LO names, Is there a consensus yet? Faisalisonline (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• discuss, not negotiate.
• It's not your article, it's a communal effort.
• If you wish to make a controversial edit like moving the name of an article, you should seek consensus first.

What do you wish to seek consensus on? That may be a better approach. Set out what you propose, and explain why. Turini2 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if we can find some sort of common ground to agree on Faisalisonline (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and i want a consenus on the LO names as none of you have found one in the last talk page Faisalisonline (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read some of the discussions further up this page, also the archived discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 12#New London Overground lines. Also check out the talk pages for the six articles concerned, principally Talk:Watford DC line#Requested move 15 February 2024 and the two sections following. But in short: please do not confuse services with lines. Also, if a page has been moved, and that move was reverted, never move it again without fist obtaining consensus for the move. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion about which images should be used at Talk:Piccadilly Circus tube station#Too many images, please contribute there. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per some other London termini articles, Victoria tube station has now been split from the London Victoria station article. Apart from the passenger numbers in the infobox being broken, it is in good shape - thought I'd give everyone the heads up. Turini2 (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've just rolled back a series of edits by 92.18.217.41 (talk · contribs) to tube and railway station articles in the London area. They weren't using edit summaries and mostly fiddled with line succession boxes, breaking the syntax in some places. If there really are wide-ranging changes coming to London services then someone else should make them. Mackensen (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Mid-Kent line#Article name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Jubilee line#Merge proposal for unbuilt stations for a proposal to merge articles for four stations into Jubilee line. -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 23:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]