Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of London Underground stations/archive1

List of London Underground stations[edit]

This list meets all the crieria for becomming featured:

It is complete - all currently open stations are listed, a separate List of closed London Underground stations exists and is clearly linked to.
It is acurate - the list is empircally verifiable by anyone in London and by referece to the external links.
The list is stable and uncontroversial - the criteria for inclusion are factualy and very easily defined, meaning there are no edit wars over inclusion. The only addition recently was an anon adding a station to the list that is actually in Philadelphia!
The list is useful in that it lists and links to all the stations of the London Underground - there are too many to inlcude as a section in another aritcle.
It is well structured and annotated - the stations are listed alphabetically and annotated with the lines (and branch where apropriate) that serve them.
The brief lead section is sufficient to define and summarise the list, and the table of contents includes all the headings and does not overwhelm.
The images add to the list in that they illustrate the diffent styles of stations on the underground, are not overwhelming and are all available under a free license (~~except Image:South Kensington station.jpg, which I have left a note on the uploader's talk page about~~ the uploader has now added a GFDL tag to the image. Thryduulf 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)). The only reason there is no image to illustrate the D section is that there is not one available (something I have noted on the UK Wikipedian's noticeboard, so I hope someone will do the honours and rectify this shortly). I beleive the captions are all good, but as I am the person who has written them all I cannot be objective about this.[reply]

Thryduulf 16:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - provided some references are provided (a link to the TfL website, or a citation of some official literature should suffice). -- ALoan (Talk)
- The TfL website is already one of the external links. Thryduulf 18:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry to be a bore, but we follow the recommendation in WP:CITE for a separate section entitled "References" for the sources that have been used to verify the content of the article. I've tweaked the lead to add the title in bold. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support - but shouldn't you put the title words in bold anyway? -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 20:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not certain what you are asking here, the only logical thing to bold in the introduction is "list of currently-open stations on the London Underground and the Docklands Light Railway.", which at about 50% of the introduction seems a little too much imho. Thryduulf 09:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I would much prefer this to be presented in a table format. Looking at the talk page history I can see it was at one stage, and was changed to a list - but table formatting in Wikipedia has improved immensely since 2003. This would allow for better readability, and also potentially for added columns with additional information, such as year that the station opened and notes such as the one for Queensway. The lead is also pretty short - it could do, for example, with something on some stations being shared by mainlines. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The repeated links to lines and zones distact from the station links. Susvolans ⇔ 10:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I'm going to oppose. It is missing some useful links from talk which indicate the actual distance between stations and provides little more info than a category would. Personally I would prefer either expansion with opening years of stations and stuff, or simply sort by line instead of alphabetically. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The distance between stations would seriously overcomplicate the list in this format, as you'd need to note which station was adjacent to it. This would be better done on the individual line pages where the order is already given.
- Sorting stations by line is already done on the pages about each line, where it fits better as many stations are on more than one line they would need multiple entries - making the list less useful. Thryduulf 12:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have to agree on this - so many of the Underground stations in central London are on more than one line that the list would be a mess if it were sorted by line - King's Cross St. Pancras tube station, for example, is on six line, and adjacent to eight stations (three lines run along on the same tracks here). I am a bit torn on table format - I think it the article is OK as it is, with the limited information that it presents, but if more information was added (such as date of opening, which would be useful) then I think a table would be better. And cells could be coloured with the colour of the line, which would make it prettier and possibly easier to read. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I can see your point. Scratched the oppose. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Please add your references under ==References=. I also don't see how this is a useful list. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list of links to Wikipedia articles on the Underground stations. That is useful, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Ian ≡ talk 14:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC) Changing to Oppose until a ==References== section appears per at least two comments above, which is an explicit criteria -- Ian ≡ talk 14:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support Filiocht | The kettle's on 16:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) Object for now. As well as the references section, there are large areas of ugly whitespace at the starts of the G, K, P, R, V, and W sections as viewed in IE6 (and "don't use IE" is not a valid response to this objection) Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- This white space is probably caused by pictures from the previous section but are too large to be contained entirely within the section. Do you have any suggestions as to how to fix this? It renders fine in firefox so it is difficult for me to test anything. Thryduulf 12:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've reduced it to a minimum by moving images around a bit. Now it may look horrible in Firefox! Just need the Refs now. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A couple of possibilities: some images could be floated on the left, so the text wraps after them. Alternatively, <br clear=all> before a heading would make sure that it appears opposite to the next image. Neither is ideal: left-right images may look messy, and br clears would leave spaces befor ethe heardings rather than after. Here is a go at the first - [1]. I see Fil has also had a go too, putting the images before, after or in the middle of their sections - [2]. Fil's version is a bit neater, but breaks the bullet pointing where the image is inserted. OTOH, my version falls foul of the problem with left-floated images overlapping bullet points. Which do people prefer? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried the left float idea, too, (in preview mode) but didn't like the lost bullets. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK - I prefer yours too so have reverted, but shifted them around a bit more. I think it works best if the problem images come immediately after the one before, rather than arbitrarily moving them up or down a bit. Better? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Not bad now, apart from the start of the G section, bu even it is better than it was. Now if only there was a References section! Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed "G" (moved the image up to "F"). I've added a reference from tube.tfl.gov.uk. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started adding the opening dates (where given in the article) for the station, and the name they opened as (where this is different). I've also started a mockup of what the table format would look like at User:Thryduulf/List of London Underground stations in table format. Thryduulf 11:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the openening dates as it just makes the list look very messy - see this version to see what I mean. Thryduulf 12:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]