Talk:Tube Challenge

(In)Complete Table?
I don't see the point of only listing some of the records. Better to list them all and the current record of 16:29:13 above all else. Spa-Franks (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume we're only listing the records that can be sourced, and/or that the record was only actually broken periodically. --McGeddon (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is actually just the records that have appeared in the GWR book. -- Tube Geek 77 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2016 (BST)

Neil Andrew Hall record?
The text below was on teh wikipedia page however Neil Andrew Hall's records is unverified and until GWR do confrim it on their website, it shouldn't appear on the actual page.

James and Wilson's record only last a week before Neil Andrew Hall completed on the 3rd June 2011 with a time of 16 hours, 11 minutes and 30 seconds. Neil Andrew Hall has comfirmed he has a certificate from Guinness comfirming his feet, however it has not been seen by anybody else in person, or has the Guinness website been updated.

Our Claim number 294734 was verified by Guinness World Records on August 27th 2011 3 months after the attempt itself if Mr Neil Andrew Hall did an attempt only a week later then he should have had verification months ago perhaps can print his own claim number here and an official Guinness representive can be contacted. Molecrochip (talk) 13:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

1960 Attempt
Someone has put in an entry for March 1960 with the name s George Hurst & Jane Barwick. And yet the Guinness Book of Records they reference is the 10th/1962 edition, and comes out of order being BEFORE the 8th - doesn't make sense.

Geofftech (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Do all interchanges?
Is there a variant whereby one does every possible combination arriving from both directions and departing in both directions on all lines calling on each interchange station? I would assume only one set of transfers would be needed in the case of trains of different lines utilising the same platform, and thus this concept would exclude most trivial possibilities all around the Circle Line. Also, only one passage in each direction through a connecting pedestrian walkway (i.e., stations with dumbell-shaped interchange symbols on the tube map) should suffice. This challenge would be much more time-consuming because even a simple "crossing" (e.g., Bond Street) would require 8 passes. Casey (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubious
An IP editor claimed that Daniel McGee, Marc Gawley and Jeff Controller set a 2012 world record that beat the 2011 record by one second, sourced to a broken URL. Today, a new editor claimed that the same three participants broke the world record in 1997, sourced to the 2000 Guinness Book of Records. I'll assume good faith, but have flagged this as dubious until someone can verify the offline source. --McGeddon (talk) 09:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You dont even need to flag this as dubious because its absolute bullshit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.35.176 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for a second opinion. I've cut it. --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

What counts as have "done" a station
Do you simply have to step foot on the platform (i.e. could you hop off and back on the same train) or do you need to cross the ticket barriers or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.221.13.140 (talk) 08:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

hop off and get back on saem train counts as having visited the station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.144 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You need not leave the train. Perhaps there should be some basic rules in this? Spa-Franks (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Labyrinth
Would it be appropriate to have a section that explains how Mark Wallinger's Labyrinth artwork? That artwork numbers all the London Underground stations in the same order as the Tube Challenge route completed by Andi James, Martin Hazel and Steve Wilson on 14 December 2009, so I think that it is a cultural reference to the Tube Challenge. Big Mac (talk) 19:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's actually already mentioned in the "History" section. --McGeddon (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015
Please change the first paragraph to include the exact World Record Title wording "Fastest time to travel to all London Underground stations"

Fifteen Forty-five Thirty-eight (talk) 21:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


 * - you need to give "a complete and specific description of the request". I'm not sure what to add, because it seems redundant to me when the opening sentence already says the same thing in slightly different words ("attempt to visit all the stations on the London Underground network in the fastest time possible"). --McGeddon (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

New confirmed World Record
Request for authorised peron to update page:

There has been a new confirmed World Record of 15 hours 45 mins 38 seconds by Steve Wilson and Andy James, set on 21st May 2015, as per http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/fastest-time-to-travel-to-all-london-underground-stations — — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.171 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 5 January 2016


 * ✅. —Sladen (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

acooridng to tfl and his own website GEOFFMARSHALL IS THE WORLD RECORD HOLDER so the legal arguments can now be resolved remove MR JAMES name from this page as GEOFF MARSHALL the hero is world record holder.


 * ❌ That doesn't invalidate James's prior record. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Andi, or is it Andy?
There seems to be the makings of an edit war over the spelling of the first name of one of the record holders. Over time, there have been several sometimes-lively discussion here of the spelling of his name, which has apparently been recorded on the media as Andy. A while back (I'm trying to find the discussion), consensus was reached, I believe, to go with Andi. Recently an editor changed one of several mentions of his name from Andi to Andy, leaving the others with the agreed to spelling. I reverted, given the editor failed to change all the mentions. Since then, we've had a bit of a tennis match, changing the name back-and-forth. I've now reverted to WP:STATUS QUO, and opening this discussion, but there is also the related issue of internal consistency of the spelling that should be addressed. I have no strong feelings about the spelling, although I do understand how the English-language media might erroneously assume the standard spelling was correct; I simply think consistency is important, and that we need to listen to the actual individual. --Drmargi (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like the cited sources are divided. The Guinness site said Andy; the Plymouth Herald article says Andi. —C.Fred (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you go onto tubechallenge.com/forum, all mentions of him on there (when talking to him!) are Andi. And those people know their stuff! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tube Geek 77 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * @Tube Geek 77: Forum posts are not reliable sources. We'll need to find something that's been published elsewhere. —C.Fred (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This -http://art.tfl.gov.uk/labyrinth/tube-challenge/ ? Or this - http://wiki.apterous.org/Steve_Wilson - another Wiki?.. Tube Geek 77 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The gov.uk page looks to be reliable. The Countdown Wiki does not cite its sources, so it can't be relied upon. —C.Fred (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The Spelling of Andi James refered to in the context of Labyrinth cannot be used as a reference as we cannot know for certain that it is the same Andy James who currently holds the record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.94.122 (talk) 12:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The likelihood of it being another Andi James and another Steve Wilson doing the same thing?? And any pictures show the same people... Tube Geek 77 (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus for the change of spelling thus far, and no reliable sources one way or the other. The IP above refuses to stop reverting to his preferred version, despite the failure to gain consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * But isn't the point of this we don't know his 'preferred version' Tube Geek 77 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm agreeing with you; there is no consensus to change from status quo, which is Andi, to Andy (in one instance, leaving two others Andi), based on one source. If anything, I find the TfL link the most reliable, and it uses Andi.  --Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ideally stick to one, and add a footnote "Andi James, alternatively spelt Andy James in some publications". —Sladen (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. --Drmargi (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We could do that, I suppose. Definitely sounds like the easiest!Tube Geek 77 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wonder if we could reduce the noise and just go with "A. James"? —Sladen (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did some hunting to try and better understand, exactly what might be being asked for. The account at https://www.twitter.com/palkanetoijala uses "andi james", (lower case + andi with 'i').  —Sladen (talk) 08:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

surprise surprise mr c fred the most arrogant of the editors has removed agian tell the truth mr C fred so called editor of wikipedia blocked means blocked they should block you for defaming the truth keep the truth and apologise for your illegal actions its the right thing to do or keep reverting back so people cant see this because you know the truth and u cant handle it DIE WIKIPEDIA DIE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.2 (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * , would really like to understand what "the truth" is, and which bit on the article is presently incorrect? At the moment it is unclear (to me) what is being requested.  Is there a URL or Twitter post, or anything that clearly explains what the precise concern is.  —Sladen (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * At one point, the user claimed that there were errors or that the sources used in the article were "illegal", but it evolved into legal threats. That's when they lost their editing privileges on Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * please consider letting the conversation run for a few days. Please.  —Sladen (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Sladen: If the user would be willing to focus on the sources in the article and how to directly improve the article, I would. However, if they go back to the territory of illegal sources, accusations of defamation, or demanding that Wikipedia or specific users apologize, then Wikipedia policy demands enforcement of the block. —C.Fred (talk) 19:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

-


 * , appreciations for the followup: You are welcome to write in Swedish/Svenska/Finnish/Suomi if it is easier.  —Sladen (talk) 19:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tube Challenge. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305141751/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-433122-new-record-set-on-the-tube.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-433122-new-record-set-on-the-tube.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429143148/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-7231700-going-down-the-tubes.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/showbiz/article-7231700-going-down-the-tubes.do

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tube Challenge. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120614040236/http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Richard-s-going-underground-charity-mission/story-11837754-detail/story.html to http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/Richard-s-going-underground-charity-mission/story-11837754-detail/story.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

archives
In case it makes any difference to anyone, I've merged /Archive and /Archive 1 as the 2 archive boxes above were showing different links. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * p.s. /Archive was originally created by a page move of this page, so contains a load of edit histories, which should really be on this page. Not sure how much this matters or if anyone cares. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021
I believe that the record time of 15 hours, 45 minutes and 38 seconds was included in the Guinness World Records Book 2021, and as such is required to be added to the bottom of the table contained in this article. 147.161.166.166 (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021
In response to the previously declined request to update the table on this page, Guinness World Records Book 2021, page 130 is the source. 82.132.233.64 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ restored previous text in table with ref as just requested. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is confusing - can we get a focus on the actual record, rather than on what appears in the printed edition of the Guinness Book of Records?
I was reading through the History section this article and trying to figure out why we have a 275 stations section and a 270 stations section and then realised there are record holders listed there, who are not listed in the table above.

I then looked at the text above the table and it says: "The following is a list of record holders that have appeared in the printed edition of the Guinness Book of Records."

So that means the table is not actually a list of the record holders of the Tube Challenge, but a more restricted list of the record holders that made it into a book. I think that's a wrong focus. Getting the record verified is obviously important, but if two or three teams all get verified by Guinness World Records, but they only print books periodically, I don't think we should be removing those record holders from the article.

So my first point here is: Please can we consider changing this to a List of Tube Challenge record holders table?

My second point is about the number of stations.

The table lists the number of stations as 264, 274, 273,272,273,277,278, 277, 272, 275 and then 270, while the two following sections put emphasis on 275 stations and 270 stations.

We also have this text under the table: "Since the record has not regularly been published in the book, there have been two broad configurations on the system – one for 275 stations, and one for 270 once the East London Line was no longer part of the network."

I think that puts undue emphasis on the East London Line closure and gives zero information about all the other station openings and closures that have changed this record attempt over the years.

I've tried looking for list of station openings and closures on London Underground, but can't find one.

There is an article, called List of London Underground stations with context of the dates that active stations opened and another article called List of former and unopened London Underground stations, that can give context on the closures, but I'm finding it hard to verify ten stations opening between 1960 and 1961.

So my second point here is: Please can we consider adding a notes column to the table that explains what stations have been added or removed since the last time the record was broken?

I also think it would be better to replace the "275 stations" and "270 stations" sections, with sections that explain what works have adjusted the number of stations (such as "East London Line closes for conversion to London Overground in 2007"). Big Mac (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)