Jump to content

Talk:History of public transport authorities in London

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Herbert Morrison

[edit]

Herbert Morrison was not Minister of Transport in 1933, so something is wrong here. Adam 02:35, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Adam.. you´re right about Herbert.M. But he was Transport Minister until 1931 and responsible for the Act of Parliament creating London Transport. Maybe the text should be amended ?? Greetings from Berlin IsarSteve 11:53, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

London Transport

[edit]

I find this article infuriating! It has the heading London Transport - the name never actually given to any organisation controlling the capital's transport - and then it skates through fifteen years hardly mentioning what the LPTB was or did; it then says "nationalised in 1948" without saying that it was separate from the other rail-based organisations; and then virtually ignores further other changes until it reaches Transport for London (ignoring the fact of a comprehensive article there). It is almost as if there isn't any worthwhile history in between!

Which explains why I have done something about it!!! Peter Shearan 13:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
well done Peter!IsarSteve 16:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well done. It made me jump to see it so radicaly changed. TAS 17:27, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit]

TFL Archives link no longer working. hjuk 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was article moved to History of public transport authorities in London

Requested move

[edit]

History of transport in London (1933–2003) → London Transport — The contents of this page are now developed enough to serve as the main target for the various entities historically known as London Transport, rather than pointing to a disambiguation page. MickMacNee (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest move to History of London Transport, which is what it is. I did the move and then realised this discussion was ongoing, so I'll move it back while the discussion continues. London Transport has never had an existence other than a brand passed between operators, and should remain a dab page. MRSC (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it remain a dab page? How does that actually help people looking for information on the brand? This edit which kicked everything off suggests that the page does not meet people's expectations as a bare list. Whichever way you look at it, any attempt to flesh out the dab page to explain the term, only makes it look more like what it should be, an article. Dab pages are for helping readers make a quick choice between totaly unrelated articles, I can't conceive of any situation where this page helps a reader better than a quick scan of the History article. The change you made to the hatnote here is realy wrong, because it actually suggests to anyone arriving here first that the dab page 'London Transport' is an article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain a dab page because "London Transport" is ambiguous. Disambiguation pages are deliberately brief so you can quickly scan for the correct article. How can it possibly be that scanning a lengthy article is quicker than looking at a dab page? MRSC (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages are for quick navigation between totally unrelated articles, they are not for quickly explaining the relationship between related pages. This dab page is only quicker for the tiny subset of readers who are looking for the London Transport entity that was responsible for a specific era, but didn't know the exact name of the entity, which is going to be a very small proportion of people. For everybody else, it is just a head-scratcher, an obstacle as they look around for an article on 'London Transport', which is this one. MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles do not have to be totally unrelated to be disambiguated! London, County of London, City of London, etc. spring to mind! The outward brand of a series of organisations was "London Transport" and in the public imagination "London Transport" is one continuously existing entity. However, the reality is different and we should be shining a light on that fact, not trying to fudge it because it is complicated. If one article were to link to "London Transport" referring to 1933 and another links to it referring to 1993, it is dealing with a totally different entity, with different structure, political control, area of operation and variety of transport modes. In fact, no article should point to "London Transport" as it is a disambiguation, and currently none does. If we move this article to replace the disambiguation, what exactly should we link to it, given that any inbound link will point to the relevant authority. MRSC (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But London, County of London, and City of London can be known as different things, whereas most people will only have heard of "London Transport" and some some complicated name from a set time period. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All known in some contexts as "London". The fact people have preconceived ideas, sounds like an argument for a dab page, not against it. MRSC (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but people have heard of each individual time. Whereas, almost everyone refers to London Transport as London Transport. I am interesting in buses, and I could not tell you what each bit of LT as stated on the disambiguation is called. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for a dab page. Not against it. MRSC (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, as it's not just "quickly scan[ing] for the correct article", it's more of 'What on earth is this? I've only heard of London Transport before - I shall have to spend time going through specific dates working out where I should be going next.' Arriva436talk/contribs 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of simple fact, dab pages are not meant to be educational in that respect, that is precisely what articles are for, which is why you have references in articles and not in dab pages. Having a well written single article on 'London Transport' is hardly fudging the issue. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
London Transport currently conforms to WP:MOSDAB; it contains no references and is free of any content, beyond the actual names of the bodies known as "London Transport" and the dates they were in operation. As such it is purely an aid to navigation. MRSC (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I have already said, being a dab page is only of use to a limited number of readers. Its compliance with MOSDAB is neither here nor there, that gives it no special right to exist over an article (and in actual fact, what you are saying by bringing up MOSDAB is that the basic facts of the dab page are not up for dispute/question, or require references - this is an assumption that the person arriving here is already knowledgable about 'London Transport' and is indeed merely requring navigation assistance, which as I have already said makes the case for it to exist over an article weaker not stronger) If it is only here to help onward navigation, that can be done as a hatnote on this article. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) The fact it is in compliance with MOSDAB is in response to your assertion that the dab page is doing the work of an article somehow or providing "educational content", as you put it. It clearly is not. You claim there is an assumption of knowledge by having a dab page when in fact the opposite is true. Dab pages by their nature assumes no knowledge. The reader might think that "London Transport" was one entity. The dab page makes clear it was not, and gives all the alternatives. A hatnote to this article would have to read as follows to do the job of the disambiguation page:

London Transport was the public name of a range of statutory bodies responsible for mass transit in London from 1933 to 2000. It could refer to London Passenger Transport Board (1933–1948), London Transport Executive (1948–1963), London Transport Board (1963–1970), London Transport Executive (GLC) (1970-1984) or London Regional Transport (1984–2000)

No editor would seriously add this to any article and if they discovered it, would convert it to dab page. MRSC (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant, but I'm really losing interest now. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some alternative ideas for the naming of this article:

The article is about more than just the handing down of the "London Transport" name. It is a summary of the situation before the formation of LPTB; it deals with the changing political control and scope; and finally introduces the current arrangements of 2000/2003 under Transport for London. It needs a name that reflects that. MRSC (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, if you believe what you're saying, and that a disambiguation page is necessary for London Transport, why did you redirect "London Transport" to "History of transport in London (1933–2003)". It can't have been a mistake, otherwise you wouldn't have moved "London Transport" to "London Transport (disambiguation)"? Arriva436talk/contribs 17:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"not me, mate" MRSC (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm lost now. [1] Arriva436talk/contribs 20:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can contain Background/Future content, without that needing to be reflected in the actual title. The only relevant thing is that the article is essentially about 'London Transport' (capital T). MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This gets me thinking. Assuming this article did not exist and we had to devise a London Transport article from scratch, I think it should focus on the brand. This is because that is all "London Transport" ever was. (This current article is more of a history of transport authorities, and that is why I suggest other names.) I'm not sure if there is enough content for a separate London Transport brand article, but if there was it would include:
  • Legacy of predecessor companies' brands
  • Key people in developing the brand
  • Iconography
  • Typeface
  • Architecture
  • Posters
  • Advertising
  • What was passed on to TfL in terms of roundels, typeface etc.

How does that sound? MRSC (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, because that I what I think most people are looking for. When someone says "London Transport", you think more of tube trains and red buses than the name of some board who was in control at the time. Arriva436talk/contribs 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a huge range of material available (online and on my bookshelf). I've started the article London Transport (brand). MRSC (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice article! Arriva436talk/contribs 17:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above, recommend a move of this article to History of public transport authorities in London. MRSC (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. Arriva436talk/contribs 17:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that the scope of the LPTB's authority and that of its successors up to TfL was not as wide as TfL's is. LPTB only had responsibility for underground railways, buses and coaches. It didn't have jurisdiction over mainline railways, river transport, canals or cabs. An article titled History of public transport authorities in London or one of the variants proposed above would need to cover these as well and include sections on the Public Carriage Office, and the London activities of the Railway Executive and the other sections of the British Transport Commission, making it more wide ranging than the existing set of articles.--DavidCane (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should work. The brand stuff has been moved out so there is definitely room for that. MRSC (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of public transport authorities in London. 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) 04:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_public_transport_authorities_in_London&oldid=1205727225"