Jump to content

Talk:London Underground/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Article feedback

In the hope of some feedback from readers I have experimentally enabled Article Feedback on this article, but I understand from Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#New_version_of_Article_Feedback that this is currently disabled and a new version is to be enabled in a week or so. I plan to run this for 2-3 weeks and then post the comments and an analysis here. I have a copy of Ovenden, Mark (27 February 2013). London Underground by Design. Penguin Books. ISBN 978-1-84614-417-2 waiting for me at the library, to allow for some work to be done on the Design and the arts section. I will then open a peer review in about 4 weeks. Edgepedia (talk) 13:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Original roundel

Is the Ealing Broadway roundel definitely the original design? See this edit; the Clarke book that I used assigns Type 1/2(B) to one of the roundels at Ealing Broadway. Here, (B) means blue mouldings (as opposed to green, red, etc.) and 1/2 is the second variant of the earliest type. (Clarke 2007, p. 59) --Redrose64 (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I was being a little careless. The UERL tubes were first, with an inch wide red painted wooden frame, and the District followed and these were on a large white enamelled metal sheet and with blue frames. Edgepedia (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

London Underground lines table

While I'm thinking that three dates are too much for this overview article (this table is also in London Underground infrastructure), I'm also having problems with some of the dates listed

  • Central line — this was known the Central London until 1937
  • Circle line — Horseshoe inner circle services started in 1871, the line became a loop in 1884 and a spiral in 2009. The name certainly dates from before 1949 - if Central London is close enough to Central for that date to be used then surely inner circle is close enough? Also the line was called the 'Circle' in a 1934 poster (Ovenden, 2013 p. 181) and Circle line an 1936 in-car line diagram. (Ovenden, 2013 p. 220)
  • Circle and Hammersmith & City lines use the GWR line between Paddington and Westborne Park. Most of this opened in 1838, according the Great Western Railway article.
  • District line uses about 1km of the London,_Tilbury_and_Southend_Railway between Barking and Barking East Junction that opened in 1852.
  • Hammersmith & City Railway services started in 1864, using joint GWR and Metropolitan Railway stock. The name is a lot older than 1988.

Edgepedia (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with the above; however, the GWR line between Paddington and Westbourne Park, and the LTSR lines near Barking are fairly short.
In John R. Day's "The Story of London's Underground" (most editions), there's a photo of a steam loco bearing a headboard "INNER CIRCLE". It's dated 1902, but even without that, such a photo cannot be any later than July 1905, which is when the Inner Circle became fully electrified. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Using the trusty Joe Brown "London Railway Atlas" my best guesses for the original building dates of ex-Main lines:
  • Bakerloo line - Queen's Park to Harrow & Wealdstone - it runs parallel to the LNWR main line (1837), but the actual LU route has always been segregated (especially near Harlesden!) and was laid out in 1912-1915.
  • Central line - just south of Leyton to just south of Loughton - built by GER 1856 - same alignment. (ie. no extra tracks were built)
  • District line - Campbell Road junction (as was) ie. near Bromley-by-Bow to Barking - built by LTS 1858, segregated in 1902, so LU no longer using the original tracks. Barking section in any case is from 1854, not 1852.
  • Hammersmith & City - LU now segregated from the main line, so no longer using most of the 1854 alignment (not 1838 - the original GWR Paddington station was to the north of the current main line alignment). The dive-under near Westbourne Park was built in 1878.
  • Jubilee line - OK, this one is not obvious. Between Canning Town and Stratford it was originally twin track in 1846, but I think the DLR (ex-North London Line) actually uses the original eastern alignment. The Jubilee uses a newer western alignment which was basically the original alignment quadrupled "in stages between 1860 and 1892" per Brown. Make of that what you will.
  • Northern line - East Finchley to Mill Hill East opened 1867 by the GNR, Finchley Central to High Barnet in 1872.
So, I propose we can safely say that Leyton to Loughton is the oldest part of the current LU system.
best, Sunil060902 (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the note Sunil. Just a quick reply before I catch a plane ... According to the London Paddington station article the original terminus was 'on the west side of Bishop's Bridge Road'; from google maps this is at the end of the current platforms.[1] I don't have the access to the book at the moment, but I believe when the H&CR opened there were only two tracks between Bishop's Road and the junction at Westborne Park, and these were subsquently widened to four, then six tracks. Possibility the argument boils down to whether to refer to a 'line' that has been widened (possibly by expanding on both sides) or 'tracks' that have stayed in the same place. If anyone else thinks the claim for this is dodgy, we could delete the sentence about the H&C and change railway for tracks in the following sentence. Edgepedia (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I'd better get my response in quick before you take off! According to Brown, the old 1838 building was separate from the current 1854 structure - but he may be just shifting it very slightly for clarity, assuming you're right? There are two tracks shown going into the 1838 building. It is a VERY detailed atlas as it tries to be a track diagram too! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
OH forgot - the 1838 building is shown as being the goods yard between 1854 and 1975. Sunil060902 (talk) 20:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Platforms 1-8 of the present Paddington station are Brunel's 1854 station. Platforms 9 up were added later; those presently numbered 13-16 were, for a long time, a separate station known as Bishop's Road, then Paddington Suburban. The pre-1854 station was to the west of the bridge, and on the north side of the current line. I suggest a careful examination of old large-scale Ordnance Survey maps; for most of London, there are two, three or even four different editions available - different dates and scales. If you ignore the one-inch maps, these show individual railway tracks. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, http://www.old-maps.co.uk is extremely useful, an 1869 map clearly shows the 1838 structure as being completely separate from the Met's Bishop Road and the new GWR station (1854). So the H&C followed what was the 1854 alignment, albeit until the construction of the 1878 dive-under near Westbourne. Looks like Royal Oak was served by the GWR, as late as 1934, per Brown. It is a little cluttered, but looks as if the 1869 map shows side platforms at Royal Oak, not shown in his atlas. best Sunil060902 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - http://www.old-maps.co.uk Sunil060902 (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm home with jag-lag and been looking at my books. The history of the approaches to Paddington is complex, and in 1867 tracks for the H&C were built south of the main line, crossing it at Westborne Bridge (just before Paddington). This was all rearranged when the subway was built. Edgepedia (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll leave copyedit the list for today, but have you sources for the current service patterns? Thanks. Edgepedia (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
The H&C route between Bishop's Road and Westbourne Park originally crossed the main line on the flat. The subway was built as part of the general widening between Padd and West Drayton which was authorised in 1873 and opened in stages down to November 1878; the subway itself was brought into use on 12 May 1878 (135 years ago this Sunday). Platforms 13-16 at Paddington, i.e. the old Bishops Road station, were all through platforms and seem to have been used indiscriminately by through H&C services and terminating Western Region locals until 1967 when something like the present layout was adopted; the track at platform 13 was later shortened a second time in order to fit in the walkway from platform 12, which was built some time between 1992 and 1995.
MacDermot gives opening dates of the GWR lines as follows: Paddington (Old Station) - Maidenhead (Old Station) 4 June 1838 (22 miles 43 chains); Paddington New Station, Departure Side 16 January 1854 (20 chains); Paddington New Station, Arrival Side 29 May 1854; Metropolitan Railway, Bishop's Road-Farringdon Street 10 January 1863; Hammersmith & City Railway (Joint with Metropolitan) Green Lane Junction (Westbourne Park)-Hammersmith 13 June 1864 (2 miles 38 chains). MacDermot does describe how the junction at Paddington was begun first, and completed in August 1860, being used for spoil trains from the Met running via Bishops Road, that station being built as part of the same scheme. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I have contradictory sources about the H&C between Bishop's Road and Green Lane Junction. Jackson p. 40 (ISBN 0-7153-8839-8) says two additional tracks opened on the north side in 1871, with a crossing on the flat until '78, as you say. Peacock p. 67 (ASIN: B0006C7PD2) says that two tracks were opened to the south in '67, with the crossing on the flat at Westborne ParkBridge. He includes the detail that the opening of the subway required major changes to Royal Oak station with the former north platform becoming an island.
Before 1961 the District and Metropolitan shared the LTSR slow tracks east of Campbell Road junction with LTSR steam passenger and goods trains, so it's inaccurate to describe the 1902–05 quadrupling as segregation. Unfortunately I have found little detail about the works needed to quadruple the line and electrify one pair; Horne (ISBN 978-1-85414-292-4) has several pages about the segregation works needed in 1955–1961. Edgepedia (talk) 17:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
After reading your feedback, made a few changes to H&C and District entries. I can see southerly tracks west of Paddington 'greyed out' as disused in the Brown atlas. Looks like the flat junctions were in the vicinity of Royal Oak? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 21:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I've copyedited the text. I'm sorry, I got confused above (I've made an alteration), so rewritten the H&C based on Peacock. He's backed up by the old maps. Edgepedia (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tottenham Court Road - tiles

http://www.thejoyofshards.co.uk/london/tcr/index.shtml is useful. Edgepedia (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Key for geographical map

Why is the map that shows where London is located within England completely covering Bexley? All I see this as saying is "this area is not even worth showing because it will never be well connected", this needs to be changed. Justgravy (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You mean this map? I suggest you ask its creator, Edgepedia (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi JustGravy. When combining the two maps - File:London Underground full map complete.svg and File:Greater London UK district map (blank).svg - I wanted the map to be visible on computer screens, without having to click through to look at the details, so I enlarged the text and I reduced the image boundaries to show just the area covered by the Underground. I thought the key important, having had discussions with people from Japan and the US about London Underground articles, and I noticed that non of the eleven Underground lines run into south-east London so this looked ideal for the key.
The map shows the present arrangement of the lines, and doesn't yet show the two planned extensions. Also the map only shows London Undergound lines, the subject of this article, the other TfL lines (Docklands Light Railway, London Overground, London Trams) and the National Rail services in London have been omitted. Crossrail will run to the borders of Bexley, but my understanding is that is not going to be a London Underground line, but managed separately.
There's probably a place for more geographic maps of railways in London, showing all the TfL services, or TfL and National Rail services, and these would be need to arranged differently, but I feel that including a map in this article that showed services that were not part of the London Underground is unnecessary and would only confuse. Edgepedia (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

The lead of this article is all over the place, in my opinion. In the opening paragraph it talks about how TfL is "is run by a board and a commissioner appointed by the Mayor of London"; then in the next paragraph it states "The Victoria line was opened 1968–71 and the Jubilee line in 1979, and the Jubilee was extended in 1999." Excellent grammar, and I'm not sure why in that case we don't state when every line opened. Then it mentions the Travelcard in one sentence, the 150th anniversary in the next sentence, and upgrades in the next sentence. I tried to improve it (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Underground&oldid=560490658) but my changes were almost instantly and totally reverted because they were "not an improvement". Perhaps the 'owner' of this article could do a better job. --TBM10 (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is but want to retract my line in the change history that "passenger" or any other singular term implies a set, no duplicates. That's false. It's the norm for most English words and logical discourse generally, and in particular "a billion passengers" gives an impression of fluffing, but there are exceptions and natural language is richer than that. In particular, in such a context, the same individual who used the system 500 times in a year or whatever time period could be counted as 500 passengers. Sorry for my knee jerk reaction to billionen. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Roundel

I reverted the image File:London Underground Sign.JPG with the caption "The Underground's iconic logo, seen here outside Balham station", as this implies only one version of the roundel. However, there have been many, as can be seen by the text in the article, which is referenced to Ovenden London Underground by Design (2013). I think an early version of the roundel fits better, as it shows how what it developed from. Any roundel shown in this section needs to be dated. Edgepedia (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, I believe the current, modern image is more appropriate as it is the quintessential image that is associated with the London Underground, and those wishing to learn more about the transport system are likely to find it more educational than seeing its intial iteration in its humble beginnings. In an article about the Underground I think it is more appropriate to have the modern iteration, and perhaps in the future if there was an article dedicated to the "roundel logo" than a complete graphical history could be shown of the evolution of the roundel. I do believe both images are of worth, however there is only so much space in the article. Perhaps a compromise could be reached here, or possibly some others could provide their input into the appropriateness of both images in relation to the article's structure and delivery of information. EzykronHD (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The Balham example is certainly not the current version or anywhere near it. Also, the basic roundel design as we know it today is an LT thing, not just an Underground thing, e.g. it is painted on the side of every bus, albeit without words. Perhaps there should be a separate article called LT Roundel showing several of the many different versions. Alternatively, I see that there is already an article called Roundel so perhaps it should be a subsection of that. -- Alarics (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Without direct reference to Ovenden, I believe form shown in File:London Underground Sign.JPG was used up to 1933, when it was replaced by a similar form with the words "London Transport" in the bar. I accept that readers may not be familiar with the current roundel as I am,so perhaps we need to show an example somewhere - I would love to get File:Big Ben vs Westminster London Underground Station.jpg into the article, but I can't see a place that doesn't crowd the text. However, I believe the sign's evolution is a frequently asked question so I think an illustration of an early form is also important. What do other people think? Edgepedia (talk) 20:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I think that if you only show one roundel, it needs to be the modern one. Is there an article about the roundel? If so, link to that. If not, create it and link to it. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
@Alarics, it may not be the latest and most simple version, but it is a highly iconic iteration which is still commonly used today at many tube stations. Showing a modern example is more appropriate. EzykronHD (talk) 04:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
But the one you put forward (Balham) is not a modern example, it is many decades old, as Edgepedia has noted above (yes, I know it is still to be seen in many places). I agree with Mattbuck that the one in this article should be the latest one, which I believe is the one in File:Big Ben vs Westminster London Underground Station.jpg. I favour putting any others into a new section of the Roundel article and linking to that, or else create a new article called "LT Roundel" and put them there. -- Alarics (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
We're using File:Underground sign at Westminster.jpg in the portal box (see right). It's seen almost full-face, rather than obliquely; it's got good contrast against the sky; and if it's not actually the current design, it's certainly no more than 14 years out of date. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
An early form of the roundel at Ealing Broadway and the form used today at Westminster

How about showing both? Edgepedia (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I feel my own photo File:London MMB N5 Russell Square.jpg is better than the Big Ben one, but I'm sure there are even better ones out there. The City of Westminster one above seemed good. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I did seriously consider that Russell Square one, but I didn't suggest it because I don't know when it was erected, whereas stations on the Jubilee Line extension have the advantage that all the signing is from 1999 or later. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at the station roundels used on the Jubilee line extension, I have also found these two

I prefer the Westminster one. Edgepedia (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Those are nice, but I passed over them as well because they don't say "Underground" across the bar. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
A crop of one of these two? (note these are a different design to the ones on the platform). Edgepedia (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
An early form of the roundel as used on the platform at Ealing Broadway and the form used today at Westminster
Or do we need a crop? Edgepedia (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Lead Image

Northern line
Central line

The current lead image for the deep-level tube not only displays a good contrast with the picture below, but it is also an image of the Northern Line, the first deep-level Underground train which compliments the Metropolitan Line below. I believe that this is a suitable image for the lead and should not be changed. Even though the article is not about the trains themselves, this image provides a good view and looks more appealing than the more recent image of a Central Line train being at one side of the image itself. The changes have been reverted however a decisive opinion is needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.193.248 (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this change to the article again per the Bold, Revert, Discuss policy, as this had been reverted. The two images being discussed are displayed on the left. Comments please? Edgepedia (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally I have no problem with either one. If I have to choose one, then the Central Line looks better, however if there is a better one on any deep line I'd go for it. Secondly I really don't like what the S Stock one has been changed to, seeing that 55% of the network is above ground, one image above ground, in metroland made sense to me. Likelife (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
The Central Line picture is definitely better than the Northern Line one (damn you BCV, JNP uber alles!). I don't really see the need for a second picture. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
However, the Northern Line image has the train as the focus of the image. The train itself says 'Northern Line' and this image was the original image before it was recently changed (Bold Revert Discuss). In addition, the image looks well positioned as a nod to the first Deep and Sub level trains on their current routs, as well as having a similar position to the Metropolitan line picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.193.248 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
In thumbnail you can't read that it says Northern Line, and that Lancaster Gate image has been the infobox image for years. I wouldn't say the train isn't the focus of the Lancaster Gate one, and it's certainly a better composed image. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
It may not be visible but the label, in addition to other typical Underground sights (e.g. the roundel to the right and the Leslie Green designed station) are apparent. The other aforementioned arguments still stand, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.193.248 (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has debated these issues. The picture, therefore, should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.193.248 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
So far one editor is arguing for each image and there is one neutral comment. I'm not seeing any Wikipedia:Consensus for change. Edgepedia (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Lancaster Gate is a better composed image in my opinion and I have always supported it as the lead image when it has been replaced by others. --TBM10 (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
... and the comment which you described as neutral did say "If I have to choose one, then the Central Line looks better", so the Central line photo does seem to have the majority support. - David Biddulph (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Edgepedia (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Primary vs. Secondary Sources

This article uses a number of good secondary sources, but nearly all of my attempts to add a primary source (e.g. the "Milestones" page from TfL, which is currently buried on a throwaway sentence in the article) have been shot down. A good Wiki article should have a good balance of both primary and secondary sources. I am still of the opinion that the particular TfL "Milestones" reference should be cited in the article more, and if it conflicts with the secondary references later on in the article, then the most logical place to cite this primary reference more is back in the lede. Thoughts?... --IJBall (talk) 07:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi IJBall, I don't follow you. I reverted your edit here because it separated the first sentence from its reference and was therefore confusing; it is also unnecessary, as the 1890 date is well known and not controversial.
You state your opinion that articles should have "a good balance of both primary and secondary sources". I don't agree. WP:PRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." I use such primary sources when looking in detail at an event, but the history on this page is only a overview; there are many other articles that go in detail on the building of these underground railways.
Also a primary source is defined on that page as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." Therefore such a source would need to published by someone connected to the City and South London Railway in the 1890s  – the Tfl website is much more recent. Please note primary sources should always be used with care, checking secondary sources.
I don't see the need for the cites in the lead; when I see these I wonder if the lead and body has been written independently by different editors. I can see the need if anything is controversial; sources can differ and it's important to know what the editor has consulted in writing the article. I don't see the need to have more references on this page to that Tfl web page. Edgepedia (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)edited 09:30
What I mean by "primary" reference here is one from the system operator themselves (i.e. "...accounts written by people who are directly involved"). This article uses a multitude of secondary references, but relatively few from the operator themselves. This is a little unusual for an article on a subject like this. (Nobody is going to know a transit system, especially its "stats" better than its operator.) Wikipedia doesn't just exist to "tell a story" about a topic - part of the purpose of Wikipedia is to funnel people to good sources. My point is that the "Milestones" page from TfL is actually an example of one of those good sources and should be cited in this article more, rather than buried in a 'throwaway line', than it is presently. Yet every time I try to give that source a little more attention, you've been reverting me. So I guess my point is - if you don't like where I've been putting that source, could you maybe on your end figure out a few places to cite that source too, seeing as you seem to have much more familiarity with the article than I do? Because this resistance to giving greater prominence to a reference that is actually good seems rather odd to me. If this article is written in such a way that that isn't possible, then I'd suggest it's been written in such a way that it is over-relying on one or two references (to the exclusion of all others), at least in the historical portions... --IJBall (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of WP:CITE is "Citations are used to identify the reliable sources on which an article is based". Therefore using them just to "funnel people to good sources" is not correct.
  • The first sentence of WP:PRIMARY is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." Please look at policy, not other articles.

I don't share your enthusiasm for the TfL website, it's been known to have mistakes. (There is a more comprehensive Featured List at Timeline of the London Underground.) There's on-one working at TfL that was alive during most of the early history of the underground, and they're probably not that interested, certainly not professionally. The London Transport Museum deals with history.

There was a serious problem with your changes, as a reference covers everything to the left of it up to the previous reference. The example sentence at WP:CITE is

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.[1]

and later an editor adds a reference that mentions the fact about the Moon but not the Sun

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big.[1] The Sun is also quite hot.[2]

and then later, when someone else comes along and can't find any reference about the Sun in the new ref 1, we will get

The Sun is pretty big,[Citation needed] but the Moon is not so big.[1] The Sun is also quite hot.[2]

We can't expect editors to look for verification elsewhere in the paragraph.

Of course, we can put the references together at the end of the sentence i.e.

The Sun is pretty big, but the Moon is not so big. The Sun is also quite hot.[1][2]

But we do have to the carefully about what references we use, or we could end up with

The Sun is pretty big,[1][2][3] but the Moon is not so big.[1][4][5][6] The Sun is also quite hot.[7][8][3]
  1. ^ a b An authoritative encyclopedia
  2. ^ A textbook
  3. ^ a b A good website
  4. ^ A good book on the Moon
  5. ^ Another website
  6. ^ A website giving lots of information about the Moon
  7. ^ A book written by a professor in Thermodynamics
  8. ^ A science encyclopedia

Readers don't like too many citations, see WP:INTEGRITY and the section following (which I just noticed covers the above, but I posted for you anyway).

Does anyone else think we need any more sources? Edgepedia (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, obviously, I do. I'd also note that this is an article that actually lost its "good article" rating sometime back, and I personally feel that's because it's been written around a certain set of references, leading to an article whose prose is a little rigid and inflexible as a result. But I don't wish to bicker with one of the primary editors of this article about this. Just consider this is passing opinion that this article's got problems, and rejecting better referencing is not the way to improve it. But it's just one voice... --IJBall (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
But, as I explained in great detail and at length above, your changes were against policy and guidelines. BTW the last good article review was in April 2011, and the history section was largely unreferenced before I worked on it in March and April last year. This section is cited to such books as Croome & Jackson, Horne, Day & Read and Green, all authoritative sources. However, I accept my prose may not be the best. Edgepedia (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bakerloo extension to Watford

I've removed the following sentence:

It has been suggested that most or all of the line from Queen's Park to Watford Junction would be used exclusively by the London Underground, and London Overground services would be withdrawn

because: 

(a) it is uncited
(b) it was unclear if it related to the 2006 proposal described in the previous sentence, or was subsequent

It should be noted that the London Overground did not exist in 2006, so the wording suggests a later proposal, but I can find no citable (or otherwise) record of such proposal. I did find a set of minutes from the the transport committee of the Greater London Authority (http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/archives/assembly-reports-transport-n-london-line.rtf) but that is ambiguous about the withdrawal because it excludes the Euston to Watford services from its review. In any case it makes it clear that the context of the proposal was in the planning for the set up the London Overground, so it is more of historical than current interest. I'll try and reflect that into the article.m -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reversion proposal

Recent edits by BradleyScottMatthers (talk · contribs) have been causing a lot of damage, with unsourced content being added, sourced content removed, references broken or completely removed, major formatting issues. For example, this edit replaced some perfectly valid refs <ref name="MR">{{cite news |work=Modern Railways |date=January 2013 |pages=38–41 |title=Sub-surface renewal |last=Abbott |first=James}}</ref><ref name="TfL-leaflet"/> with figures in square brackets [1][2].

Alarics, David Biddulph, McGeddon: I propose to revert to the last clean version prior to the recent editing spree, that of 02:42, 24 June 2015 by Epicgenius (talk · contribs). Any thoughts on that? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree, unless his latest edits have fixed the problem (I haven't time to check at present) -- Alarics (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that every amendment I have made has now been sourced and important information has been added to the page so to remove it would be a mistake. The reason for the editing spree as you call it due to interfering other users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BradleyScottMatthers (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Interfering other users"? Other users are not "interfering", they (we) are all trying to make the article better. If you don't want your contributions reverted, you must supply references at the same time as making the changes. People can't be expected to know what is in your mind. -- Alarics (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the edits by BradleyScottMatthers should be undone if they cause damage to the wikimarkup and if they are unsourced. Epic Genius (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: I notice that you made two edits, the second of which partially undid the first. Was that intentional? --Redrose64 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that was an intentional unlinking, per WP:LINKING, though you can add the links back if you need to. Epic Genius (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have done some further cleaning up of the mess but there may be more to do. -- Alarics (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusing headings

We have ended up with two different parts of the article both headed "Infrastructure". I think we need a different word for the second one (currently heading 3.3). -- Alarics (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because of edits by BradleyScottMatthers (talk · contribs) (see previous thread). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, but what shall we do about it? How about "Other proposed upgrades"? -- Alarics (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I have another suggestion: "Automation and signalling". Move the information about the new trains to the section below, currently "New trains for deep-level lines" (heading 3.4). Epic Genius (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Track map

I replaced the dead links to the old track map website with a newer link to a more extensive, more recent link. It isnt spam. 156.111.111.81 (talk) 17:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a blacklisted link, so please stop adding it. That's three times now. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
well, the existing track map link is 1) dead, and 2) incomprehensive (the subsurface lines are not even represented there). It should be removed if not replaced. 156.111.111.81 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Then remove it, but don't add a blacklisted link in its place. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Strikes

There's one soon, there was one recently and there have been plenty in years gone by. Yet no mention on the article. Surely mention of the strikes should form some part of this article -- 77.246.171.42 (talk) 11:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Why? There have been occasional strikes for many decades as with pretty well all railways, but what makes them notable enough to mention? -- Alarics (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

World's first underground railway?

This claim seems to be tautologous and misleading. While the London Underground may be the world's first purpose-designed underground railway rapid transit system - even giving rise to the proper noun "The Underground" - it was not the world's first underground railway. There are various other claimants, most plausibly Liverpool, which had two underground railway tunnels in 1829 (one freight, one passenger, later converted to freight), another in 1836 (passenger), and another in 1848 (freight). These were the first railway tunnels in the world under a metropolis. The 1836 Lime Street tunnel is the oldest railway tunnel under streets still in use in the world. RodCrosby (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before (see archive 5, for example). Certainly, there are older railway tunnels in the UK, but "underground railway" in this context is a broader definition than just a railway line in a tunnel. The use of "railway" is same as in Stockton and Darlington Railway, Great Western Railway or Liverpool and Manchester Railway where it means, at the same time and depending on context, the tracks, the system and the company/organisation. It is the system/organisation that is relevant in this context - a specially planned, complete underground system.--DavidCane (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Well you seem to be agreeing with me! "First undergound railway" would, I suggest, lead an average reader to assume this was the first railway that was... well, underground. But it wasn't. The claim is merely self-referential. It was the first underground railway of its type. I suggest the addition of the word 'system' would be a good start to clarification. RodCrosby (talk) 22:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that it is likely that an average reader would make that assumption. The sentence that you suggest needs clarification reads "The network is considered the oldest rapid transit system, incorporating the world's first underground railway, the Metropolitan Railway, ...". It already contains "system" and "underground railway" is clarified by "Metropolitan Railway". For a sentence in a lead section, I think this is sufficient clarification. The early years section explains this in detail.--DavidCane (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with DavidCane. The lead is a summary. I also support the rapid removal of the {{clarify}} template as RodCrosby has not suggested any alternative wording. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

" .... first purpose-designed underground railway rapid transit system" - the clue is in the word system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.190 (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on London Underground. 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 02:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on London Underground. 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 11:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Central line has been disambiguated

"Central line" has just been moved to Central line (London Underground) and the original page is now a dab which needs incoming links to be corrected. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It was moved because of a consensus formed on its talk page to move it. Class455fan1 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
@Class455fan1: We know that. The question is, why have you not cleaned up after yourself? There are now over 700 incorrect links. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
These 25 template edits should crack most of it. Once those have gone through the job queue, you'll be left with stuff like this to sort out. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Addition to lead

Apologies, in trying to remove the vandalism to the lead, I accidentally reverted its removal! Not sure how that happened, but clearly it is vandalism and should not be in the article. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Bow Road

Bow Road is a tube station that is underground look at the ref. 86.24.167.113 (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Meaning of "sub surface" in the context of stations. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on London Underground. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Rapid transit?

The article introduction and infobox says LU is a rapid transit system. This sounds like an American term, and surely isn't a term normally used in UK English? Surely a more UK appropriate term would be subway or underground railway? G-13114 (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A large portion of LU is actually above ground - the term rapid transit describes the class of rail system whereas subway or underground railway refer only to rapid transit systems when they are underground. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
That's rather beside the point. That's like the argument that the Manchester Metrolink isn't a tram system because it has large portions that aren't street running. Very few 'underground' systems are completely underground, but all of the lines go underground in the core. G-13114 (talk) 14:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I would further state that, to me, a subway is a pedestrian route under a road, and using it to describe a railway feels very American. And yes, most of the underground is not actually underground, so it doesn't really count as an underground railway. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
"Rapid transit" is nowadays a universally recognised term for all such systems: see e.g. the article of that name. It is quite amusing that G-13114 thinks "subway" a more British term. "Subway" has that meaning in Glasgow but is otherwise a US expression; in the rest of the UK a subway is something quite different (a pedestrian underpass, aka foot tunnel under the street). There are several in London explicitly signed as such. -- Alarics (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Maybe it's recognised among transport buffs, but I've never heard it described that way, or the term used by ordinary people. Can anyone here defending this point to a third party UK based source which describes it as a rapid transit system? If not then it fails WP:OR. The rapid transit article itself says "the terms Underground and Tube are used for the London Underground,". G-13114 (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It is in common usage amongst people who discuss classes of transport systems, which is what the sentence you are objecting to speaks to. Whilst it probably has US based roots it is now a pretty generic term across the English speaking world. Very similar definitions exist in both US (Collins) and UK (Oxford) English dictionaries. UK based cite (UK Government Office of Rail and Road, no less) duly supplied - chris_j_wood (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I believe the term "Rapid Transit System" may originally have been applied to the to the rail systems used at airports. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Not so. The term is in common usage to mean the sort of system that LU is, and has been for as long as I can remember. The systems at airports are more usually described as people movers. - chris_j_wood (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Take a bus from Baker St to Finchly Rd station and then take a LU train on the same trip. The LU trains is very much 'RAPID'. Self explanatory. There is also mass-transit as well. Mass-transit can also be rapid-transit. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

To Watford Junction

To Watford is a combination of Overground and Underground. Completed as the map shows. The stations in the centre of the Watford DC line line are Bakerloo. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying those two sources were never published? Or that they have been misrepresented in the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This official document states: Bakerloo Line extension to Watford Unlikely - TfL’s plans to extend the Bakerloo Line to Watford Junction are on hold indefinitely due to funding and business case constraints.
http://www.croxleyraillink.com/media/30037/croxley%20rail%20link%20value%20for%20money%20annex.pdf
To Watford is a combination of Overground and Underground. Completed as the map shows. The stations in the centre of the lines are Bakerloo and the Watford DC line. This is considered adequate.
94.5.104.222 (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Just copying your comment and image over again really doesn't advance your argument. Are you just saying things have now changed? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I gave the link. It is off. Before I had a chance to put it in you reverted. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring before consensus is established here. And please be aware of WP:3RR. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not edit warring. I removed outdated information with a solid reference. You and others reverted with no basis. Comsesus is not needed as it is pretty well back and white. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The link you give is to a 2011 report. The earlier reports, dated 2006, were still published and were perfectly valid when they were published. The second link is currently a deadlink so we can't see exactly what it says. How can a 2011 report nullify them - it's just part of the history. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
A part of history? Are you serious? The document "five" years later than the doc you give a dead link to, is clear. It is off. I never made it up. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Dead link? This works for me:
http://www.croxleyraillink.com/media/30037/croxley%20rail%20link%20value%20for%20money%20annex.pdf It is clear in this, which supersedes the 2006 document. The article is making out it is "going" to happen. It is not. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This is the second link currently used in that article section: "London's Forgotten Railway – The Transport Committee's review of the North London Railway". Greater London Authority. March 2006. Retrieved 12 June 2015. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Comes up page not found. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
That's why I said "is currently a deadlink". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
What point are you trying to make? 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Your dead link is also "five" years older that the 2011 doc I gave. Watford is 'not' going to be on the LU. The 2011 document makes that clear. It is a very long term aspiration, no more. With the Overground and Bakerloo sharing the same tracks, 'ten' stations and platforms, giving 'ten' interchanges to the Bakerloo, it is not going to happen. The document I gave says so. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I quite agree, that part of the article is out of date. The new source you've provided looks very useful. The question is do we need to remove the existing material. I'd say no, because it provides a narrative of past events and shows how policy has changed. I think you need to just add your new update material. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC) p.s. I'm not trying to "make a point". I don't have any points to make. I'm just trying to edit within WP policy.
Ah we have some agreement! It comes under the section Proposed improvements and expansions, then a sub-section, Line extensions. That is not history, note the word 'proposed' - the future. The section on the Watford Junction needs removing. Taking the Bakerloo to Watford Junction was proposed but then removed. It is no longer on the agenda. The article does not need to be cluttered with outdated information. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreement can often be found, here on the Talk Page, without the need for edit warring and pointy edit summaries. I guess that depends on whether you see "Proposed" as meaning "currently proposed" or "previously proposed but never implemented"? I don't see it as "cluttering outdated information", just historical background. So maybe we need to ask for other opinions from interested editors. If you are interested in contributing here regularly, perhaps you could consider registering an account yourself? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say that a section on "proposed extensions" can include any which were ever proposed and taken seriously (no crayonistas please, the Met Line is not going to be extended to Heathrow). -mattbuck (Talk) 14:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
You cannot mix history and the future, it then become very muddled. The section is clearly for the future. There is nothing wrong with keeping the proposal for the Watford Jucn Bakerloo link, but it must be cut down and in the "History" section - sub section of "Past proposals" or the likes. One suggestion from me, is that a lead is taken from the Merseyrail article. It is has a History section with sub sections and a "Future" section with sub-sections. There is then no ambiguity. 94.5.104.222 (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Up to date line usage statistics

Currently the trips per annum in the Lines section is from 2011/12. Is anyone able to get more up to date information on this metric? Thanks, much appreciated.

Kafuffle (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on London Underground. 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) 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Underground. 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) 13:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Art on the Underground revisions

I recently made an update to this page, changing the founding year of Art on the Underground to the correct year (2000) [1], as well as making other additions including recent artworks in stations by the scheme. These were then reverted as "plugging (my) art exhibition".

I explained to Redrose64 that I have no connection to Art on the Underground, London Underground, TFL or any other transportation body. I am merely a curious individual with an interest in the topic - and a desire to improve the wikipedia articles thereof. They suggested that "the best thing to do is to raise a thread at the talk page".

Ergo

My suggested improvements include

- Breaking out Art on the Underground from the Posters and Patron of the Arts section with a line break.
- Correction of founding of Art on the Underground to the correct year (2000)[2]
- Short description of program
commissions range from the pocket tube map cover, to temporary art pieces, to large scale permanent installations in stations.
Short description of recent major commissions by the program
- Major commissions by Art on the Underground in recent years have included Labyrinth by Turner prize winning artist Mark Wallinger to mark the 150th anniversary of the London Underground[3], "Diamonds and Circles" permanent works "in situ" by French artist Daniel Buren at Tottenham Court Road[4] and "Beauty < Immortality”, a memorial to Frank Pick by Langlands & Bell at Piccadilly Circus.[5]
- Addition of picture with new ticket hall at TCR
Daniel Buren's artwork at Tottenham Court Road, commissioned by Art on the Underground

Please see my edit in the history for more information. I would be delighted to discuss these improvements and other issues. 86.13.122.76 (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://art.tfl.gov.uk/about/overview/
  2. ^ https://art.tfl.gov.uk/about/overview/
  3. ^ https://art.tfl.gov.uk/labyrinth/
  4. ^ https://www.dezeen.com/2017/07/12/daniel-buren-diamonds-circles-installation-tottenham-court-road-underground-tube-station-london-uk/
  5. ^ http://londonist.com/london/transport/frank-pick-artwork

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on London Underground. 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) 12:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on London Underground. 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) 13:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Underground/Archive_6&oldid=936349709"