Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport/Archive 2

message: I was just reading London Underground trivia and came to the 'Hauntings' section at the bottom of the article. I had a vague recollection of an article London Underground Ghosts which I was about to provide a  link to, when I discovered that it had been deleted – apparently in the last 24hrs.
Was anyone aware of this article (which is in the 'See Also' section of London Underground? Or aware that it was under threat of deletion? Did anyone suggest its contents should be merged into the 'trivia' page? I can't assess it now, of course, since it has been deleted.
Thought I'd draw attention to it here, as I assume it's the most lilkely place to find these answers!
EdJogg 17:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good evening. I've just had a look through the deleted revisions and can inform that it was deleted early this morning following a prod tagging at 03:43, 8 May 2007 by Evan7257 who expressed a concern about the notability of the subject. At that time there wasn't much to the article but 88.109.156.210 added significantly to it on 12 May 2007 however this was simply copied from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A673391 which I think would be a copyright violation. Overall, I don't think the content merited an article of its own, probably would be more appropriate merged into London Underground trivia which Evan7257 did after adding the prod. None of the content of London Underground Ghosts has been lost. Hope this helps. Adambro 18:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you don't think it warranted deletion, take it up at WP:DRV - admins do make mistakes, and some articles do get tagged as "non-notable" too quickly —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The admins can access the deleted articles - ask one of them to userify it to your userspace. That makes it invisible to google & breaks all the links to it, so it's not polluting the purity of the Wikipedia mainspace with its foul original-research non-notable presence, but lets people who want to work on it clean it up prior to re-introducing it. I'd strongly suggest changing the title to "myths about the London Underground" or something similar, which would allow items like Betjeman's South Kentish Town story, Bumper Harris the One Legged Escalator Rider and the German spies hiding in the King William Street tunnels to be included, expanding it out to beyond stubbiness —  iridescent (talk to me!) 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I definately think that it was a good idea this article got deleted. Unisouth 05:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Underground Ghosts - article just deleted 

message: Could some members please help update our portal, I cannot do it on my own! Unisouth 15:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh I can help look after the portal - what wants doing with it? - Jack Gordon 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal

message: Just wondering whether or not the Battery and Maintenance Locomotives being tested at the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway, Wirksworth, require an article, or whether they can be added to an existing article. Being a volunteer there, I am in a perfect position to update on the proceedings. - Bluegoblin7 14:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can add that information to London Underground battery-electric locomotives. Unisouth 11:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  LUL/Tube Lines/TfL/Metronet Battery Locomotives 

message: Noone seems to have made any nominations or votes for the monthly collabaration article which hasn't changed in over a year.  Does the collaboration at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Collaboration still exist?  ThanksTbo 157talk 22:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if people vote for one. Unisouth 11:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the monthly collabaration article nomination still exist? 

message: See discussion here. (Note: I did not initiate the deletion procedure.  It's listed here because it falls into the scope of this project.) --Oakshade 15:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: All London bus route articles up for deletion

message: Hi.  Just a reminder to all users that they can now vote for the selected article and selected image each month.  The project's monthly collaboration has also reopened.  All users are strongly encouraged to participate in these activities.  They only take a minute and do help in improving the quality of articles in our scope.  Tbo 157talk 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've nominated two images & an article to get the ball rolling. For info, the table template for adding images doesn't work correctly, so I've just added them as plain-text nominations —  iridescent (talk to me!) 15:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Added images. Btw, what is the difference between selected articles and article collaboration? Simply south 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think (someone correct me if I'm wrong!) selected article goes on the front page of the portal as the project's equivalent of a FA, while collaboration-of-the-month is when everyone chips in to source & rewrite a selected article. (In my experience, the latter tends to be fuel for revert wars) —  iridescent (talk to me!) 15:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... (hmmmmmm!)... Simply south 16:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal and collaboration - Please Participate! 

message: Has anyone else noticed the chaos that's engulfed Docklands Light Railway today (28 Aug)? Ought someone to do something? —  iridescent (talk to me!) 16:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Docklands Light Railway#PSA / VO for the discussion on these reversions. (And if you are going to ask me on what PSAs and VOs are, i have little idea). Simply south 17:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, something I know - PSA = "Passenger Service Assistant", VO = "Vehicle Operator". "Conductor" & "Driver" are sooo 20th Century —  iridescent (talk to me!) 15:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: p ... Thank and good to know. Simply south 16:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DLR

message: There's an AfD currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of London streets and roads which regulars here might want to comment on —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Afd on [[List of London streets and roads]]

message: People seem to wonder what we cover so here is the latest comprehensive list;
*London Underground
*London Overground
*Docklands Light Railway
*Taxis
*London Trams (including 1st generation)
*National Rail stations within the London Travelcard zones
*Roads within the London Travelcard zones including items relating to roads (such as the London Congestion Charge)
*Airports
*London Dial-A-Ride
*London River Services
*London Cycling
*London Buses
*London Coaches
*Other London Rail
I hope that covers everything! Unisouth 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I just mention that if people need any extra help with trams, they can use WikiProject UK Trams to help them out! Bluegoblin7 13:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quick question. When i TWP tag railway stations that are outside london but are within the zone (ie 6, A, B, C & D) do you want them included (with "..|undergound=yes|LUL-importance=...|..." ??? Pickle 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another quick question - do we cover the bridges? I'm assuming we do, given that cars, buses, trains run over them, but they're run by Bridge House & not TfL —  iridescent (talk to me!) 18:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No we don't cover bridges as it is a building/structure which comes under a different project. Only buildings operated or part-operated by TfL are covered by WP:LT. Unisouth 02:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What do we cover?

message: Have come across this while on the Great Tagging Spree. Does anyone have any thoughts as to what can be done with it? Someone's obviously put a hell of a lot of work into it but a separate paragraph for every house on a street of 306 houses seems to be an indiscriminate list of information by any possible standard —  iridescent (talk to me!) 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, there is a hell of a lot of work thats gone into it. I don't have the herat to AFD it i'm afraid. Pickle 18:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, neither did I... but someone really needs to put a stop to it before the creator moves on to do the same to other roads. Incidentally, I noted you converted the map to a thumbnail - maps are exempt from the MoS guidelines on forced image widths due to the loss of detail when the size is reduced —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do you caption the map for screenreaders without using "thumb" ??? Pickle 19:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave the "thumb" in, but also add a pixel width; as in, thumb|450px|right|Layout of the Broadwater Farm Estate (the forced-image-width map from Broadwater Farm).  —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ahh cheers for that Pickle 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, this house-by-house approach is apparently a new trend - take a look at the dogs-breakfast of Lordship Lane (Haringey) —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Je ne sais pas - i really don't know what to say about that one! Pickle 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Roads are used for transport, the road are within london so why not? Think of it as a "child" of WP:London... Pickle 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my long reply above for why I've tagged the roads (incidentally, I've not tagged all the roads but only the ones that to my knowledge are car routes; I may have got some wrong, particularly in the S London suburbs, if the article didn't make it clear it was pedestrianised). I'm not removing the WP:LONDON tags in any circumstances, just tagging London-related transport-related articles with WP:LT in addition. (While I've not added the WP:LONDON tag to all the ones that didn't have it purely on grounds that it would be too complicated to assess them by two different criteria, obviously everything with the WP:LT tag will be London related so adding the London tag will be bot-able.) I certainly don't want an English version of this to happen so if anyone thinks I've tagged an article that shouldn't be tagged, go ahead and remove it —  iridescent (talk to me!) 16:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gray's Inn Road]]

message: This is undergoing its fourth nomination. Please note that the nominator has merged some into relevant articles and moved some to London Underground statistics. Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Underground trivia (4th nomination). Simply south 17:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm deliberately not getting involved in the AfD itself - while I can make an argument to keep it, in all honesty, if I saw a list like this relating to a field I wasn't connected to, I'd probably be a weak delete. I think a valid article could be spun out of the content (see my similar comments on London Underground Ghosts, above) —  iridescent (talk to me!) 19:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll do the same with this one.  It is likely to get deleted anyway. Tbo 157talk 18:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London Underground trivia AFD 

message: I have put this up for WP:RM but with moveoptions. See Talk:London railway station#2007 requested move. Simply south 10:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  London railway station move 

message: See Talk:London Underground#New article about the roundel logo and its history. Simply south 13:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roundel 

message: User:Sunil060902 has just renamed every LU line from Northern Line to Northern line etc with no apparent discussion or consensus to do so other then this festival of sockpuppetry , breaking dozens of links in the process. As there's no consensus as to what the proper form is - Capital Transport always uses upper case, TFL uses the lower case form, and Wikipedia policy would normally be to capitalise it as a proper name, does anyone have any opinion on this? I'm willing to rollback all the changes made, but don't want to do do so without a consensus as - while I don't agree with it - a case could be made for keeping them in this form. —  iridescent 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please could you provide a list of which links are broken in the above articles? I'll gladly reinstate them. Once again I remind you: it's mixed upper/lower case on all London Underground-branded literature, maps, signs and even some trains! Moreover, disambiguation does exist in relevant cases (eg. there are other Northern Lines around the world). Should we refer to c2c as "C2C" to provide a counter-argument? Regards, Sunil060902 09:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone rename them back to the articles' previous forms please. TfL always refers to them as 'Lines' and not as the 'northern', 'jubilee' etc. So as such Northern Line etc is the proper official term. Unisouth 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Techinically, that's not true, the TfL style is "Northern line". That's no reason to use them here though, and I've twice asked the user to stop. Reversions will begin shortly. --Mr Thant 12:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Thant, I can't find any broken links, so may I ask politely why are you making such a fuss? These are articles referring to specific TfL lines. Please consider this fact! So will you rename c2c to "C2C"? That's in small case! Sunil060902 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, almost forgot! I have a 1994 Capital Transport "London Underground Handbook" which has mixed case for all the line by line descriptions. So it would appear that it's not by any means a new fad by TfL! Best, Sunil060902 13:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sunil060902, why do "TfL uses mixed capitals" notices have to be inserted into every LU line (and possibly others)? If it needs to be used, i think a compromise would be just to leave it at TFL and LU only. Simply south 14:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So that you don't have to look up another article to get that info! It's only two full lines of text! Best, Sunil060902 01:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am amazed that this is able to generate so much discussion. It seems that this is the single most important issue currently affecting the Project.  I might accept that if every article had GA status, but they do not. Surely, we ought to put more of our energies into getting the articles up to GA status as opposed to arguing over semantics/grammar. I think too many people are looking through the telescope the wrong way ... please can we look at the bigger picture before we get upset about the details. Catlows Cat 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unilateral renaming of every LU line 

message: Next time you look at an Underground map, leaflet, sign, or a train with a line-label on the front or passenger window, ask yourself which is TfL's preferred branding for each of their lines: 
Is it:
: Name Line
: Name line
: name Line
:or
: name line
:.
:These are brands after all! - best, Sunil060902 13:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia style guidelines specifically say we're meant to ignore a brand's typographical quirks in the interests of clarity, and I agree with them. No one denies TfL uses this style, but that doesn't mean we have to follow it, the same way we don't write every tube article in New Johnston. --Mr Thant 16:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you going to "move" the c2c article then? best, Sunil060902 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid that an edit war is going to start here over these naming conventions.  I do see how Tfl uses Circle line over Circle Line, but honestly I don't think that either title is suitable for Wikipedia. It seems that the official names of the tube lines are the names themselves, minus the word "line" (ex: simply Piccadilly, not Piccadilly Line/line).  The official tube map displays it this way, as well does TfL's website, which explains why "line" is not capitalised, since it is technically not part of the title.  I think we should look into naming conventions like Bakerloo (tube line) or something similar. –Dream out loud (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the same website displays captions such as "Current Piccadilly line status". best, Sunil060902 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, do you disagree with the actual renaming or me stating that it's incorrect in the para. above? best, Sunil060902 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Edit conflict)I disagree with the statement you made, saying it is incorrect. I agree with the renaming from "Line" to "line" for the reasons I stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#London Transport line renaming. Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Click on "Upload file" to the right of the screen. FWIW, TFL isn't consistent in their capitalisation - check out their own website —  iridescent 18:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict)To upload a picture of such nature, it would need to be your own work or work that it available under a free license, which is accepted here at Wikipedia, to comply with Wikipedia:Image use policy. If after reading the Wikipedia:Image use policy, you're sure that the image does comply with the policy, you can upload it at Wikipedia:Upload. You may contact me if you have any further questions. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, here's my "exhibit A": 250px Sunil060902 09:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: And here's my "exhibit B": 250px Sunil060902 13:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfL use mixed capitals 

message: I have found the discussion about the these name changes. See Talk:London_Underground#Names_of_LU_lines. Simply south 18:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before anyone takes the "consensus" there to seriously, be aware that two of the three people arguing for lower-case have since been indefblocked for abusive sockpuppetry on railway-related discussions —  iridescent 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Found discussion

message: This is getting pretty big and so i am possibly going to move this to Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Participants. Would anyone object if i also moved Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/Membership to ?  Simply south 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objectios so i did. Simply south (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Participants 

message: I have a pic! Nice one too! 300px|thumb|right
Sunil060902 20:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thames Clipper pic (as per earlier Request) 

message: I also have a pic of this, though not uploaded yet. Sunil060902 10:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded just now! thumb|300px|right
thumb|300px|right 
Sunil060902 00:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for these images! Unisouth (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stratford DLR (as per earlier Request) 

message: I have opened a discussion on this at Talk:Bakerloo line#Requested Move and tagged all pages.  Bearing in mind the various comments above we need to bottom this out one way or another. Regan123 20:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of LU Lines 

message: I've been taking a look at categorisation under :Category:Transport in London - the category was getting a bit difficult for a reader to navigate, so some new subcategories have been created, which make the category more understandable.
Naturally not everyone will agree with the categories they will sit in - please don't feel put out if there's a re-categorisation on your article, and make changes as you want - it's genuine attempt at making it more consistent and easy to navigate. It's very tempting to put everything at the top level of Transport in London, but this doesn't necessarily serve the reader well - but of course it depends on the article.
New useful categories:
*:Category:Transport by London borough - gathers all the "Transport in Southwark" etc articles
*:Category:Transport by London Travelcard zone - gathers all the "Transport in Zone 3" etc articles
*:Category:Transport design in London - stuff like the tube map and branding
*:Category:Fare collection systems in London - putting together Travelcards, Oyster etc.
*:Category:People associated with transport in London - individuals like the lollipop lady who were floating around the category
*:Category:Transport projects in London - where to put TfL initiatives and similar things
*:Category:Roads in London - not quite sure about how to make the distinction between this and :Category:Streets in London, but it puts all the A roads and motorways together, which is tidier
*:Category:Transport authorities in London - gathering the govermental bodies & quangos past and present like TfL, London Transport Executive etc. rather than having them floating around the top level
*:Category:Water transport in London - canals and rivers all together.
As I said, not everyone will agree, and please don't take umbrage - it's a positive effort to sort articles more effectively. Even if your favourite article isn't on the top category level now, it's logical and should be easy to use. Also, the category description points directly to the major articles for ease of use. Have a browse.
--Cnbrb 14:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: I notice that someone from this project is tagging articles with the LT tag that seem inappropriate to be included in the scope of this project - Turnpike Lane - about the street - as well as Turnpike Lane tube station; Stroud Green Road? I removed the Turnpike Lane one but then wanted to check if these articles are meant to be tagged before touching the SGR one. Can someone check & ammend or let me know and I willhjuk (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think these articles are within the scope of the project. The project is involved with all forms of transport i would have thought. Roads of all forms are also covered in WP:TIS. Simply south (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LT Tagging

message: Hi.  The Did you know section of the London Transport Portal doesnt't seem to get updated very often so I have created the page, Portal:London Transport/Submit DYK where users can submit any interesting facts.  All facts submitted will be placed in the Did you know section of the portal.  So please submit your facts.  Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 17:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Portal:London Transport]] Did you knows 

message: I think that now the project is large enough, it should have an ad in the Wikipedia ads template. So if someone can come up with a design (that must of course include our project logo) then please submit it here and place it in the Wikipedia ads template, thank you! Unisouth (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:LT]] Ad

message: I have requested a peer review of London congestion charge.  Any comments would be gratefully accepted as well as any advice on getting a map for the expanded zone. Regan123 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Peer review/London congestion charge|Peer review of London congestion charge]] 

message: The main page for this project does seem to be unorganised and confusing.  I am willing to redesign the main page but I thought I should ask opinions from participants of this WikiProject first.  What do other users think? Tbo 157(talk) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it desperately needs a cutting down - it seems to have become a giant random list of LT related material, rather than the project overview it ought to be. Compare it to the short concise overviews at our country-cousins WP:UKT and WP:UKRD. My personal nomination for the chop would be the Our articles section, which is patently not a list of our articles, or even "our most important articles" - what kind of list finds space for an airport with one scheduled flight per week and a non-existent railway line but not arguably the most significant civil engineering project of all time? —  iridescent 20:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the opinion.  WP:UKT recently had a similar main page redesign so I may use some ideas from there too.  Any other opinions from other users will be appreciated and I will go ahead with the redesign when I can as long as there are no objections.  Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 21:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The project did start of as WikiProject Underground, which was a relatively small project. Thus didn't need many categorys and seperate pages, so it was all crammed into the home page. But now it is fully grown in WikiProject London Transport I think it needs to be cut down and modernised for the first time in it's history. Unisouth (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened the main page as suggested.  There is probably still a bit more I can do in terms of design and I will do that when I get a chance.  Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main page redesign 

message: At the moment, Crossrail isn't specified as being encompassed by this WikiProject. Given that it is included on TfL 'future' maps (eg the 2010 one amongst others) and that the mockup train is at Acton museum, and it very clearly will be a 'London' service, shouldn't it be added in here? --AlisonW (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: er ... partially scratch that. It isn't listed on the project page, but is on the talkpage of Crossrail ... --AlisonW (talk) 00:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossrail 

message: How can we raise the profile and awareness of P:LT? Suggestions welcome. Simply south 01:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually sure if this would violate any policy, but I think it would be great to stick a "Part of WP:LT" banner across every article in our remit (on the article itself, not the talkpage), with links to the portal and WP:LT itself - ideally at the top but more likely down at the bottom above the references. At the very least, the high-traffic articles like Piccadilly Line ought to have one - I realise there's one in the infobox, but realistically, who reads infoboxes through to the end? See the Portal:Military of the United States box on USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63), for example, for an idea of what I have in mind. Can anyone think of any reason not to do this? —  iridescent 02:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should add the portal link where appropriate, but I don't think we need to have more than one portal link on each page and the portal links in infoboxes are more prominent than if they were low down on the page. If an infobox with the portal link isn't already present the  template can be used to add a portal link in the see also section. It's my feeling that we should really only add this to articles where the LTPortal is the main or principal category. --DavidCane 03:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that's a good idea - otherwise some articles could end up with five or six portals. (Presumably most of ours would at the very least also warrant P:London.) —  iridescent 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal again 

message: WP:LTs coverage of streets has been extended to cover Bridges and Road Signage including Legible London. Unisouth 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Streets coverage extension

message: right|300px
Hi, everyone. I have just made this diagram of Thames Clippers Tornado Clipper for use by this project. Unisouth (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tornado Clipper Diagram

message: Do any users think its time to get a new logo for this WikiProject?  Maybe more in line with the new silver roundels created by USer:Unisouth or any other designs.  Suggestions?  Tbo 157(talk) 17:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally i don't see any problem with the current logo. Simply south (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, indeed I quite like it for its historical reference. --AlisonW (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject logo 

message: I photographed this bus at Liverpool Street and it has the number 53 on its blind, however it appears to be on a different route from London Buses route 53. I have checked the Wiki article with the info on TFL's website and it appears to be correct. Can anyone tell me what is going on? Oxyman42 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxyman42, Occam's Razor surely suggests the driver has the wrong number on his destination blind? The 53 does not go to Liverpool Street railway station, and Community Transport (CT Plus) do not operate it. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Gotcha! It's actually London Buses route 153, CT Plus do operate that. Maybe the 1 is hidden by part of the blind itself? Sometimes happens on newer buses. Maybe you could rename your pic  London Bus route 153.jpg? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxyman42 is very grateful for your input and has renamed the image as suggested, thanks Oxyman42 (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bus route 53

message: Our coverage of London Buses has been extended to cover the bus types themselves. All buses on the List of bus types used in London should be 'tagged'. If you know a bus type used in london that is not on that list then you can update it and place our template on that articles talk page. Unisouth (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: London Buses coverage extension

message: Hello readers of WikiProject London Transport!
I just wondered if any of you would be interested in joining up to Train Spotting World, a wiki just for railways and similar things! We are also in the process of setting up several "Workforces", similar to WikiProjects, and were wondering if anyone wnated to help!
Various Wikipedians have gone over there, including myself, User:Tbo 157, User:Slambo, User:EdJogg, User:Timtrent and User:S.C.Ruffeyfan.
If you want more info, or have joined up and want some guidance, let me know here or there on my talk page!
Thanks,
Bluegoblin7 18:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wanted to point out that the intention is NOT to 'poach' editors from WP -- you are needed here!<BR> All the listed editors are still active at WP, but TSW allows a little more creative freedom...<BR>Feel free to join us editing in both Wikis.<BR>EdJogg (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a well established WikiProject for UK Railways and a relatively new one for UK Trams here on WikiPedia. Also note this is not a place you can put advertisements for other WikiProjects outside of Wikipedia UK topics. Unisouth (talk) 11:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new wiki specially for Trains... And Trams/Streetcars etc... And much more...