Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport

Requested move at Talk:Orbirail

An editor has requested that Orbirail be moved to Orbital railways in London, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. ~2026-17719-5 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Northumberland Park Metro station

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Northumberland Park Metro station#Requested move 30 January 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. This is especially because it does also involve Northumberland Park railway station. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 15:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Adjacent stations template placement

I am sure I have seen this discussed before but cannot find any reference - so where should the {{Adjacent stations}} template be placed? Should it be in the Services section or right at the bottom of the article? Most UK railway stations have it in the services section, but it is inconsistent in London articles and one editor is actively moving them to the bottom of the article. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I'd say they should be in the services section, as that's where they are most contextually relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Agree. services was my first thought as well. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 10:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

@MRSC following your edit at Bromley-by-Bow tube station with an edit description "WP:NAVBOX is clear, navigation templates go to the bottom of articles" – just to draw your attention to this discussion above? Turini2 (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Navigational templates go in the footer, per WP:NAVBOX. MRSC (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that the navigation boxes at WP:NAV and thus WP:NAVBOX are different to those being discussed here? As I suggested there, happy to stand corrected. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 14:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This sounds like special pleading. And can we please stop reverting each other whilst this conversation is ongoing? MRSC (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

I think Mattdaviesfsic has a valid point here. {{Adjacent stations}} might behind-the-scenes be built on the navbox templates and CSS, but it's clearly not a navbox in the sense described at WP:NAV:

a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles

(my emphasis). The box on the Bromley-by-Bow article isn't a grouping of links used in multiple related articles, it's a bespoke piece of content tailored to the Browley-by-Bow article. A navbox as described in that guidance is a single template with a table linking to several pages which is then transcluded on all the pages in the table, and appears identical on each of them.

WP:BIDI also provides a hint as to how this is not a navbox as described in that guidance: if we followed the BIDI guidance of ensuring the "navbox" was used bidirectionally, we should be putting the Bromley-by-Bow adjacent stations "navbox" on all of its adjacent stations' articles too, and putting all of its adjacent stations' navboxes on the Bromley-by-Bow article – clearly absurd.

I have no opinion on where this template should be positioned on the page, I'm just not at all convinced that WP:NAV provides any conclusive answer to the question. Joe D (t) 14:53, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Navigation boxes have two options, per WP:NAVBOX. They either go at the footer of articles or in the top right hand corner. New York Subway articles put them in the top right as part of the infobox. So there is always that option too.MRSC (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

As above - the {{Adjacent stations}} template doesn't fall into either of those two categories? So are they something else? They aren't like {{Template:District line navbox}}, for example. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 14:34, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

It provides navigation between related articles (geographically adjacent). It what way is that not navigation? MRSC (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Looking into it, Adjacent stations boxes are succession boxes. Succession boxes are "Placed at the bottom of their respective articles". MRSC (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

(or sections where applicable)... Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 14:56, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

And aside from the layout rules, I don't think the services section makes any sense. Often these boxes contain historic routes that aren't covered in that section. The information is just as relevant to the location section too. In summary, they have details from several sections. Also they are navigation, if you like it or not, and they are doing a poor job of that if they are in an unpredictable part of the article. MRSC (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Also has been documented since 2010. Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/How to write about stations MRSC (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the specific example of Bromley-by-Bow tube station as I'm keen the ongoing GA review doesn't get derailed by this. This currently appears in the services section:

Preceding station	London Underground			Following station
Bow Road towards Hammersmith		Hammersmith & City line		West Ham towards Barking
Bow Road towards Wimbledon, Richmond or Ealing Broadway		District line		West Ham towards Upminster
Former services
Burdett Road		Great Eastern Railway Fenchurch Street–North Woolwich		Canning Town
Bow		North London Railway Bow–Plaistow		West Ham
Stepney East		Eastern Region of British Railways London, Tilbury and Southend		Plaistow

The historic routes are covered in the History section. Adjacent stations are mentioned in the Location section. So the majority of this template has nothing to do with the section it has been placed in. MRSC (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

On terminology. The box that you have reproduced above is not a navbox; it's a form of succession box (sometimes known as a routebox). Bromley-by-Bow tube station has three navboxes, these being {{District line navbox}}, {{Hammersmith & City line navbox}} and {{Metropolitan line navbox}}, these always go at the bottom and are the last visible items before the categories, unless a stub template is used, in which case the stub template is last of all. There are two things that go in the top right hand corner: infoboxes such as {{Infobox London station}} and sidebars such as {{London Underground sidebar}} (not used in that article, but is used on e.g. London Underground infrastructure). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By convention, including for this project, these go at the bottom of articles above the navboxes.

Although I see from a search of international station articles they have been moved to the infobox and this appears to be proposed for London stations.

I propose we keep the boxes at the bottom of articles until template:Infobox London station is replaced by template:Infobox station and then revisit this. MRSC (talk) 04:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not aware of conventions on National Rail pages, but if this is applied (unlikely given four editors above to a contrary position) to the 250-odd tube stations which we would have to trawl through, should we also apply this to the 2.5k National Rail stations as well? Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 07:02, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of putting these succession boxes into the infobox, whether they are produced by {{Adjacent stations}} or one of the other methods that we use. For a start, the available width is significantly less, so we either lose detail or make the infobox excessively long. To see what I mean, go to Berlin Hauptbahnhof and uncollapse the "Services" row of the infobox. For me, that causes the infobox to extend for half the page length - and it's not a short article. Consider also that Berlin Hbf shows only the current services, whereas we like to include the historic companies as well. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Stations outside London are a matter for WikiProject UK Railways, rather than us here. WikiProject London Transport already has a longstanding guideline for these to go at the footer of articles. I have been using this guideline to get a series of articles to GA standard. I propose this continues. MRSC (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the template makes the most sense and is the most useful to readers in the service section, as it describes the services at a station, sometimes including former services and proposed services, including the line, neighbouring stations served and termini. It shouldn't go at the footer as its primary function is not to provide links to nearby stations, and it shouldn't go in the infobox as that would limit the template's width and really lengthen the inboxes. Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/How to write about stations can and should be edited to reflect this. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for setting out your reasoning. That's really useful to understanding the purpose of these boxes. If they aren't primarily navigation, but are providing summary information for the article, they belong in the infobox. Perhaps this is why this has became the standard internationally. Paris, New York, Sydney, Mumbai, Aukland, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Vienna, Beijing... The infobox restricting the size of these boxes is desirable as they otherwise take up a lot of space. London articles should not deviate from this standard. MRSC (talk) 05:14, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

London can deviate from the "standard" if we want to. If the consensus here is that it's WP:COMMONSENSE to put it in the services section (which the consensus seems to be), then we can do it even if seems that some articles internationally have arbitrarily arrived at cramming it in the infobox. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

The Wikipedia consensus appears to be that these should appear in the infobox of station articles as evidenced above. There is nothing arbitrary about that. We should invite wider comment. MRSC (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

They should definitely not appear in infoboxes as they are much to wide. Making them narrower to fit there would make them less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find any formal consensus, just a lot of articles that have adopted it. I think it may be worth doing a proper RfC on this and notifying the relevant wikiprojects, that would hopefully help arrive at a consensus and maybe get an explanation for why many international articles have it in the infobox that is other than pedantry, as it really does not fit at all. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I think, on this, we agree. MRSC (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Paris, New York, Sydney etc. examples have no more than one or two rows. Bromley-by-Bow has five, and many London stations have significantly more. I don't know which has the most, but King's Cross St Pancras tube station has ten; Liverpool Street station has a total of fifteen (in two routeboxes); London Victoria station has a total of ten (also in two routeboxes). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Asking to gain consensus of editing the Lioness/Suffragette line pages with new information

I am asking this due to the fact that both railways share tracks with at least one other operator. (Lioness with Bakerloo, Suffragette with c2c) All pieces of overground information in existing pages will be sent to the new page with a redirect box saying main page lioness/suffragette. The redirect says in itself that if enough information is available then I can create a new page. Please provide your answer below Faisalisonline2 (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're asking to do. Turini2 (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Context: At the moment the Lioness line and Suffragette line articles are redirects to their respective physical rail line articles which contain information about both the line and the London overground named services (i.e. Lioness and Suffragette) that run on those lines. That was a consensus reached by the Wiki Hive Mind™ a while back when London Transport announced the new service names.

What Faisalisonline2 is suggesting is that the physical line and the service on that line should be split into two separate articles. Does that explain it? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I think this is probably something worth discussing again, 2 years on from the original discussion and nearly a year and a half since the formal name change. If anyone could the take the time to start a well-worded RfC on this that would be greatly appreciated.

I think largely that the new names have become the WP:COMMONNAME. For the Liberty line and Suffragette line, I don't think they need separate articles for the services and rail lines. But for the Lioness line, I think given the Bakerloo runs on a decent portion of the Watford DC line it may be worth making separate article, but I'm not entirely sure. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I made a similar thing with the Weaver line a while ago and it is providing sufficient information without convoluting it with the rest of the lea valley lines whilst keeping it integrated. So I thought a similar thing Could be done with the Lioness line. But Ido agree with the suffragette line and liberty line. If I can know how to make a proper consensus, then I can get started on it right away. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

For reference here is the original move discussion Talk:Watford_DC_line#Requested_move_15_February_2024 10mmsocket (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Just asking as i'm a semi-experienced editor, but when do we reach a consensus as you know more than me in that respective field? Faisalisonline2 (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose splitting Watford DC/Lioness, Lea Valley/Weaver, GOBLIN/Suffragette or Romford–Upminster/Liberty into separate articles, as per the prior consensus. Each of those is effectively the same topic under different names, notwithstanding technicalities about the Bakerloo or Greater Anglia services sharing track with them in a few places. It's unnecessary duplication and not beneficial to readers. I'm less fussed about which of the two titles is chosen in each case, but if there is to be a change in that it should go through a WP:RM discussion first.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Although I think Lea Valley/Weaver would have the strongest case for separate articles. The Weaver line only operates out of Liverpool St to Enfield, Cheshunt and Chingford, while the term "Lea Valley lines" also includes a section of the Greater Anglia mainline, the Hertford East branch and the line out of Stratford, none of which the overground operates on.

It may be worth drafting a proper RfC, I'll get started on one tomorrow. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I have made an original one that was deleted by 10mmsocket, you could use that and build from there ~2026-24294-90 (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

No you have not, you are a random account. Please go create an account and stop spreading misinformation as I was the one who created the page that got deleted by 10mmsocket, so please don’t spread misinformation. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Or wait would this be more appropriate as a move discussion rather than an RfC? Is splitting part of AfD now? Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 11:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Splitting is not part of AfD. Thryduulf (talk) Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Thryduulf. In this case I think there have been three main possibilities discussed: keeping the article as is, moving the article to the new overground name, and splitting the rail line and overground service. In that case the outcome could be either a move or a split, or maybe a mixture of both between the four articles. Would WP:Requested Moves or WP:Splitting be more appropriate? Or is it fine to use an RfC in this case, which would also bring wider participation? Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

My first thought would be RFC, but I have a recollection that @Redrose64 has objected to a similar RfC in the past. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've created a draft RfC below. It's still a draft so changes can be suggested before discussion begins, however if there's no additional feedback by tomorrow I'll just open it. As I said above I think the three possible outcomes for each article is the status quo, moving to the new name, and splitting off a new article for the Overground line. So, I think it's the simplest to ask the question for each of the 4 lines. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your very helpful feedback. I’ll be sure to contribute! Faisalisonline2 (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I've opened the RfC below as there weren't any objections after a day, and notified (hopefully correctly) all the relevant pages and projects. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

One day is not enough time for people who only log in for a short time each day, and who also have a 30-hour watchlit backlog: I've only just seen Thryduulf's post of 12:07, 21 April 2026 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

RfC: Adopting the New Overground Line Names

Following the naming of the London Overground's 6 lines in 2024, the consensus after multiple discussions – 15 Feb, 20 Nov, and 25 Nov – was that only the Windrush line and Mildmay line needed separate articles. 2 years later, some editors have attempted to create the articles without consensus, and discussion on the matter has restarted. Hence, the following questions:

1. Should Watford DC line (A) remain as is, (B) be moved to Lioness line, or (C) be split off into a new Lioness line article?
2. Should Lea Valley lines (A) remain as is, (B) be moved to Weaver line, or (C) be split off into a new Weaver line article?
3. Should Gospel Oak to Barking line (A) remain as is, (B) be moved to Suffragette line, or (C) be split off into a new Suffragette line article?
4. Should Romford–Upminster line (A) remain as is, (B) be moved to Liberty line, or (C) be split into a new Liberty line article?

Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

1C & 2C split as there's a clear distinction between the line and the multiple services that operates on it.

3B & 4B rename as London Overground is the sole operator. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I concur with 10mmsocket. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 16:36, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Thirding, if that is even a word. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 17:06, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree as well Faisalisonline2 (talk) 18:37, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

As the original nominator:

1C: The Watford DC line also has the Bakerloo running on a large portion of it, it would be helpful to have different articles for the Overground service and railway line.

2C: The Lea Valley lines are not equivalent to the Weaver line. The Weaver line only operates out of Liverpool St to Enfield, Cheshunt, and Chingford, while the term "Lea Valley lines" also includes a section of the Greater Anglia mainline, the Hertford East branch and the line out of Stratford, which the Overground does not operates on. Separate articles would be appropriate.

3B and 4B: As the Overground service is the only operator on the entirety of these lines (with the exception of the infrequent c2c services via Woodgrange Park) and the Overground service runs only on these lines, there isn't much of a case for separate articles. However, in the two years since the line naming, the new names have been widely adopted and have become the WP:COMMONNAME, so both articles should be moved to the new name.

I don't think that any should remain as they are (so not option A), as the new names now are easily more widely used by the public and by news sources than the old ones. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Without prejudice to this discussion being ultra vires, I would stick with all A for now. I hardly see anyone using the confusing new names, other than TfL and almost-verbatim reports of TfL news releases, especially urgent ones about disruption that may need to be published with minimal editing. Certes (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

As per the Feb/Nov 2024 RMs, there's also the difference between infrastructure and service. For instance, 'the Suffragette line runs on the Gospel Oak to Barking line' (which oddly enough, hasn't been renamed to Gospel Oak–Barking line). Another good comparison is Crossrail project resulting in the Elizabeth line. One is about the construction project, the other is the passenger service resulting from the project. JuniperChill (talk) 19:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

All A - remain as is. The existing articles already provide clear, comprehensive coverage of well-defined, historically stable railway lines. There is no need to move or split any of these pages. The newly introduced London Overground line names are merely branding layers applied to subsets of services on those lines. They do not represent new infrastructure, distinct routes, or operationally independent systems.

Creating standalone articles like 'Weaver line', 'Lioness line', or 'Suffragette line' would largely duplicate content, as we saw in Faisalisonline2's attempt to split the Lea Valley lines article out into 'Weaver line' against consensus. These branded lines map onto pre-existing, well-documented routes.

With the Weaver line in particular, the branding applies to London Overground services on the Lea Valley routes, yet the same infrastructure is also served extensively by Greater Anglia. We do not create separate articles for each Greater Anglia service pattern on those lines, nor should we.

This situation is also not comparable to London Underground line articles. Underground lines are long-established, operationally distinct entities with clearly defined service patterns, identities and histories that correspond directly to their names. By contrast, the new London Overground line names are recent marketing labels applied across shared National Rail infrastructure, overlapping with other operators and existing route-based articles. Treating them as equivalent would be a false analogy. Nothing substantive has changed about the lines themselves - the existing articles remain the most accurate, neutral and maintainable way to present this information. Waltforest (talk) 00:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I will sum it up. The London Overground names are the names of one of the services over each physical line but there are other users of these. Some are used by freight. Some have rail User groups named after the line. It might be better to leave things as they are and just create subsections, if they are not already there. Or go for a split but as Waltforest notes, this would result in duplicate information. Renaming the articles based on just one of the services using them would be a bad idea. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 09:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Good point. "Suffragette line" isn't a physical railway; it's a (possibly ephemeral) brand for a service which shares the Gospel Oak to Barking line with other trains. The scope of our Gospel Oak to Barking line article is (and should remain) that railway rather than one of its services, so the current title is appropriate (though it might benefit from an en dash). Certes (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on suitability of RfC

Oh dear. Thryduulf did warn you that I'd be clerking this, and I must point out that per WP:RFCNOT, neither rename nor split proposals are within the scope of WP:RFC. Each has its dedicated process, and it is bad form to sidestep that workflow. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Apologies, I thought 24 hours would be adequate but I'll make sure to allow for more time in the future. I did have doubts about using an RfC but I similarly worried that going to WP:Requested Moves would not include splitting as an option (and vice versa). My thinking was that RfCs are the more general option, and would have the additional benefit of getting opinions from a wider audience. Given WP:NOTBURO (and dare I say WP:IAR), I hoped it would be fine given the odd circumstances but I may have been too optimistic.

If you have any alternate suggestions that would allow for both moving and splitting to be discussed that would be really helpful, it hopefully isn't too late to close this RfC and do it properly. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

We have had Talk:Watford DC line#Requested move 15 February 2024 and Talk:Watford DC line#Requested move 20 November 2024, not to mention others. Nothing short of a conclusive WP:RM can permit a page move. RfC is off the table. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Although can't any auto confirmed editor perform a move? Following this discussion couldn't someone just perform a WP:BOLDMOVE in line with the consensus here?

I did see the previous move discussions, but again they did not include splitting articles as an option, which as shown above is something multiple editors favour for some of the articles. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:BOLDMOVE: bold moves are only OK if there has been no previous discussion; the fact that a discussion has (twice) rejected a move means that it is controversial, and a bold move would not just be reverted, it would be seen as disruptive. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, understood, maybe another solution would be to have a requested move discussion immediately after the RfC for the articles that there are consensus to move? This could also be done for the articles that are to be split following this RfC if there's a similar requirement only to split after a discussion.

Again, I don't know to hold a discussion that can consider both moving and splitting as outcomes, so if you could provide a solution to that, it would be very helpful. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

See WP:SPLIT. For each of the four articles:

1. on its talk page, create a section titled "Splitting proposal"; in that, advance your case and sign it
2. at the top of the article concerned, put {{split|date=April 2026|discuss=Talk:{{subst:PAGENAME}}#Splitting proposal}}

By giving {{split}} those two parameters and no others, you are leaving the name of the destination page open for discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you your help @Redrose64, would it be acceptable to discuss all the split proposals on the same page, similar to Talk:Watford DC line#Requested move 15 February 2024? Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

What part of WP:SPLIT permits that? It even states Create a discussion on the talkpage of the page that content is to be split from. Please stop trying to circumvent established procedures. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really have been trying to read through these pages and best understand the procedures, and I have been asking for help where the information page is unclear (rather than just doing whatever I want).

I think I've just made this too complicated. Since 4/6 responses here favoured the same action (1C, 2C, 3B, 4B), I'll make a separate discussion for each article and close this discussion when I'm done. Pretzel Quetzal (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Popward123

Should be banned. Reached the point now where the same editing is no different to malicious disruption. MRSC (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I would now consider their edits to be disruptive as they have been asked on numerous occasions to stop, or focus on actual substantive improvements to articles rather than incessant fiddling.

a) I think it's worth pulling out what you, @Bazza 7 and @10mmsocket said on their talk page

I'm sorry to sound so unwelcoming, but I rarely find your edits useful to the project of writing an encyclopaedia. The only reason I do not revert them all is because it would consume the time I have to write articles. Just one example, of hundreds, changing the caption on Russell Square tube station from 'Station entrance' to 'Russell Square station' is so obviously wrong it should not need explanation (MRSC)

Adding my weight to this. We shouldn't have to be constantly correcting the issues that you cause. I have tried to be patient and to assume good faith WP:AGF, but patience wears thin. Perhaps you should consider stepping away from anything London Transport-related. (10mmsocket)

just reverted your replacement of a perfectly good image caption at Piccadilly Circus tube station. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions and especially the criteria for what makes a good image. You should avoid stating the obvious and in the case of this image you should establish the content - so a caption that states exactly where the entrance is should not be replace in my opinion. Obviously I'm happy to hear any counter argument you might have. (10mmsocket)

Why are you messing around with compass directions on articles? Do not introduce incorrect information. Check a map if you are unsure. (10mmsocket)

Danners430, above, has already asked you to stop making unnecessary changes. Your edits are not an improvement to Wikipedia and, in fact, lead to risks of contradictory data if the template's data is updated but yours is not. Please go back and undo any alterations you have made to Adjacent stations which have not already been reverted, and refrain from doing any more if your incessant tweaking. (Bazza 7)

b) noting that no responses were received to any of the above messages.

c) Tagging them Popward123. Turini2 (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Bazza 7 laid it out very well in my opinion -

I've said before on this page that if you really want to improve articles with small changes or corrections, there are lots of things you can constructively do; checking MOS:CAPTION formats, correcting MOS:CAPS, replacing technical terms and jargon in short descriptions and adding language tags are some of the simple constructive changes I sometimes work on. There are lots of others

No response, no change made. At the very least, they now use edit summaries... Turini2 (talk) 10:44, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, Turini2. I won't edit any more transport-related articles. If I see something that I think needs to be changed, I'll write about it on the talk page. Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

but do you actually understand why and what people are asking you to stop doing? It's no use stopping editing of transport-related articles if you go to other parts of the encyclopaedia and make silly changes there instead? Turini2 (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand. Popward123 (talk) 11:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

OK, MRSC. I won't edit any transport-related articles. If I see something that I think needs to be changed, I'll write about it on the talk page. Thanks. Popward123 (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And yet following that you went ahead and edited two more transport articles. Why? One more and I / we will take this to WP:ANI. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

Baffling behaviour. @Popward123 you can't promise not to do something and then immediately go do it! Turini2 (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

And again! ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kilburn_tube_station&diff=prev&oldid=1352453503 diff). 10mmsocket (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Platform arrangements table

@LachlanTansey has added a table to Aldgate tube station#Platform arrangement. I have made a couple of tweaks since the initial version to make it slightly more conventional. I think it is an interesting idea and is definitely worthy of discussion.

My thoughts are that it is unnecessary, it is unsourced, and I dislike the use of coloured text, instead preferring plain text next to a coloured box as used in the preceding services table.

What does everyone else think? 10mmsocket (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

A citation would be preferable, but I think it is better written in prose - see for example, High Street Kensington tube station#Station layout (although granted that this paragraph is unsourced as well. Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 07:24, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

It might possibly be sourced from the Railway Track Diagrams books by Quail Map Co. (Link is to relevant page for Aldgate in Vol 5). I'm not well enough acquainted with the maps or the services to work out if this is a straightforward citation or would count as OR? -- Verbarson  ^talk_edits 22:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

I'd like to say that I added this table as it has been adopted in my local city of Melbourne, Australia and Perth, Australia. This doesn't mean I think London should adopt it as well but I wanted to see how editors from London would view this. LachlanTansey (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

This matter has come up before, not necessarily on this page - I need to track it down. My own feeling is that where the layout is simple, as with Barbican, it's not useful; where the layout is complicated, as with Baker Street, we can't depict it in a non-confusing manner; for stations in between, where do we draw the line? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I forgot to add this to my previous reply,

I added the table as I thought it would allow for easier navigation of the page for platform usage. That is why this table was adopted in Melbourne. It replaced a simple list which the general consensus was that a table would be easier to read than a list. LachlanTansey (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

So I know there's no timetable on Wikipedia, but we've give it nearly a week and the feedback seems in favour of not having these tables. @LachlanTansey - thank you for making the improvement suggestion and coming here to discuss it. Please do come back if you have other suggestions on how we can improve things. 10mmsocket (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Table-based platform layout diagrams have been discussed and rejected (I think at WT:TRAINS rather than here) on multiple occasions. While the discussed examples that I remember were much larger than the example at Aldgate, I'm still not seeing that they add anywhere close to enough value to justify the space they do occupy. As Redrose says, where the layout is simple we don't need a diagram or table like this, as prose does the job fine and where it isn't the table will make things more complicated (try rendering Baker Street tube station, Stratford station, and Bank-Monument tube station in a table for example). I'm also not certain that the information in the table is actually encyclopaedic in the majority of cases (Wikipedia is not a guide for tourists or trainspotters). Thryduulf (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

These were added once before and all removed. This is much better done in prose. A lot of accuracy gets lost in these crude tables. MRSC (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2026 (UTC)