This page is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport
This page is a portal. Portals are within the scope of WikiProject Portals, a collaborative effort to improve portals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortalsWikipedia:WikiProject PortalsTemplate:WikiProject PortalsPortals
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the portal aboutLondon transport. Content dispute discussions should take place on the appropriate article's talk page.
For discussions about general portal development, please see the WikiProject Portals talk page. If you are a regular maintainer of this portal, please add yourself to this list.
Fair use image
I removed the picture in "selected article" section, as it is a violation of Wikipedia's fair use policy. Please remember that fair use images can only be used in the article main spaces (the main page though is considered an exception)--TBCTaLk?!?22:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Things you can do
The Things you can do list mentions Canada Water. I re-organized that article and added more info. Feel free to add more Ysignal10:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This portal's title may be confusing to non-Londoners, so it should be renamed to something more specific. A better title could be Portal:London Underground, for example. 68.111.72.16704:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added to all London bus route articles. The link should be to the gallery of the articles subject. Not many bus articles have very good pictures of the buses that operate on the routes. Unisouth16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to close Portal London Transport if due to lack of enthusiasm for updates. Please reply within two weeks with a reason for not closing it or if you wish to become a perminant editor. Unisouth09:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact about travelling through 10 stations whose names begin with the same letter is slightly misleading! You have to go through half the stations twice! HJMitchellYou rang? 21:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody else noted them in revenue earning service yet? I caught one (378007) from Willesden to Richmond Tuesday evening. Though the departure from Richmond seemed to be crew-only. My pics can be found within the Class 378 category at Commons. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 23:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried updating the picture to the Beckenham Junction station article, which was some years old (with "ancient" Connex signage, and lacking the small coffee kiosk outside at present). Moreover it was a night time shot. But it was reverted. I changed it back to one by User:Oxyman explaining my reasoning, but not willing to get into a revert war! Just wanted to let others know about this. 194.80.106.135 (talk) 13:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
whether or not the image is `dated` as you say, the image you reverted is far superior in everyway. as stated here [1]. User:Rockybiggs, 13:41, 27 October 2009.
In what way is it "superior"? It is so blurry you can't even see the girls' faces properly! Why do you have this strange fixation with this particular image? There's more to the station building than just the entrance awning, and you can't see the rest of the building in the dark! 194.80.106.135 (talk) 14:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the administrator on this wiki [www.london.wikia.com]. There are 'many, many' transport-related wanted pages, and many of the pages that have been created are either out of date, or stubs (many by me - trying to reduce the backlog of blank pages).
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The Portal started out as Portal:Tube, but has expanded to encompass all forms of transport within the London region. If considered necessary, changing the 't' of transport to lower case would be appropriate, but Portal:Transport for London would not as TfL does not control all transport.--DavidCane (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Less confusable with the brand, and has enough caps, and in right places, to make everyone happy, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the portal is deliberately vague with regard to the exact extent and boundaries of what it encompasses. Rather than limit the scope to the geographic boundaries of Greater London we generally consider the M25 motorway to be the perimeter within which anything transport related is automatically relevant, but subjects relevant beyond that still fall within the scope. For example, the London Underground runs out into Essex and Buckinghamshire and previously ran further still to Windsor in the west, Shoeburyness in the east and Verney Junction in the north. I think a rename to Portal:Transport in London is a bit ambiguous, therefore.--DavidCane (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport "Portal:London transport", a generic topic and the actual scope. "Transport in London" would exclude transport to/from London, and limit the scope to only transport within London, which doesn't appear to be the actual scope. using "transport of London" would just be an abuse of the language, implying a moving of London from one place to another (or it could imply the specific legal entity Transport of London, which is also not the scope). Moving on, "Portal:London transport" should use sentence case because WP is a sentence-case site; we use it in article titles, category names, etc., and portals are not a magical exception (we tolerate title case in wikiproject names, but they are internal editorial resources, not public-facing pages intended for readers, which articles, categories, and portals are). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss
If the portal is going to be changed to a style using minimum subpages, it might be worth doing that first. This would not be a deal breaker, it would just reduce maintenance overheads a little. · · · Peter (Southwood)(talk): 08:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there's an easy way to move a page with all its subpages, so it doesn't much matter which order this happens in. Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not yet convinced by the minimum subpages drive. I haven't examined how this works in practice yet and I've been waiting to see how it is implemented on a few other portals first before making any changes to the structure of this portal. There's some unique customisations that I need to be certain will work in any new configuration.--DavidCane (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: I think we'll inevitably have a 'create a sub-page' drive soon enough, when people re-realise why having all your markup in one sheet is a bad idea. There's been some good code recently though, 'transclude lead excerpt' works well in my experience. Cesdeva(talk)21:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, making the creation and management of portals easier as a general purpose is a laudable and excellent idea - as long as it does not become a rod with which to beat "non-conforming portals".--DavidCane (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: You can see a working example of the no-subpage design at Portal:Cornwall. However there are some advanced functions used by larger portals that could benefit from some subpages being retained. And the code becomes insanely complex when using some wikitext functions. I am not completely convinced it is production ready in full yet. JLJ001 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that only 100 pages can be moved in a move request and this request involves significantly more than 100 subpages, so this will be a lot of work for whoever decides to close it if the result is a move. Dekimasuよ!22:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Happypillsjr, the content of this portal relate to London, but the topic is broad enough and detailed enough that it warrants its own portal. With currently 33 featured articles, 6 featured lists and 101 good articles it is also one of the most developed.--DavidCane (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
