Academic Kids talk:WikiProject London
|
|
| Contents |
Using WikiProject tags
Why having the WikiProject tags in articles is bad and why they should be at the top of talk pages (if at all);
- When potential readers see it, they may feel obligated to visit and agree to the WikiProject in order to contribute.
- Talk is a page for comments about how to improve the article. The article namespace is not a good place for this.
- Whenever we make articles we should try to make it as useful to readers as possible. Ugly tags detract from the article and are not intended for mere readers anyway; WikiProject tags are for contributors who want to majorly add to a set of articles. These people will visit talk anyway.
- These tags are self-conscience and considerations on how Wikipedia articles will look in print form are important (these tags will have to be removed before a print version is made, so it is best to limit their use).
- WikiProjects are for a set of users to agree on a set of guidelines. Nobody else is bound by those guidelines. However the tag implies that those guidelines should be followed in order to contribute. This is very unwiki.
- The major WikiProjects (Countries, Elements and Sports) do not have these type of tags in articles (the talk pages od converted element articles mention who did the conversion and that the conversion was based on WikiProject Elements).
- Probably more reasons.
PS I simply watch each of the articles I convert. I then reformat contributions made to the converted articles in order to make sure they don't stray too far from the WikiProject guidelines. That way I don't intimidate potential contributors, and can keep some consistency. --mav
Underground line article benchmarks
- "Every London Underground line should have an article of the same level of quality of Central Line."
It's not that I want to blow my own trumpet, but Bakerloo Line and East London Line are far more interesting: they have more than one paragraph of text! While a listing of stations is desired information, it's not the most vital part of an article on a tube line. After all, anyone can grab that information from the LT site in map form. -- Tarquin
Place naming conventions, Part the One
Not convinced by the long and ugly naming conventions of this Project. Probably a better idea to stick with shorter names until ambiguities arise. A compromise is to use "X, London" instead of "X, London, England". --The Cunctator
I agree - Khendon 07:31 Oct 8, 2002 (UTC)
Pointfullness of area articles
Please tell me why, whenever I look at an area of London, all I see is a list of areas near the one I'm interested in, and no info on the actual area. Who ever is doing this, it strikes me as a massive waste of time. If I, for example, look up 'Tooting', I want to know something about the place, not just that it is 'near Balham' (which in turn is 'near Tooting'!) It's all extremely frustrating!
Oh my gosh, I'm new and I added a bit to Twickenham, not knowing about all this - yes, it is a bit offputting for potential contributors; feel I'd better run away and hide. (You can find most of what you want to know at http://www.london.gov.uk/approot/london/links.jsp).
It doesn't help that it's not all that straightforward - eg somewhere it says Middlesex only exists for administrative purposes. Mmm, well, it went away and came back and went, but it still forms part of the (unofficial) postal addresses of places such as Wembley, Uxbridge, Teddington, Hampton, Hounslow, which are now regarded (not necessarily by the residents) as Greater London.
Then there's Kingston on Thames (postcode KT1); the main town of the Royal Borough of Kingston on Thames, but also the county town of Surrey - oh and Richmond upon Thames is in Surrey, but is also a borough .....
As a local, I might be able to answer some questions, but I doubt I could format it in the way you want. (I've only just managed to discover what a talk page is!) -Mrsuk 28/5/03 17:02 BST
Underground station article naming, Part the One
The naming convention is wrong as regards underground and tube stations: "Underground stations: as Piccadilly tube station" Actually tube stations are constructed by driving a tube through the ground and then building a railway inside. Local services are provided by the underground which is constructed by cut and cover. I have been able to correct the Limehouse entry despite some difficulty from someone with the tag Pcb21. Unfortunately far from listing the nearest stations some quite far away Bow Church Road DLR station were included, and others nearer (but not nearest) were ignored - e.g. All Saints DLR. Harry Potter
- Eh? This I don't get. You have a problem with the popular nomenclature "tube" because that should only properly refer to deep cut tunnels rather than the shallow cut and cover tunnels or over ground tracks; but you are quite happy for the word underground to refer to lines and stations located on the surface. London Underground themselves used the advertising slogan "It's Quicker By Tube" and their website is http://www.thetube.com/
- I am prepared to live with the compromise that the rail network is called the London Underground, even if that gives a misleading impression. Not so long ago I had to wait over a month for the circle line to Holborn, so I don't think we can give any credence to LU adverts. There are different regulations governing the tube and the underground which newcomers to London sometimes don't appreciate, and can at times use the word tube incorrectly. Surely it is not the role of wikipedia to encourage such confusion? Harry Potter.
- I am surprised you got to Holborn so quickly on the circle line :-). I reverted your Limehouse edit, Harry, because it talked about someone dying at the hands (tentacles?) of a sea monster at the age of 94. Thus I reverted, assuming your attempts to write an encyclopedia were as poor as they have historically been. I apologize for missing your change to the name of the tube stations. However as it happens I do not think it is the right change. The agreed standard was to use XXX tube/DLR station. as this is quite compact and follows what people actually call the things. The nearest places were detected by getting gridpoints for all tube stations and computing distances between the area of London and each tube stations. If these are wrong then perhaps the point chosen to represent Limehouse was not the best. Pcb21 08:29 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Yeh it surprised me too! As for the tube/underground debate, some people are aware of the distinction, others maybe not. The fact is that it is inaccurate to descibe Bow Road as a tube station. Indeed it may a point to use the term Underground Station, rather than underground station, using the proper name from London Underground. As I recall there are different bye laws regarding tube and underground. This of course may have changed by now. I have some memory of them being challenged a few years ago perhasp by people with wheel chairs or push chairs. I will try and find out more about that. As for inaccuracies in the system, these are likely using any such globalist sytem. I don't see this as an argument for banning such techniques, but for realising their limitations and realising that it is most helpful if people with local knowledge apply that knowledge. Some place names change: e.g. the old Island Gardens DLR station used to be North Greenwich Railway station. As for Westferry DLR station what a misnomer: there is no "West Ferry". There was a single ferry at the bottom of tghe Isle of Dogs. Two roads led there East Ferry Road and West Ferry Road. By removing the substantive word, but leaving the qualifier, DLR have created confusion! Limehouse station is much more in Ratcliffe, and West Ferry is more in Limehouse. I gad a brief look across other London locations, and there seem to be similar problems elsewhere. But I don't see any point in getting our knickers in a twist. Sooner or later people take on developing a site. look at Whitechapel, for instance. Yes, riddled with inaccuracies. i.e. the reference to "The basal population of poor English country stock" is erroneous in that it omits the evry important Huguenot community which went there from the seventeenth century. No reference to Spitalfields, weaving etc. Or what seems to me the first demoinstration against institutional racism which took place there in 1787. But all these will take time to work on. Harry Potter
- I was at the Cartographic Congress today and checked the map, and sure enough "Limehouse" station used to be called Stepney Junction Station and was in Ratcliffe, and the Westferry DLR station is where the old West India Docks station used tbe in Limehouse. The congress will be tackling some key problems as regards an open source geographic information system based on spheroid geometry. All wikipedians are invited. It is proposed that the results can be used for locations in London in the first instance. Harry Potter
Place naming conventions, Part the Two
I really think that putting places in the format [[Place, London]] or (even worse) [[Place, London, England]] is silly . If there is ambiguity about placenames (as is the case with Soho) then of course the "London" is necessary, but unless there is ambiguity it just confuses things and is contrary to how other placename articles are named. This arguement that "many places have been named after places in London" seems irrelevent to me - many places have been named after places in Holland, but that doesn't mean we have [[Amsterdam, the Netherlands]]. Unless somebody convinces me otherwise, I'm going to move all places currently with an unnecessary "London" and change the guidelines here. --Camembert
- Well, no objections, so I'm going to change the page and start moving things around. --Camembert 23:24 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
May I suggest that for places outside the US (and Canada?), we use parentheses for disambiguation, as is the usual Wikipedia rule? I understand that American placenames are an exception, because if I understand correctly, Americans really do talk of "Boston, Massachusetts" and the like in everyday speech, whereas British people wouldn't talk of "Soho, London" at all, as far as I am aware. -- Oliver P. 11:54 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I certainly don't object to that (though the whole parentheses vs. comma debate is one I personally am trying to avoid...) --Camembert
- I think it would be much better to have something consistent across the world (or even beyond - Sea of Tranquility, Moon. I do not see why we should be influenced by how Americans or British people really do or apparently do talk. We would not write Russian place names in Cyrillic because that's how Russians write. And with commas there is more scope placing increasing large geographic defintions one after another, whereas parentheses can get a bit clumsy. But in the end I feel that because so much has been done on this score in the US, then it seems more sensible to follow them. Ultimately I don't care that much but want consistency, and changing the whole of the US seems a lot of work even if it is found acceptable. --Harry Potter 18:26 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Possible source/destination site
I just stumbled across this page, which I found interesting because I'm one of the people responsible for the Open Guide to London (http://openguides.org/london/), which is a wiki guide to London. Whilst we have not yet established a content licensing policy, there is no copyrighted material on our site - indeed, in some places we include attributed content from Wikipedia - so the persons involved in WikiProject London are most welcome to use our material to further the project. It would be even better if we could get some cross-fertilisation going between OGL and WPL! --Earle Martin 10:02 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Underground station article naming, Part the Two and Railway station naming
The railway station names are in a mess - some are "Place station", some are "Place rail station" and some are "Place railway station". Which is the correct format and does anyone object to moving a lot of them over? Timrollpickering
- Hmm. I think King's Cross railway station, to go with King's Cross St. Pancras tube station. But this isn't Offical Policy, of course.
- James F. (talk) 16:38, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- But, if we have railway and tube stations in the same complex, call it Euston station, and make it an article about both. Morwen 17:22, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- We have Clapham Junction, Blackfriars station and Fenchurch Street railway station to name but three. It's not exactly consistent. Timrollpickering 17:23, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, only the first one I'd rename. Blackfriars isn't just a railway station, its a tube station too - and Fenchurch Street has no tube. Maybe they should just all be at 'X station'? Morwen 17:26, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Those were just three grabbed at random. We also have London Bridge rail station, Charing Cross railway station but Cannon Street station. All three are both tube and rail - and I think Charing Cross tube really needs a page of its own given the lengthy history of the station and multiple name use. Timrollpickering 17:34, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Well, we do have separate articles about London Bridge railway station and London Bridge tube station, and Charing Cross tube station and Charing Cross railway station. Its only when the article covers both the railway and tube stations that I'm saying it should be at X station. Morwen 17:37, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- How about using the following formula for all London stations:
- "Place tube station" for tube only
- "Place station" for combined tube and rail
- "Place railway station" for rail only
- and where the tube and rail stations merit separate articles use the distinction. We can list all manner of rail stations out of line with this but I think it best to move to one consistent format. Timrollpickering 17:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be fine. This is what I am aiming for. Morwen 17:45, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- The other question is DLR stations. I think we should keep articles about interchanges with DLR and tube stations at XXX tube station. DLR is not technically part of the tube, but it acts like it is. Obviously we'd keep DLR-only stations at XXX DLR station. Morwen 17:47, Feb 15, 2004 (UTC)
- There's a further question about railway stations that are outside of London, which does crop up on the Thameslink page already. This probably isn't the best place to discuss it (anyone know where is?) but how about applying the same standard to all UK railway stations for further consistency? Timrollpickering 11:34, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I just edited the history section of London Underground and got rather irritated by all the inconsistencies there (but not irritated enough to fix any ;o) . Though I'd vote for XXX station in all cases (overground, tube, DLR and even Tramlink), unless disambiguation is required. OwenBlacker 22:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
- As it happens I created Clapham Junction station, then later someone created Clapham Junction and it overtook my creation in edits, so I merged them at Clapham Junction to preserve most of the edits. Mintguy (T) 17:29, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Given that we're talking about station names - what about apostrophes? On the actual tube map, they use apostrophes, but they don't appear on signs:
- King's Cross St. Pancras tube station vs. Kings Cross St. Pancras tube station
- Earl's Court tube station vs. Earls Court tube station
- St. Paul's tube station vs. St. Pauls tube station
- Shepherd's Bush tube station vs. Shepherds Bush tube station
- St. James's Park tube station vs. St. James Park tube station (?!)
- I think we need to have something to use as an authorative source to determine each one individually - which in pactice means either the Tube Map, the signs at the stations, an official edict by London Underground or something else. I don't think trying to apply a single rule to each one would work. Timrollpickering 20:21, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Certainly, a standard would be a Good Thing; I suggest that we use the Tube maps' naming (in GIF (http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/tubemap/images/tm_quad_2h_0309.gif), PDF (http://tube.tfl.gov.uk/content/tubemap/images/tm_quad_2h_0309.pdf) formats); this means that we would use "St." over "St" and apostrophes.
- Any objectors?
- James F. (talk) 21:44, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable enough to me. Timrollpickering 23:06, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- And a possible explanation as to why the London Underground names messy, after observing them on the train home yesterday. A lot of the stations have older signs visible and show evidence of not having been updated in years (this is especially evident on the Hammersmith & City Line where in many places the old tiles and line maps still think it's part of the Metropolitan Line) but the more recent signs, posters and tube maps seem to follow a consistent standard - so it's King's Cross St. Pancras for example. However on the Circle, Hammersmith & City and Metropolitan Line platforms (at least) there are still ancient tiles that ommit the punctuation because of the way they're designed.
- It's only a guess but I assume London Underground has determined a clear standard for each station name and uses it in all the modern literature. But station upgrades cost money and replacing signs, tiles and indicator boards all over the system just because someone has determined that an apostophre should be there is rather foolish when you've got essential maintenance, line extensions and train stock replacements all begging for cash. Timrollpickering 10:49, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- I'm with James F.'s suggestion of using the tube map's naming conventions. Easy to look up, easy to keep consistent. OwenBlacker 22:52, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Names should re-direct to boroughs
moved from Talk:London Borough of Croydon
I propose that names such as Croydon, Southwark etc should as defualt be re-directs to the London boroughs of the same name, as opposed to being about the historic "core" areas of the boroughs, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. As references to these names are far more likely to refer to the boroughs than the core areas.
And that the present articles about the core areas of London boroughs should be moved to something like say Southwark, Southwark or Southwark (town).
Anyone agree/disagree G-Man 13:26, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Well if no-one objects, then I'll asume its ok to do that then G-Man 12:51, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I don't know. I think it may depend on what is most linked to. With Camden for example it us much more likely to be a reference to Camden Town than to LB Camden. With Southwark and Lambeth it is more likely to be the other way round. Secretlondon 18:25, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- I think Brent should be about the borough too [if it isn't already], and probably Westminster. What about Hackney? Morwen 18:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Does eveyone agree that this should happen? G-Man 12:05, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% convinced. As someone who grew up living near "Croydon", for me the term has long meant the large town. In particular the railway stations called "Croydon" relate to the town, whilst Norbury, Selhurst, Waddon etc... have stations of their own names. And I'm think I'm right that road signs for "Croydon" similarly refer to the town. There's a strong case to have pages for all the towns that gave their names to boroughs - in particular for things like the histories of the towns it can be very complicated if the only place to put them is the history of a wider political entity.
- Maybe as a compromise keep Croydon as a redirect to the London Borough of Croydon and put the old contents of Croydon up at Croydon, London, Croydon town or something. I agree it needs more content - I can always dig up some of the town's history and put it there (the railway in particular has some stuff). Timrollpickering 00:29, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thats pretty much what I had proposed G-Man 17:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
London Politics
I've been doing some work on London local government which could be tied into this Wikiproject. See Metropolitan Board of Works, London County Council, Greater London Council, Inner London Education Authority. Then there are the London politicians: List of heads of London government indexes most; John Thwaites, James Macnaghten Hogg, Herbert Morrison, Charles Latham, 1st Baron Latham, Isaac Hayward, Bill Fiske, Desmond Plummer, Reg Goodwin, Horace Cutler, Ken Livingstone, Chris Chataway, Lena Townsend, Ashley Bramall, Bryn Davies, Frances Morrell, and Neil Fletcher. Dbiv 20:57, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
--- Template:SampleWikiProject
Station Categories
I've given the underground and docklands categories a major update so that the lists are current as of 10/Oct/04. What would be a good course of action to keep them current in the future apart from quiet monitoring of the three lists?
- BesigedB 13:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Tram stops
Please can we agree to call the Tramlink alighting and boarding places stops. It is ridiculous to give two low open platforms the elevated title of station. In the days of steam such a place would be called an halt. See this article (http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/turkey/927/WSCR.html) which mentions Bingham Road Halt - where Addiscombe tram stop is now and Spencer Road Halt - where the Boy Scout hut is now. -- RHaworth 05:45, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
- Hmm - what about those that used to be railway stations? And there are some current railway stations that aren't much more than that - the current incarnation of Epsom Downs for one. Timrollpickering 10:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Tricky that one - on the one hand, I would say Epsom Downs should be downgraded (pun intended) to the status of 'Halt' but on the other hand, it qualifies for the title of 'Terminus' - often a more prestigious title than mere 'station'. -- RHaworth 13:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
- I certainly refer to them as tram stops myself and feel we need redirects at the very least with that terminology. I have used tram station so far though as per the guidelines set out, but we can change them, of course. It is important that we have some measure of consistency, however, with the other planned London tram systems and tram and metro systems elsewhere. I'm open to what that should be. Where there are other services, we should just use Xxx station, especially for those where the trams use railway station platforms, but even where they are adjacent to one another. Addiscombe meanwhile should have three separate articles for the tram stop and the two relevant demolished stations (or halt). Mtiedemann 15:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- On the passenger-oriented official Tramlink site (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/trams/) I could find neither 'station' nor 'stop' used. The more anorak-oriented unofficial site is in no doubt that they are 'stops': http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/stops.shtml (http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/stops.shtml). -- RHaworth 13:04, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
Wikitravel
The article, Hidden London, has been marked for "move to Wikitravel" because it appears to be more appropriate for that part of the project. I thought so and saw that an earlier editor agreed. Articles about notable sites are appropriate here, as are the lists of those sites. But special lists, like "hidden London", are in the realm of tour information. Cheers, -Willmcw 10:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
London stub?
It's been pointed out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting that the UK-geo-stub category is getting very large, and could do with being split. A London stub has been mooted, though there might be some interest here. Alai 05:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Update: A London-geo-stub has been created. Stubs about London can now be found in (and assigned to) various different stub categories:
- Category:London geography stubs (assigned using Template:Tl) - districts, streets, parks, rivers, etc., but not buildings or structures. Currently a lot of these are still in Category:UK geography stubs, but they will be gradually moved into the new category.
- Category:UK buildings and structures stubs (assigned using Template:Tl) - buildings, towers, bridges, etc. Covers the whole UK.
- Category:Historical stubs (assigned using Template:Tl) - history. A separate UK-hist-stub will almost certainly be created very soon.
- Category:United Kingdom-related stubs (assigned using Template:Tl) - other items not covered above.
Grutness|hello? Missing image
Grutness.jpg
05:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
London Wikicity scratchpad (http://scratchpad.wikicities.com/wiki/London:Home)
Wikicities is not a WikiMedia project. It's an external project based on Wikipedia, run by Wikia.
To explore the possibility of building a Wikicity for London, I've started a miniwiki. Please feel free to play around if you're interested. Use it as a sandbox.
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)