Talk:List of London Underground stations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Formatting

I really don't like the one-cell-per-Line style. It fills the table up with white space and makes it hard to read. Colour should be used with extreme caution, of course. --rbrwr

Yes I agree the white space was unsatisfactory. I have moved from having the Lines in a column rather than in a row within a station (have got down only as far as Baker Street which is why table is still a mess, will sort this out pending your thoughts). Note that we only need if one-cell-per-Line if we want to keep the colour, otherwise we can revert to comma-separated. I personally like the lines identified with their colour, but perhaps it is too much. Possible problem : is it obvious which station goes with which lines in the 'columns' format? This may be alleviated with cell padding if necessary. Also the DLR colours are not satisfactory at the moment. Any thoughts? Pcb21 10:29 27 May 2003 (UTC)

I say get rid of the colour - it's forcing us into doing unwieldy things with multiple table cells, it's preventing us from making wiki links to the lines, its effects are not entirely predictable (eg for the colourblind, or people with old graphics cards) and even at the best of times it looks like a dog's dinner. It's more trouble than it's worth. --rbrwr

Ditch the colour AND the table. Use a list, with commas. -- Tarquin 20:01 27 May 2003 (UTC)

Why do you recommend that? A (perhaps borderless) table looks better than a list surely? Pcb21 20:44 27 May 2003 (UTC)

List-based version at User:Rbrwr/sandbox, for comparison. --rbrwr

That looks fine to me. I would be happy either way, I think. Pros for table : Easy to copy to non-wiki webpages (or is that a con!). Things line up. Pros for list: Removes the possibility of error in HTML as the wiki will make flawless code. Looks 'smaller' which has a kind of neatness to it. On a separate note, we have an enormous great list of red links on the left hand side. We could generate a page for each station, though necessarily the information would be limited to what could be inferred from the information in the table/list (e.g. lines, zones, ticket prices). It would have the feel of those American town/county pages we I don't actually like, may be better to wait and only do an article that people would write something special about (if they ever would). Anyhow thought I would mention it as a possibility. Finally there is an article London Underground Zone 1 which we could link to from all zone 1 stations in the list/table. Pcb21 21:09 27 May 2003 (UTC)

User:Rbrwr/sandbox now has Zone 1 links and the return of my favourite feature, nested lists for the "twins" at Edg Rd, Hammersmith and Shep Bush. --rbrwr

I copied from your sandbox to the article on the grounds that Tarquin is sure to prefer it, I now prefer it, and you probably prefer it! -- Pcb21 11:47 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Automatic generation of station articles

I wrote a little Python script to write a small article per tube station based on the information in this article. The script assumes that someone has copy-pasted the data from the list in the article to a text file. That text file is then parsed and a couple of hundred of text files produced. (Hard-coded variables are in the my_main() function). See the Acton Town tube station and Baker Street tube station for examples of its output. Obviously if want to use this script the output should be exactly as we want it before effort is spent putting them on the Wiki. Any thoughts? Pcb21 11:47 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Oops I uploaded the script thinking it could be downloaded, but that is not possible. Just me let me know if you would like a copy (unfortunately posting it here loses tabbing which is important in Python). Pcb21 11:50 28 May 2003 (UTC)

If you're going to put prices in to every station article, do you have a plan for changing them when the prices change? --rbrwr

To do this easily would require database access on about 7th January every year, I guess. Pcb21 07:39 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Naming

Ack! How about pipelinking (is that what it's called on Wikipedia?) so that they read e.g. Mornington Crescent? Gritchka

When I first generated the list in my sandbox, all I wanted was the links, and piping them would have been complicated, so I didn't bother. Now the page is more informational, it probably makes more sense to do so. I'll do it when I get home this evening (UK time) if nobody either (i) objects or (ii) does it first. --rbrwr

It's in my sandbox for comments the article; I've also hand-tweaked the lists of lines for tube-DLR interchanges. --rbrwr

Working out near-by stations

Copied from my talk page:

Hi! I see you are auto-generating articles about London tube stations. The (also auto-generated) skeleton articles for London places (of the form X, London, England for various values of X) have links to nearby tube stations. As I recall, some sort of Voronoi map and bounding circle algorithm was used to determine "nearby". You might want to use this info to add back-links to nearby places from the tube stations. The Anome 11:46 28 May 2003 (UTC)

You might also want to see http://www.cs.queensu.ca/home/daver/235/A3/a3JavaQuestion.html which points to a data file containing a topology map of the London Underground in a very simple format (scroll down to see) -- the data in which is (presumably) OK to use as a collection of facts with no creative expression or selection. (IANAL). Not sure if the data is up to date, but errors can easily be corrected by manual editing on the Wiki. The Anome 11:57 28 May 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the info. I will have a look at that and see what is possible. Also though, do you think the auto-generation of what is inevitably a stub is a good thing or should red links be left red until someone provides specific detail? Pcb21 11:58 28 May 2003 (UTC)

You might also want to note that

http://www.aozc64.dsl.pipex.com/315/tube.txt

has a list of lat/long GPS coordinates of tube stations, so you can generate the appropriate directions, for example, in the case of Oxford Circus tube station...

• North: Warren Street tube station
• South: Green Park tube station

The Anome 12:32 28 May 2003 (UTC)

for any parties to comment. Pcb21 08:18 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Branches

We should probably also start to distinguish between different branches of the same line, eg the two branches of the Northern line. -- The Anome 13:51, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

For reference: the official tube map is here: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/pdfdocs/colormap.pdf (.pdf format). -- The Anome 13:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Misleading 'xxx tube station' names

Hi.

I notice that a large number of stations have the name 'xxx tube station'. That is fine where the station really is a tube (only) station, but misleading where the station is a mixed (tube and sub-surface) one and plain wrong where it is a sub-surface station only.

I came across this when I happened on the Mansion House tube station article. As I know from personal experience that there is no tube station at Mansion House (it is on the Circle and District lines only) I assumed this was an isolated error and renamed the article to Mansion House underground station.

I've since noticed that there are many other stations suffering from the same problem, and also MRSC has apparently reverted my move. So I was wondering if there is a past history; how this rather strange error has crept in; and whether we need to do anything about it. --Chris j wood 10:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Obviously it's because "tube" has long since come to mean the whole of London Underground, not just the deep-level lines. Hence the headline London Underground - The Tube on the official LU website. the distinction between the two types of line is explained at London Underground#Background, but it really doesn't need to be dragged out beyond that. Trying to reserve "tube" for the deep-level lines anywhere other than among transport geeks is a lost cause. --rbrwr^± 11:58, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

MRSC also responded to this post with a post to my talk page as follows. -- Chris j wood 12:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Chris, There is a convention on wikipedia as follows:

• London Underground stations = xxx tube station
• National rail stations = xxx railway station
• DLR stations = xxx DLR station
• any combination of the above = xxx station

I see your logic that Mansion House has no "tube" lines only "subsurface" but London Underground consider the whole system "The Tube". Check out - www.thetube.com. The title is "London Underground. The Tube" so its not really an error to describe any station on the system as a tube station.

Hum. I see both your points, but I'm not entirely sure I agree. Tfl (and LUL) seem a bit ambivalent as to whether it is 'The Underground' or 'The Tube'.

• I'd actually quote back the "London Underground. The Tube" web page heading as evidence it is the Underground; the "London Underground" bit of that heading is in about 36point, whilst the "The Tube" bit is about 12point; very much implying that the proper name is "The Underground".
• The name of the arm of TfL that runs the Underground is "London Underground Ltd", not "London Tube Ltd", again implying that the proper name is "The Underground".
• The usage of the name "Tube Lines" as one of the franchises is also very much in line with usage of tube for the deep level lines.
• On the other hand the 'tab' type selector (the Tfl name is the "mode selector") on the top of the TfL website is "Tube", presumably for brevities sake.
• And there is the magazine or whatever called "The tube".

My perception of this is that LUL in its post-London-Transport, pre-Tfl guise made a deliberate effort to re-brand themselves as "The tube" to give themselves a better image during that period (whilst Ken & Co were lobbing weekly hand-grenades in their direction). Since TfL took over, it seems to me that they have backed away from that brand, and are moving back to being "The Underground". The "tube" bit of the website is still not quite in line with the rest of the Tfl website, I suspect it runs on different servers with different software and possibly different authors but I equally think it unlikely that will last.

I also reckon that most of the people I talk to (mostly not transport geeks) say 'I'll catch the Underground' rather than 'I'll catch the tube'. But that is a bit subjective and probably self selecting in terms of age and location, if nothing else.

So I suspect that with time the "Underground" brand will strengthen, and the "Tube" brand will go back to being a slightly geeky term for all but 4 lines of the Underground.

However, I also suspect that it might be a good idea to wait and see if this actually happens before venturing on a convention change and large scale rename. So I'll rest my case for now. -- Chris j wood 12:34, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Opening dates and table format

I've started adding the opening dates (where given in the article) for the station, and the name they opened as (where this is different). I've also started a mockup of what the table format would look like at User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. Thryduulf 11:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the opening dates from the list version again, it just makes the whole page look very messy - see this version. They work in a table layout though, so I'll keep adding them there. Thryduulf 12:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed - the bulleted list format is at its limits with the existing information, and the dates are too much, but it is all quite clear with the table format. I agree that the table is the way forward. I'm sure it is a lot of work, but I think it is worth it. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is quite a lot of work! I've done the B section now, but if it is just me doing the work it will take a good week. Please feel free to help! I've been finding the opening dates and opening names in the station articles. We can add any names we miss very easily later. Just copy the header from the B section, Wikipedia:Footnotes#Example with multiple references to the same footnote will show you how to do the footnotes (remember to change the letter for each letter though). Thryduulf 20:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I came here to say that this list should be "tablezied" :) Renata 14:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The table version is now complete at User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format - it took slightly longer than the week I guesed back in early december! I will replace the existing list format with the table this comming week unless anyone objects. I abandoned the earlier footnote system as it would have resulted in 20 consecutive backward links. I've replaced it with a much simpler but inferior system of just using ^{'''[[#Notes|[x]]]'''}, where x is the footnote number manually written in. If someone can figure out a way to improve this please implement it. Thryduulf 19:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations seems to be a redlink... --rbrwr^± 22:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Its actually at User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. I've corrected the link above as well. Thryduulf 22:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Table format now live

As advertised in the section above, I have now changed the live version to use the table format. The only comments I have received (on my user talk page) suggest that the table of contents doesn't need to be repeated in every section and the columns should be the same width in each section. I have not implemented either of these because (1) I disagree with the TOC suggestion and (2) because this would take a lot of work finding the optimum width and having spent over a month working on this I'm fed up with it and will leave that task to someone else if others desire it. Don't increase the overall width of the table from 73% though otherwise it conflicts with the pictures.

Please also check the new content for typos as I am very poor at spotting them in my own work! Thryduulf 13:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gosh - that was a lot of effort. Well done! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Mutliple lines for multiple lines

I've just had a look at the interlanguage links for this page, and what struck me with the German version is that that they have each line on a separate line in the table. In contrast this version they are all in a line. For example compare the entries for Baker Street:

Name der Station	Linie	Tarifzone	Typ
Baker Street	Bakerloo Line Circle Line Hammersmith & City Line Metropolitan Line Jubilee Line	1	U

Station	Line(s)	Zone(s)	Date opened [1]	Previous name(s)
Baker Street	Bakerloo, Circle, Hammersmith & City, Jubilee, Metropolitan	1	10 January 1863

What are peoples opinions on changing the English version to match the German in this regard? It would reduce the width taken by this column giving more space to others, although it would obviously make the table longer. Thryduulf 12:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Date

I am a bit confused. What tube stations opened in February 2006? Simply south 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

None, that is just the date the list is correct as of. Thryduulf 22:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of lines

I have reverted the sorting of the lines at some stations from order of opening back to alphabetical. Alphabetical makes sense immediately, but unless all the following are done sorting by the opening order doesn't:

• The sort order is explained at the top of the list
• A decision is made whether you choose the order the lines opened with their present names or the order they were built - e.g. the present H&C Line was the first to be built, but until the 1990s it was part of the Metropolitan Line. The Circle Line at this point uses the tracks built by the Met and used by the H&C.
• The change is made to all the stations with multiple lines. Thryduulf 09:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed my intention to change all of the stations where appropriate that but I was planning to do it in batches due to the large number of stations on the list.

I also have the intention to add notes regarding the stations that were formerly opened by one line but transferred to another. I think it is particularly important to remove the apparent discrepancies in some of the dates where operations have been transferred from one line to another particularly. I think it is particularly important to clarify the situation with the Piccadilly Line to Hounslow West and to South Harrow which were opened by the District Railway and the northern section of the Jubilee Line which was first served by the Metropolitan or Bakerloo Lines (in the case of Swiss Cottage and St. John's Wood) before being transferred to the Jubilee. Currently the table shows opening dates for these stations before the line shown as serving them was actually opened

Doing it in batches just makes it confusing. Also, I think you are in danger of adding too much information to an already full table. Look at the caption for the Dollis Hill picture (D section) to see how much space the information takes up. The information on transfers between lines is available in the articles on the stations and the lines and this table is primarily about the current situation.

If still want to do it then I suggest you create a mockup in your userspace and then see if there is consensus to implement it. That way you can also change the live version all at once. This method worked well when I converted the page from a bulleted list to a table (which took me, off and on, from December to February). Thryduulf 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

One thought final thought that I have is regarding the inclusion of main line station opening dates. I can see the relevance of showing opening dates for mainline stations which were later served by a tube line and even more importantly where the service was transferred such as the north of Highgate on the Northern Line or the east and west ends of the Central Line, but why do we show dates for main line stations such as Victoria and Euston where the tube service never used the main line tracks? This gives the un-informed reader misleading information and surely this should by avoided. DavidCane 12:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Although they never shared track, a single opening date for the station is misleading. Saying Euston station opened in 1837 gives the impression that it predated the earliest parts of the Underground, but saying it opened in 1907 implies that it wasn't built until 60 years after it was. I suspect we would also get comments about and "corrections" of the discrepancies in opening dates between the articles and this list. Perhaps different symbols could be used where the tracks are shared/taken over? Thryduulf 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have made added notes to the list to identify stations for which operations have changed between lines (see User:DavidCane/sandbox). Surprising how many different conditions need to be handled. Any comments?

I have used the # symbol to identify dates for main line stations which relate to tracks/routes not subsequently transferred to London Underground. I have also completed/corrected a few more dates of first service. I note the TOC does not include the Notes section. Now that this has expanded, it may be worth revising the template to include it. DavidCane 01:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

see my comments at User talk:DavidCane/sandbox (now moved below). Thryduulf 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fully awakre, but here are my initial thoughts

• I still dislike the order of the lines being the order in which they were opened. Even with the link to the notes section, it looks wrong. If people want to know the order the lines arrived at the station then they can read the station article.
• get rid of the bolding on the links to the notes section, particularly on the dagger symbols. Bold AND linked is just too dominating over the actual information. I'm not certain they need to be linked, but I'll see how they look unbolded.
• The different mainline opening date categories does actually work - I didn't think it would, which is the benefit of the effort you have put in.
• The long list of changes to lines makes it feel too complicated. The primary purpose of the table is a record of how things currently are, not as a detailed history. What would be better would be a note saying "lines and stations have changed over the years and that this table represents how things currently are". This would link to a Timeline of London Underground article, which would be a historical overview where details of what lines and stations changed.
• Check with the article, but I think the H&C's creation was nothing more than giving one branch of the Met a separate identity. If this is so and we have a note about it here, then change the prhasing to "separately identified" like the Circle line so it doesn't imply new services.
• It would be a good idea to change the numbered references to the new automatic style. I don't fully understand it yet though, and usign this as a test bed to get it right rather than testing on the main article would be good. This will be easier when things change, e.g. the note about Queensway will not be needed for very much longer, but we probably ought to have a note about the Waterloo and City Line being closed. Thryduulf 00:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thryduulf, many thanks for your comments,

• I have taken your point on the bolding of the links and it now looks neater without.
• Given that the lines were not listed in alaphabetical order or any other logical order when I started, I think that listing in opening order makes since. I have made it clear in note 1 what logic has been followed, so there shouldn't be any confusion and readers will hopefully find it interesting to see how an interchange station like Bond Street developed from a simple non-interchange stop.
• I agree that the long list of lettered notes does seem complicated but this just reflects the complex history of the Underground's development. I don't agree that users will see this list primarily as a record of how things currently stand. Of the five columns two already relate to historical matters - date opened and previous names. Many of the station articles are incomplete with regard to the history and I feel that this list is useful in giving an overview of a station's development.
• You are correct that the H&C was simply a rebranding of the previous Metropolitan Line - Hammersmith & City branch (mainly by giving the H&C its own colour) and I will change that note to make it clearer.
• I have looked into the new method of citing references in articles and although it does look nicer, a complication arises where more than one note refers to the same reference. The new method assumes by default that each citation will relate to a unique reference. Where more than one citation refers to the same reference the formating becomes more complicated that the current [[note]] system and generates a cumbersome list in the reference section. I have therefore left the referencing alone for the moment.
  

As Pica pica seems to be making rapid progress on the dates and name columns, I am going to merge this page back to the main article before they become get too far apart. I will copy these comments to the discussions page DavidCane 22:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I still disagree with the ordering of the lines by opening date. When I tabulated the bulleted list I changed them all to alphabetical order, even with your added note I think this is still preferable to the opening order. I think we need more opinions on this.
  • There should be either no space or a non-breaking space between an entry and associated note - with a breakable space entries like Eastcote and Shepherds Bush (H&C) there is a line break between the two - this looks very bad. Whether you choose a non-breaking space or no space (my preference), you need to be consistent and apply this to all entries. Thryduulf 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No spaces it is! I wasn't seeing this problem the way my display was set but I will change these now.DavidCane 00:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

DLR stations

Should the DLR stations even be mentioned here as, even though they interchange with the LU, share ticketing and appear on London Underground maps, they are not technically part of the London Underground. Maybe in the near future they should be moved to their own seperate article, as i have suggested in the DLR talk pages Simply south 12:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

From a passenger POV they are pretty integrated, and the introduction clearly explains that they are inlcuded. I don't see the point in a separate list. Thryduulf 13:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think the stations should be moved to a seperate list. Simply south 16:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The DLR is a part of Transport for London (TfL), but it is certainly not a part of LUL. They should be removed or the article renamed as Transport for London Stations. Hells teeth ... the North London Line is part of TfL now ... and for sure, that ain't never been a part of the Tube network!! ALECTRIC451 22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The current map of the London Underground shows Crossharbour (DLR) as being just that. The addition of "London Arena" is an unofficial (and/or a local) name. If we do have to have the DLR listed (I think NOT), then at least can we please get it right!!! ALECTRIC451 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The station was officially called "Crossharbour & London Arena" for many years - see File:CrossharbourDLR.jpg for a picture - but reverted the name when the London Arena was demolished. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Extra column query

Do you think there should be an extra column showing which settlement (not inc london as a whole), for example, Knightsbridge tube sttion is located in Brompton, Marble Arch is near to Mayfair\Paddington, Canada Water is in Rotherhithe...?

Or should this be left to the station articles?

Simply south 09:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There really isn't enough space for another column. The information is in the infobox in all the articles so it is easy to find. What might be useful though is a List of London Underground stations by borough, perhaps orderd like:

Rotherhithe

• Canda Water
• Rotherhithe

Borough 2

• station X
• station Y

The list format can contain a couple of other bits of information - perhaps just the line and zone? Thryduulf 10:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea but be careful, Rotherhithe is not a borough. Only the present London boroughs and the City should be used. On reflection, I don't think it's needed. Most stations are named after their locality and can be found in a London A-Z. --Pica pica 00:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)--

I think that just shows my level of knowledge about London geography! Thryduulf 00:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Split

Well okay, not several different articles. I just think that the DLR stations and the London Underground stations should be seperate. They are not the same system. Simply south 16:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that there are a number of reasons why the DLR should remain as part of the current list:

1. Most people's perception of what constitutes the London Underground is based on the tube map. This shows the DLR as if it was one of the tube lines without explanation of its separate status. Most wikipedia users will, therefore, expect to find the DLR stations in the List of London Underground stations and they should remain here. I realise that the tube map also shows the North London Line which isn't part of the tube and isn't included in the list but this line is clearly identified as a National Rail service using the national rail symbol.
2. Separate lists for the the tube and the DLR will mean an additional list to be maintained. Seven of the current thirty-eight DLR stations are also served by tube stations so they would need to stay on the list of tube stations anyway and to include some but not the others may lead to confusion.
3. The two operations are fairly well intergrated (both are under the control of TfL for example) and listing them separately may break the apparent link between them.

It may be more appropriate to retarget the existing List of Docklands Light Railway stations to redirect to the List of London Underground stations and create a new List of DLR stations to do the same. An additional statement here and in the "see also" section of List of London railway stations may be needed to clarify that DLR stations and Underground stations are different.

Alternatively, may be, this article needs to be renamed to List of Transport for London stations which cover both tube and DLR and also the national rail lines TfL is due to take over at the end of 2007. DavidCane 23:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Or how about renaming the current article to something like List of London Underground and DLR stations? Simply south 15:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DavidCane that a split wouldn't be beneficial. I've got no strong feelings either way about the renaming, but I don't see a problem with the current name. Thryduulf 02:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see no obvious benefit to the article being split. MRSC 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing reason

I'm going to change my reasoning. How about splitting it because the article is too long? With A to L on one page and M to Z on another. It is right now showing to be too long at over 60kb. Simply south 16:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• That seems like a good idea, although A-K and L-Z is probably a better split point (I estimated this from the index to stations on the back of the June 2006 3-fold tube map. I then scrolled to the point on the page that was approximately midway between the top of the page and the top of the notes section and ended up with the two-station "I" section on the screen. The notes section should be split with separate numbering for the notes on each page where apropriate. Thryduulf 17:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the fact that the list is a featured list (one of only three on transport related subjects) is a very good reason not to split it. Breaking the list into two parts destroys the utility of having the list in the first place and is unencyclopaedic. Splitting on an alaphabetical basis means that neighbouring stations such as East Acton and North Acton or Clapham North and Oval would be listed in different articles. A reader wanting to follow the development of a line would have to switch back and forward between the two parts causing, I would expect, much frustration.

The limit on article size is guidance not a proscription and relates to readable prose articles not lists (see Wikipedia:Article size#Readability issues). As the current article is 67kb long, both of the sub-articles will be greater than the 32kb guidance anyway and will still show the warning message when editing. I've done a quick check and assuming that the introduction, notes, see also and references sections are repeated in each sub-article, which they would need to be, A-K comes to 34kb and L-Z to 37kb (more than the original due to duplication). There therefore seems little point in breaking the current article apart. DavidCane 02:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As more than a week has passed without any further discussion on this topic. I am now going to remove the banner from the article. DavidCane 02:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I use the list regularly and I would find it difficult if it were split. Please avoid doing so, if at all possible. IceDragon64 (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sortable tables

As of two days ago, tables on Wikipedia can now be sortable (see User:Thryduulf/List of rail accidents for an example), by adding "sortable" to the table class. If this page was one single table then I wouldn't hesitate to add it - sorting by zone for example could be useful. However I'm not certain that being able to sort the individual letter tables brings much benefit - what are other people's thoughts on this? Thryduulf 09:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I came across this the other day at Historical rankings of United States Presidents. In principle, the ability to sort a table is a great idea; however the data in the current list is not arranged in a manner that would produce anything very useful if most of the columns were resorted. Stations which are served by more than one line would sort oddly (the sort would be on the first line only). A similar problem would occur for stations with more than one opening date.

There are solutions - for instance, the first problem could be overcome by replacing the current lines column by a series of columns, one for each line, with a tick or other symbol indicating those lines serving each station. The second problem could be overcome by having columns for the dates first opened by tube, by mainline, by mainline on other route and by DLR; however, both of these solutions would produce a table much larger than the current with many empty cells.

Sorting on Zone might be useful but the Zones articles already include lists of the stations in the zone. The articles for Zones 1, 5, 6 and A-D include tables which might well benefit from being sortable. The articles for Zones 2, 3 and 4 should be modified to follow this format. DavidCane 12:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Lancaster Gate

I've just noticed that this is still shown as closed here, despite reoppening over a month ago. I don't have the time now, but someone should remove the note about it being closed from its entry and the notes section and renumber the following notes accordingly. Thryduulf 10:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done--DavidCane 10:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Classification

I am gob-smacked that this article has achieved the highest rating on Wikipedia. It has not a single citation!!! What's going on?? Can someone please explain this to me. ALECTRIC451 22:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Aldgate East

How can this be a single station, when it mentions that it was re-sited!? Surely it is the re-sited station, and the previous station (on a different site) is a disused station.ALECTRIC451 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Clive's Undeground Lines Guide, the platforms at Aldgate East station were moved 160 m eastwards so, technically, this is correct.

There is a bit of an inconsistency at the moment in the way that articles for "moved" stations have been handled. Aldgate East (like Osterley, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Northfields, South Harrow, Earl's Court, Hillingdon and Uxbridge which have all also been moved to a new location) has a single article covering the history of both stations but others such as Park Royal & Twyford Abbey/Park Royal or Tower of London/Mark Lane/Tower Hill have separate articles.

Arguably, the original station should have at least a short article of its own but as the station name remained the same the Station list should, in my view, continue to show the original opening date with the note about the relocation. --DavidCane 23:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Mile End

The thumbnail image claims (without any citation) that it is "the only below-ground station to offer a cross-platform interchange between deep tube and subsurface lines."

What about Finsbury Park where the Victoria Line (deep-tube) and Piccadilly Lines (part deep-tube, part subsurface) meet. ALECTRIC451 23:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Piccadilly Line is considered a deep tube line (notwithstanding that it also runs on the surface in some places), it is not a sub-surface line like the Hammersmith & City, Metropolitan, District, Circle or East London. The distinction between sub-surface and tube lines is the manner in which the tunnels were constructed. Tube tunnels are bored through the ground using a tunnelling shield whereas sub-surface tunnels are constructed by the "cut and cover" method as a trench which is then roofed over. The different construction methods mean that tube tunnels are generally smaller than sub-surface lines and the trains themselves are sized accordingly. There is one section of the Piccadilly Line that was constructed by the cut and cover method, between Hounslow West and Hatton Cross when the Heathrow extension was constructed in the 1970s but this does not make the line sub-surface.

That said, the statement regarding Mile End could perhaps be improved upon. The intention of the writer was to indicate that it is the only station in tunnel which has such an interchange. There are other stations such as Barons Court and Hammersmith where there is a cross platform interchange between the two types of line (District and Piccadilly) which is below ground level but these are in cuttings in the open air. --DavidCane 23:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Under construction

I've made a table of stations that are going to be added to the Tube/DLR network in the near future:

Station	Line(s)	Zone(s)	Expected opening date
Abbey Road	DLR (Stratford International branch)	3	2010
Heathrow Terminal 5	Piccadilly	6	March 2008
Star Lane	DLR (Stratford International branch)	3	2010
Stratford High Street	DLR (Stratford International branch)	3	2010
Stratford International	DLR (Stratford International branch)	3	2010
Wood Lane	Hammersmith & City	2	2008
Woolwich Arsenal	DLR (London City Airport branch)	6	2009

I've only included stations that are no doubt going to be built or are under construction already, so this isn't speculative information. I was going to add it to this page, but I'm not sure it fits. Maybe a new page? --82.45.163.4 12:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This is probably best as a separate article which could be linked from the opening paragraph of this articel and with the stations being migrated into this article as they are opened. I suggest the article be named List of future London Underground stations. --DavidCane 23:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree as i have said before that not all stations are part of the LU. Simply south 11:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rethink of image positioning needed

The current placement of the images means that the final column of the table is obscured at resolutions less than approximately 1200 pixels wide (note that 1024x768 is the most common resolution, followed by 800x600). The arrangement also means that there are no pictures below Deptford Bridge.

The table was narrower when I first converted it to that format, and I specified a width for it purposefully so it and the pictures would not overlap. This was achievable as the previous names and usage information was not included. The current format doesn't work and the pictures appear to be there just because we can have some pictures.

If we want to include pictures, and I think we should, then we need to either go back to a narrower table format, or include the pictures as part of the table. I believe we have pictures for most stations (and I'm currently in a position to be able to take photos we need), so they could be added (obviously at smaller resolutions and without captions) as another column. I guess that images 100px wide would fit and would not be too small in most cases. We might need to choose other images in some cases though.

I don't have time to do a mock-up now, but something needs to be done. Thryduulf (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I am guessing you're not using Internet Explorer because I am and there's no problems for me at 1024x768. I think inclusion of the pictures is a better idea than narrowing the table.--Crzycheetah 07:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I'm using Firefox on linux so I can't even test in IE. With any luck I'll be able to create a mockup of part of the table with the images included in the next couple of days, unless I'm beaten to it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried it with both Firefox (version 2.0.0.12) and IE (version 7.0.6000.16609) running on Vista at various resolutions including 1024 x 768 and 800 x 600 but can't reproduce any image overlap problems, so it may be the linux version of Firefox. I think we should keep the images but I'm not sure how we overcome the issue. --DavidCane (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, 7 months is more than a few days, but I have now started a proposed version showing images as part of the table. See User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format, where I've done all the stations staring with A, B and C. Comments and tweaks more than welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks great and I would support it apart from one problem. The article as it stands is currently 88,574 bytes, which is quite large for a wikipedia article. If the necessary wikicode were added to insert images for all of the the stations, I estimate it would add about 30-40 characters for each image x 307 stations = approx. 9,200 to 12,300 characters taking the article to around 100,000 bytes. This is just the size of the article code but with 307 images in the article the load time would be considerable. --DavidCane (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of "tube" in names of LU stations on Wikipedia

I should like to question the use of the word "tube" in names of LU stations on Wikipedia. As far as I know there is no station that has the word "tube" as part of its name, yet the article names for LU stations on Wikipedia are mostly of the format 'Name tube station'. For an example see Ealing Common station. "Tube" and "tube station" are colloquialisms. It would be better to simply, and more correctly, use just the name and the word "station". -- Jonathan 82.152.205.196 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Tube" is a long-standing and well recognised descriptive term for the London Underground whereas Underground could be taken to mean that the station is just below the surface. The issue was discussed previously here and, in more detail, here. --DavidCane (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Fresh split proposal\rename

This list includes both London Underground and Docklands Light Railway stations and the DLR is not part of the London Underground. If saying for integration purposes, then this list should also include all London Overground stations as well. That however would make the whole title more misleading than it currently is. Therefore i propose that either:

1. All DLR station information be merged with List of Docklands Light Railway stations.
2. Merge in London Overground stations as well as DLR and rename the list
3. Simply rename the list and merge in the DLR list.

Simply south (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed before on this very page. See Talk:List_of_London_Underground_stations#Split. My feeling is Keep. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

London Underground is simply a part of Transport For London. As Ken Livingstone rightly siad, can we have single transport system for London. To this end, surely we ought to have a single "List of "Transport for London stations".Olana North (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly would you rename the list to? The question should be about what the users find most useful. If we cans ee that people would expect to come here and find the DLR here, then it might as well be here. Be patient, everybody, although these things have ben discussed before, I can see where SS is coming from. IceDragon64 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see the points of those arguing for split, but in the end it would just cause confusion. Perhaps a name change, but IMO any station on the standard tube map, i.e. underground, overground and DLR should be on the same list. Grunners (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

How about "List of Transport for London stations" which is in fact what you mean. You could then merge in the Croydon Tramlink whilst you are about it. Olana North (talk) 14:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As Sunil060902 points out above, splitting the DLR out of the list was discussed in August 2006 (I can't believe it was two years ago). The reasons for not splitting then are still current now. I also proposed the alternative name then and would be happy for it to be renamed but I don't feel the tramlink stops should be added.--DavidCane (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been no further comments for a month so I'm going to remove the tag.--DavidCane (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Platform level" column

I have removed the platform level column that was added to the list as it was badly formatted and was not complete. I don't feel that the information contained in the column is of great importance either. This article is a Featured List so, if a large change like this is going to be made, it needs to be composed off-line in a sandbox before being added to the article in one go.--DavidCane (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Do the, apparently proliferating, pictures of platform roofs, edgings and so on improve this article, no matter how happy they make "enthusiasts"? Anyone looking for information now has to scroll past a long column of snaps to get to the list. It seems that there are many people who combine fascination by trains with compulsion to photograph them but ought not their pictures be either in the station articles (and then only of a very few important features such as the station building) or in separate "Photos of station" articles or in a separate Wikithing?--SilasW (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? In Firefox the list of photos (I think one per letter of the alphabet) is much shorter than the actual column list. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Silas, perhaps you need to update your browser? The photos should appear in a column alongside the table, and as Sunil says, is actually much shorter than the table itself. Grunners (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem only seems to occur with a display resolution where the screen is less than 768 pixels wide or where the display uses a very large font setting. There doesn't seem to be much that can be done about this, other than increase the display resolution or reduce the size of the on-screen font. --DavidCane (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

My browser is a fairly recent. The screen is wider than 768 pxls and there is no sign of a large font setting. Perhaps it was my clichéed square electron stuck in the wire but, despite WP's "edit how you fancy", ought not the pictures be in the stations' articles and not in the list? There's a similar over-addition to the list of London bus routes where a column of performance statistics links was tacked on.--SilasW (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sortable lists not working properly?

Is it just me or does the sortable column 'usage' not work properly? If you try setting it to desending order it puts leyton at the top when it should be Kings Cross-St. Pancras. It looks to me like its trying to sort it alphebetically rather than numerically. Williams119 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's arranging them 'alphabetically', if that term can be applied to numbers! Is there a way round this, or is it just how wikipedia is programmed? Grunners (talk) 19:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look on the help page for sortable tables, see if that can shed some light on the problem. Williams119 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thorough overhaul needed

As an encyclopedia article for reading this is pretty poor. Even the title is not correct for it is a list of LU and DLR stations and so misleads whoever looks for DLR stations.

The limit of "London" might need definition (though a correct title would obviate that) but the listing of the parts of the country in which the stations are is unnecessary except as a sop to parochial pride.

The cobbled together nature of the article is shown by clear overlinking.

As it is a list by title and opening definition the article doe not need the tautology of "...following table lists..."

"Located" is a beloved padding. The section "Stations" (surely unnecessary since the article is a list of stations where a succinct introduction would suffice) says "the year in which the station was opened" (that displays the padder's intolerance of the active, contrary to WP's preference for it) while the quickest glance shows that full space-consuming dates are given.

After the introductory comments it is necessary to scroll past a long set of snaps of stations which, if of benefit, should be in each station's article rather than here. If the pictures have such a connective function as demonstrating architectural styles they should be in their own well sourced article. There is never much point in having a picture of a typical underground station platform unless there is an annotated distinguishing feature ("Wellers Pond where uniquely the light bulbs have left-hand threads"). The captions to each picture give random diverse titbits of information.

The variance in vertical space allotted to each station suggests that the article is an unorganised ragbag; that lengthy date and renaming details contribute to the hodge-podge shows that considered reorganisation is needed. For example dates here might be just years as the introduction claims, with months and days confined to the station articles, but were the date column to be widened slightly the full dates would fit and the physical length of the article would be mightily reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilasW (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 January 2009

Firstly, please bear in mind that this is a featured list which has been reviewed and passed in the format in which it is currently presented. Taking your comments in turn:

• This is a list not an article and the requirements for readability of lists are different to articles. For example, it is not expected to be presented in prose style but it does require a lead section.
• The title of the list has been discussed a couple of times previously above (sometimes in conjunction with discussions on splitting the article into parts):
  • Split
  • Fresh split proposal\rename

I recognise that there is a discrepancy between the title and the contents and previously I proposed the alternative of List of Transport for London Stations. Simply south suggested List of London Underground and DLR stations. There was no strong opinion given to changing the name so it stayed is it is.

• As you say, "London" on its own would not sufficiently describe the geographical spread of the system - hence the definition given:

primarily within the Greater London area and north of the River Thames. The majority of the stations are located in the City of London or one of twenty-seven London boroughs. Stations at the north-eastern end of the Central line are located in the Epping Forest district of Essex and at the north-western end of the Metropolitan line are located in the Three Rivers and Watford districts of Hertfordshire and the Chiltern district of Buckinghamshire.

This is not for any "sop to parochial pride" but to give an uninformed reader an understanding of the areas served and to be accurate.

• The list has not be "cobbled together". In what way is the article over-linked?
  • It is good practice to link definitions unless they are universally known.
  • If you mean the linking of each station article, then that is also standard and good practice to link to the releavant article.
  • If you mean the linking of line names given against each station, then that is also standard and good practice to save a reader having to back track through the list to find the first occurrence of the link. It is also worth noting that this is a sortable table and the order of stations can be changed by sorting on the columns so the first link may not be first after sorting.
• Use of "...following table lists..." is partially redundant; however, good practice requires the contents of the list to be introduced, so "This list gives the name of each station..." will do.
• "Located" is redundant in the lead but necessary for good English in the introduction to the list, although it's hardly "beloved padding".
• The Stations section heading is necessary to separate the content from the lead and to cause the table of contents to appear in the correct place.
• "the year in which the station was opened" is slightly incorrect and will be changed to date of opening. Don't understand your meaning of "padders intolerance of the active, contrary to WP's preference for it" - opening dates are of great interest to some people and to remove them would diminish the list.
• As previously discussed, the collection of photographs is formatted to appear to the right of the table and only appears ahead of it if a very narrow screen is used. Personally, I would have no problem with them being removed, but I know that other editors like them.
• The variance in the height of the rows is simply down to the amount of content in the deepest cell in each row. The information is not an "unorganised ragbag" but is thorough and complete. The amount of information in a row is directly related to the amount of "history" that needs to be accommodated not because some stations have bits missing:
  • For a station which has had the same name since opening, is served by just one line and has never been extended by the opening of a new line through it, a single line of text will usually be all that is required.
  • For a station which has been renamed (sometimes several times), has had additional lines built through it or which is also served by National Rail or DLR routes additional information is required which takes up more space.
• Full dates are provided for completeness. Again, it is only on very narrow screen widths or with large fonts that the dates wrap in the column.

--DavidCane (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as there is now the separate list of DLR stations, wouldn't it make sense to remove them from here instead of having them twice? Or even merging them with the DLR list? Simply south not SS, sorry 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Overground, DLR, Tramlink

On the current featured list removal discussion the suggestion has been made again that DLR stations should be split from this list given that a separate List of DLR stations exists. Another suggestion has been made that this list should include London Overground stations as well as the Underground and DLR. A third suggestion is that there should be a list for all Transport for London stations - Underground, Overground, DLR and Tramlink.

As I see it, everyone agrees that this list should include London Underground stations, and nobody is suggesting that Tramlink stations are included unless the Overground and DLR also are. If so, the options are:

1. List London Underground and DLR stations (as now)
2. List London Underground stations only
3. List London Underground and Overground stations
4. List London Underground, Overground and DLR stations
5. List London Underground, Overground, DLR and Tramlink stations

All of these options could be duplicated with the addition of Crossrail (e.g LU + Crossrail, LU + DLR + Overground + Crossrail, etc).

A defined scope needs to be defined for whatever is chosen, especially if "Transport for London" is used in any way. For example is are all of these TfL stations:

• one that is owned, managed and served by TfL service(s) (e.g Bank)
• one that is managed and served by TfL service(s) but owned by Network Rail (e.g. Harrow and Wealdstone)
• one that is served by TfL service(s) but owned and managed by NR/an NR franchise (e.g. Wimbledon)
• one that is partly owned, managed and served by TfL but partly owned, managed and served by NR/an NR franchise (e.g. Limehouse)
• one that is owned and managed by one party, partly served by TfL and partly served by a TOC (e.g. Heathrow T5)
• one that is partly owned and managed by TfL, partly owned and managed by NR with both parts served by TfL (e.g. Euston)

I think they all should be included on all lists that include the mode(s) that serve them, but this will have to be defined. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think 1 or 4 above, but don't think that Tramlink should be included. With regard to scope, I think that TfL stations would be most usefully defined as any station with a TfL service whatever ownership status the stations have.--DavidCane (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on both parts. I was rather hoping for some more opinions though, especially from Simply South and others who have commented on the featured list discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a London Transport Wiki where all the finer details that are unsuitable for WP can be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.132.41 (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

dates and table width

I've just looked at this list for the first time in a month or so, and while I think many of the changes are good, I have to say that the removal of much of the date information is a significant step backwards in terms of the usefulness of the article.

I can see the logic in not showing the dates when mainline services started if the services never became TfL services, however this does now imply that stations did not exist before LU services started, for example Paddington is shown as opening in 1863 when trains actually started serving it in 1838 and the present building dates from 1854.

The main disadvantage to the current layout though is that for stations with LU and DLR services there is no way to tell if they opened on the same date or, if they didn't, which came first and when the later one started. The old three column layout of "mainline start", "Underground start" and "DLR start" was much better in terms of volume and clarity of information.

Table width is an issue, but this could be countered by abbreviating the column titles and/or splitting them over two rows:

Date opened
Mainline	U'ground	DLR

Transfer of mainline services to LU services should be handled by a note.

Another way of significantly reducing the table width is by abbreviating the line names, for example I'd have something like:

Station	Line(s)[*]	Local Authority	Zone(s)	Opened	Mainline opened	Other name(s)
King's Cross St. Pancras	M [b] N P Ci V H	Camden	1	10 January 1863 Metropolitan line resited 9 March 1941		King's Cross (Metropolitan line): 1863–1925 King's Cross & St. Pancras (Metropolitan line): 1925–33 King's Cross (Piccadilly line): 1906–27 King's Cross for St. Pancras (Piccadilly line): 1927–33 King's Cross for St. Pancras {Northern line}: 1907–33	67.07

Obviously the line templates need work (I've run out of time atm), and would probably be better using a parameter to get the lines rather than separate templates (I don't know how), but you get the concept. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to show all dates in the single column and use notes to explain the different dates. All dates will be shown.—Chris! _ct 19:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No! That's exactly how it was before I started the reformatting. Sortable dates were recommended in the FAL review, which is why I have changed the table to its current format. The current format has the very great benefit of allowing the stations to be sorted by date which would be lost if multiple dates are included in a single cell.--DavidCane (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not advocating putting them into one cell, see the first mockup above. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

References

Woodside Park

I have reverted the edit to the previous name column for Woodside Park. The name shown, "Torrington Park, Woodside", is as listed in the Cyril M Harris book "What's in a name?" which gives the origins and former names of London Underground stations. As this book has been around since the 1970s and is in its fourth edition, it is likely that any errors will have been identified by now.

Be careful when using maps for sourcing this sort of information, especially for early station names as these were often treated in a more relaxed way than today with partial names, and variations often being used. Maps are also seldom perfectly up to date as it takes time to produce them and resurveys only occur at intervals, meaning that changes can take time to appear. --DavidCane (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, OK I will not revert - yet - but the Joe Brown atlas "London Railway Atlas" (2007 edition) does show a brief naming chronology for every station in the index section (ie. not on the map pages itself). Unfortunately I don't have "London's Local Railways" by Alan Jackson at hand, but I will be able to check the Edgware, Highgate and London Railway section tonight. There is sufficient history there I think. I won't say I don't trust Harris, but bear in mind the station did not open as an Underground station. I guess a photo showing the original 1872 signage would be the clincher!

So at the moment we have:

• Cyril Harris - "Torrington Park, Woodside"
• English Heritage website: ""Torrington Park, Woodside" [1]
• This obscure section of the BBC website has "Torrington Park, Woodside" [2]
• Joe Brown - "Torrington Park" AND "Torrington Park Woodside" plus "Woodside Park for North Finchley", in that order
• Colonel Cobb - "Torrington Park"
• Also found this picture of the signal box online at Signalbox.org: they reckon "Torrington Park" [3]
• London Borough of Barnet website: "Torrington Park" [4]

with need to check

• Alan Jackson - TBC

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 11:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

David, Looks like I was mistaken about the Joe Brown atlas. Apparently, in reverse chronological order, the previous names were:

• Woodside Park for North Finchley
• Torrington Park, Woodside
• Torrington Park

Make of that what you will. Anyway, Alan Jackson in "London's Local Railways" says: "Northwards from Finchley, the double track to Barnet was opened on 1st April 1872 through stations called Torrington Park Woodside and Totteridge". Further down the page he says: "A new villa colony near Torrington Park Woodside, caused this station to be renamed Woodside Park for North Finchley in the public timetable for 1st May 1882". Anyway it seems "Woodside" was used from the outset, so I have no case against your revert (although is there a comma before Woodside??). But apparently, Jackson goes on to say that the name was expanded to "Woodside Park and North Finchley for the Woodside Garden Suburb" c. 1931, when that housing development was laid out, and only adopted its present title of plain "Woodside Park" upon transfer to the Northern line in 1940.

So to recap, in reverse chronological order, Jackson reckons:

• "Woodside Park" from 1940
• "Woodside Park and North Finchley for the Woodside Garden Suburb" c.1931-1940
• "Woodside Park for North Finchley" 1882-c.1931
• "Torrington Park Woodside" or "Torrington Park, Woodside" 1872-1882

best, Sunil060902 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As the Meerkat would say, "Simples". Interestingly, OS maps from the 1880s to the 1920s just show it as an unelaborated "Woodside Park" - they obviously weren't too bothered to include the longer name. Could you provide a citation for the Alan Jackson book so that can be added to the list?

Did you mean provide it here? Certainly: Jackson, Alan A.; London's Local Railways (second edition, 1999); Capital Transport; ISBN 978-1854142092. The EH&LR section is pp.301-313. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)