(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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

It's actually already mentioned in the "History" section. --McGeddon (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done - 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)[reply]

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

 Done[1]. —Sladen (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

 Not done That doesn't invalidate James's prior record. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

But isn't the point of this we don't know his 'preferred version' Tube Geek 77 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. --Drmargi (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We could do that, I suppose. Definitely sounds like the easiest!Tube Geek 77 (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder if we could reduce the noise and just go with "A. James"? —Sladen (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

62.172.169.2, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
2A02:C7D:7877:5100:74C4:427A:1364:F101, 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)[reply]

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Categories