Jump to content

Talk:List of Docklands Light Railway stations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Review

[edit]

Comments due to request by User:Simply south at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

Hi Simply south, some very quick comments, as requested. Thanks for writing this article, can I suggest opening a Peer Review?

history
  • Is there a suitable wikilink for imperial commerce?
  • Acronyms such as PLA need introducing (i.e. saying Port of London Authority (PLA) on first use)
  • See MOS:PERCENT for % signs
  • "These too closed in 1981" – is this the correct spelling?
  • Who was Norman Fowler?
  • "One of the planned extensions was from Canning Town to North Woolwich - options considered " ndash or mdash needed?
  • Doesn't "safeguarded" need linking or explanation?
list

Having needed reading glasses for the last few years, I have my monitor set to a coarse resolution, and this means the last two columns are not visible on my screen without scrolling. Can something be done about this?  Fixed by moving things. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images seem rather small to me.  Fixed. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references

based on this version of the article

  • Ref 4 needs converting to the short form (you have a mix of styles)
  • Ref 15 Date format is inconsistent
  • Ref 24 needs ndash?
  • Ref 26 needs expanding
  • Ref 28 & bibliography - surely (4 ed) should be (4th ed)?

I really don't know what would be asked at FLR, but references Nos. 4 and 5 seem to me to refer to rather large sections of text. Can something be done to reference your sources more precisely? Edgepedia (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully when doing it originally, I never learnt to do footnotes. When I have some time I will look over the book. I'm not sure how to do Ref 5 as it is a monograph and so does not have page numbers, more sections. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some quick comments. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have a look at List of former and unopened London Underground stations to give you some idea about how a featured list of stations looks like.
  • Is the "resited" column really necessary given that only a couple of stations have been resited? Is there some more useful information which could be displayed instead? Ditto previous name. Could this not be taken into a general potted two-line history which would feature in the column.
    • I do feel the previous name column is important as it gives historical context to the system and some interesting information. The resited column shows more than a couple of stations. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC) Resitings moved to notes. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 20:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the images are of poor or mediocre quality. I've never understood why bland station exteriors are preferred over the actual platforms themselves, particularly when the platform area has some architectural merit. Case in point - File:Heron Quays DLR stn entrance.JPG.
I think that particular image you've given is a bad example as it shows that Heron Quays is located within a building so should stay (unless there is one of a better angle), which not all stations are. I will review many of the other images. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are these DLR "branches"? Are they officially known as such? Does it add much to the table?

minus Removed. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The opening historical section looks too long to me.

I will sort the rest out soon. Simply south...... cooking letters for just 7 years 19:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for semi-protection

[edit]

I just noticed that the importance assessment of the article keeps on changing like an edit war is present. Do you all agree the article should have semi-protection? Vincent60030 (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vincent60030: I'm not sure what you mean. The importance assessments have been set or amended in five edits:
  1. on 17 March 2008, mid-importance was set for WikiProject London Transport
  2. on 23 June 2010, low-importance was set for WikiProject Trains
  3. on 24 May 2011, mid was altered to high-importance for WikiProject London Transport
  4. on 15 April 2012, mid-importance was set for WikiProject UK Railways
  5. on 5 April 2015, low was altered to mid-importance for WikiProject Trains. This fifth change also added a second assessment (of mid-importance) to WikiProject London Transport, which was not just contradictory but completely unnecessary.
Five changes in seven years, with the shortest interval between actual reassessments being three years and two months, is not an edit war. None of those five edits were made by users without the autoconfirmed right, so semi-protection would not have prevented any of those edits. Moreover, to propose page protection, you should file a request at WP:RFPP, but note that talk pages are not commonly protected except for short periods. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could ask Simply south (talk · contribs), Slambo (talk · contribs), DavidCane (talk · contribs) and Welsh (talk · contribs) how they arrived at their assessments. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64:To understand what I meant, look at this page and observe the assessment log at the bottom of the page. ;) Vincent60030 (talk) 16:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bot-updated page; the frequent multiple entries are because the bot is confused. This is explained by the contradictory importance levels that you set with this edit: it can't be both high-importance and mid-importance - one of them needs to be removed. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, ok thanks. :) So should we report about the bots malfunctioning? Vincent60030 (talk) 01:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Vincent60030: It's not malfunctioning, it was being fed conflicting data - GIGO. The proper course of action is to eliminate the conflict. Perhaps the advice on 7 February 2015 by DavidCane (talk · contribs) wasn't explicit enough: just as adding a {{WikiProject London Transport}} is undesirable when {{TrainsWikiProject}} (which is an alias for {{WikiProject Trains}}) already has |Underground=yes, adding a |Underground=yes to {{TrainsWikiProject}} when {{WP London Transport}} (which is an alias for {{WikiProject London Transport}}) is already present, is equally undesirable.
If you visit the version of this page prior to your post yesterday, and look at the top, you will see two banners; in the second, alongside the text "Associated projects or task forces:", is a "[show]" link. Click that. Now notice that alongside "This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport", it says "marked as Mid-importance"; whereas in the upper box, which begins "This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport", it says "This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.". There is a clear contradiction here, and it is not the bot malfunctioning, it is your error. I resolved the conflict by adjusting the |LUL-importance= in {{TrainsWikiProject}} to match the |importance=high in {{WP London Transport}}, and removing the latter template. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I knew about the conflict thing before but I didn't know about the impact. However, I did not put the banner there though fyi. Thanks anyways. :)

👍 Like Vincent60030 (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:07, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List?

[edit]

A Wikipedia list usually has a short introduction followed by the list or lists proper. Often it is a companion to an article. However this page has a huge amount of information in text, about the history and future developments. Some of that isn't even in the main article Docklands Light Railway, other parts overlap. I think the information should be concentrated in that article. Bever (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bever Agreed - seems really odd. I'll ask on the DLR page. Turini2 (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Docklands Light Railway stations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Stations Listed

[edit]

Hi

As TfL & all other references list the total number of DLR stations (including Wikipedia) as 45, I'm unsure this page should have 47 where both Canning Town & Stratford are separated into Low & High Levels.

However, they're not different stations: They have shared entrances, unique platform references, same station codes. The only difference is they're stacked on top of each other. If the platforms were side-by-side they wouldn't be listed individually. Any differences worth noting should be either stated in the notes column, or more accurately put into each stations individual wiki page.

Dave F63 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of history text

[edit]

As per this discussion Talk:Docklands_Light_Railway#List_of_stations I have removed the history text, as this will better fit on the main DLR page.Turini2 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edits

[edit]

Hello @WMSR, I've reverted your good faith edits for a few reasons. Firstly, you should seek consensus before substantial changes like this. The article is of a similar specification to the List of London Underground stations article. Secondly, I think the interchange line names fails MOS:COLOUR. Thirdly, your edits removed information such as proposed/previous names. Happy to discuss Turini2 (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Turini2! Thank you for reaching out. I do not understand why this article (or List of London Underground stations lists names that were proposed, but not adopted. That information may belong in the articles for the individual stations, and I can see a case being made for former station names, but names that were only proposed certainly are not mentioned on station lists in any other city that I could find. If that information is only here, perhaps it could be copied to individual station articles and removed from this list. Furthermore, while the interchange line names might not be perfect, they are certainly an improvement in accessibility over tiny roundels of different colors. WMSR (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WMSR I guess we've gestures at London Transport nerds have always had those articles this way, and never really thought about former/proposed station names in either article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Maybe the best solution is that I'll raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport and gain some consensus on what to do. Agreed that the tiny roundels are also rubbish for accessibility, but again - that's a long standing usage across the UK rail network stations. Unfortunately, your proposed solution was no better - and would not match all other articles. Again, something to raise. Turini2 (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Docklands_Light_Railway_stations&oldid=1200694635"