Jump to content

Talk:Central line (London Underground): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs)
11,637,095 edits
m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)
Line 143: Line 143:
*'''Support''' as someone whose own city has a [[Central Link|central line]] (for now). '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as someone whose own city has a [[Central Link|central line]] (for now). '''[[User:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#5d9731; color:white; padding:2px;">Sounder</span>]][[User talk:SounderBruce|<span style="background:#1047AB; color:white; padding:2px;">Bruce</span>]]''' 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' –&nbsp;Clearly there's no primary topic here. However, I would not capitalize Line in the disambig page title. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' –&nbsp;Clearly there's no primary topic here. However, I would not capitalize Line in the disambig page title. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as common sense! <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">Jeni</font>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<font color="deeppink">talk</font>]])</sup> 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''' as common sense! [[User:Jeni|<span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:deeppink;">Jeni</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Jeni|<span style="color:deeppink;">talk</span>]])</sup> 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
*'''Partial support'''. OK for the London addition (Proposer seems to think that any ambiguous term should be 'clarified', but this is not the case here: Central L/line ''could'' be a primary topic (by [[WP:DAB]] standards). In that case, no DAB term would be needed. However, the London line does not convince as a primary topic, so indeed the DAB term should be added).
*'''Partial support'''. OK for the London addition (Proposer seems to think that any ambiguous term should be 'clarified', but this is not the case here: Central L/line ''could'' be a primary topic (by [[WP:DAB]] standards). In that case, no DAB term would be needed. However, the London line does not convince as a primary topic, so indeed the DAB term should be added).
:wrt the capitalisation of Line/line? As is today, both [[Central Line]] and [[Central line]] are corvered in the [[Central line (disambiguation)]] page, which is OK per [[WP:DPAGE]]. With this, I think the DAB content should be in [[Central line]] (lowercase, as is today btw). Of course a redirect in the uppercase name page. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
:wrt the capitalisation of Line/line? As is today, both [[Central Line]] and [[Central line]] are corvered in the [[Central line (disambiguation)]] page, which is OK per [[WP:DPAGE]]. With this, I think the DAB content should be in [[Central line]] (lowercase, as is today btw). Of course a redirect in the uppercase name page. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 08:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:33, 22 February 2022

Early conversation

Branch lines can be done with double indentation. Likewise closed sections. The Ongar thing is a minor point, that can be labelled. A diagram with just the names would allow accompanying text to be worked on, so that's probably best. -- Tarquin

What i acutally meant about branch lines was it does not show which was it branches off also. Some parts ar very hard to do i mean the eastern bracnh of the central lines breaks off goes on its own route and connects again laster on. -fonzy

If you did the distric line or metropolitan9which would conatain (east london and hamersmith and city too). IT WOULD BE A COMPLETE MESS.

Er, I have a feeling this is working from one of those "The London Underground: A Diagrammatic History" maps by Douglas Rose, for all the dates and so forth. Is that right? 'Cos if so, this may be copyright material. Then again, all the information he presents is presumably from the public domain, so maybe it's only the exact presentation he has copyright on. Can one of the copyright experts enlighten us? --Bth


The design with ticks for stations is the work of Harry Beck. I'm not sure if design schemes are copyright, but they might be and I'd rather err on the side of caution It's also more Wiki-like to give a text list that anyone can add information to. The District line just has many beanches -- some of these operate independently, eg the Edgware Road - Wimbledon line. Likewise the Metropolitan: it's now only Aldgate - "lots of branches in the back of beyond". Ham&City is seperate, so is EastLon. -- Tarquin


Yes i am getting the dates and old naems from ther. But i am trying to make it as different as possible. Douglas Ross did the whole underground map together. etc

It would be preferable to either have a horizontal diagram or to stick the diagram down the side of the page. Currently there's way too much wasted space. -- Nairobiny

I WAS TRYING TO GET OUT OF TAHT BECUASE IT LOOKS TO FAMILIAR. COPYRIGHT ETC. -fonzy

Tarquin what i was saying about east london metropolitain is that orginally the east london line as part of metropolitain so it would come under the same map. Also the district has had 10 different branches (in a sence) - fonzy

I suppose it would be possible to just forget branches and give a list of all stations. - fonzy

You could break the DL into branches from a main page. Also the ELL wouldn't necessarily need to be on the same page as the ML; they have different colours now after all. -- Nairobiny

Well the point about the ELL is that at the moment it has no stations of its own or lines. Unlike the jubilee line where it has some of its own and lines of its own. As orginally most of the jubillee line was part of the bakerloo line. - fonzy PS i'll just do lists for now. something can get sorted out later.

You must be thinking about another line. The ELL most definitely has its own stations: New Cross Gate, New Cross, Surrey Quays, Canada Water, Wapping, etc... They're about to extend it up to Dalston and beyond. Nairobiny

Look originally the east london line was part of the metropolitain line. EVen though it did not connect. When i say it has no stations of its own i mean. It has had none built under its own name. (if that makes sence):-s. if you looke ata map of the tube 50 years ago. the line is there but showh in the purple of metropolitain line. Understand? Altough yes you are right tehy are plannng to extended it. -fonzy

Sure, but it's now its own line. And should be shown here as such. What's so hard about that? -- Nairobiny

i know what your trying to say. Its one of these little things. Well its sought of like saying do it for teh cricle line. The circle line has no sations of its own. It was as ervice invented by the district and metropolitain lines.

Well do you have any ideas how to deal with thes kinds of things?

"The East London Line is a London Underground line... It was formerly part of the Metropolitan Line but was redesignated as its own line, complete with its own colour, in 19xx."
"The Metropolitan Line is a London Underground line... In 19xx, several parts of the extensive network were redesignated and became separate lines, including the East London Line, ..."
You can use that if you wish :-) -- Nairobiny


I'm with Nairobiny on this one. Seperate according to their current names, and maybe split the District into component services. I've removed the abbreviation list & put it below. Wikipedia is not paper: we have the space to write in words and not force the reader to decode information. -- Tarquin

I really do egta nnoyed when ppl keep telling em what do to all the time. I am fed up with it. I know your not trying to be horrible. But it does hurt me. Anyway I think more the est london line you could infact do it on the same page as the mrtropoltain line. but under the heading of eats london line section. AS it was a section. - fonzy


I am still more bothered about the distirct line particular becuase of all the branches below is a quick map: File:Vroughdistrictline.png

The dark blue was when the service was given to the picadily line. The light green are old branches. A couple closd because another line had a service along side it. -fonzy

Best to decide what to do about the Met and the Dis on their respective pages. Putting EastLon on its own page doesn't preclude mentioning on the Met page that EastLon used to be a branch. The Wiki environment takes some getting used to, Fonzy. I remember -- I've only been here since January '02. No article belongs to any on person, so we're not telling you what to do, we're suggesting what we should do on this page. An important aspect of the project is that anyone can add information, which is why I've said we ought to have a text list. -- Tarquin
  • O:Opened
  • C:Closed
  • RO:Re-opened
  • FS:First Serverd
  • RN:Re-named

When was that station ever called "NOTINGHILL Gate"??? KF

Its always beeen called nottinghill gate.(from what i knwo) its right in fornt of me ona modenr underground map. - fonzy

Hey, look at my sentence and then at yours. See any difference?

NOTING is not NOTTING.

NOTTINGHILL is not NOTTING HILL.

Have a nice Sunday, KF

You just wrote that to complain at a typo?! why didn;t you just correct it rather than go to teh talk page and shout about it?

Let's stop that now please, whoever you are. I DID correct the typo, and then fonzy changed it back to "Notinghill", and as he has been mentioning older station names I was just wondering. Anything wrong with that?? KF

?? o i know what happened edit cnflict so i copied and pasted over the corrected typo :-s


Shouldn't the stations be given under their modern day names? Some of the history, name changes could be given in the article text and then some of it (rather like for the Mornington Crescent entry could be given in an individual station page. Tourists to London could be confused if they try to find Post Office station, unless they read the article carefully. -- Nairobiny

I'm trying to be careful of copyright. :-s - fonzy If i say opened as: etc it is turning out more like the source i am getting it from.

No need to worry. That the station is now called St Paul's is a statement of fact, not an issue of copyright. -- Nairobiny

What i meant was if i write St pAULS OPENED AS popst office. etc it looks liek the soruce i am gtting it from where as the current way looks nothing like it.


Names aren't copyright, and raw information isn't copyright. The phrase "opened as" can hardly be claimed as copyright, a) it's too short, and b) there's really no other way to express the same thing. I would say current name first, though I don't think we're writing for tourists -- they can find GIF and PDF maps on the LT website. I'm not sure we need a page for each station: how much text would be there? I would say stick to a page per line, and if a station eventually gets more than, say 3 paragraphs to it alone, then promote it to a page. -- Tarquin

Well could you quickly do the otehr stations (in that situation) please. - fonzy no chanegd my mind luckliy the central line is wquite easy but some stations have ahd about 5 names changes. and that may be messy.

Example: Embankment o:hasjhk renamed charring cross(embankment):jadjkdakj renamed: charring cross:kkhfh renamed chrring cross embankment: akhakdhk renamed embankment: adhkdhkadk closed: dhjdhi reopen: dfkjdfkj


Embankment / Charing Cross is going to be tricky to lay out clearly. I remember once explaining it all to a friend over a pint or six in a pub. Not a trivial affair... -- Tarquin

Hmmm Also there's more than those stations that have been renamed more than once. King Cross and St Pancras for one. I think just keep the orginal style for now. - fonzy

Another point about Charing Cross itself The Bakerloo line sattion was known as Trafalgar Square until they decided to build an interchange betwen both stations and renamed it Charing Cross.


History

hello

Could someone please cite sources for some of the recent changes to this article? The line, I would argue, hasn't had a 'chequered' history - it was successful certainly after the initial issues with loco vibration - its a very subjective view. Secondly, the running tunnel diameter isn't 'unusual' - almost every London tube line has this diameter. Thirdly - I have no evidence for problems with gauging issues on the initial line, and it certainly isn't menioned in any of the major reference histories for the line.

Requested move 21 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved: Clear consensus that the page be moved, with no objections to it. (non-admin closure) Class455fan1 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– I'm really surprised that nobody has ever bothered to move this article to an unambiguous title. For as much as I know, "Central line" is just as, if not more, ambiguous as "Circle line"? Moreover, people outside of London will tend to think that "central line" would mean "central venous catheter" at first thought. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such concept as "more notable" in deciding whether there's a primary topic. It would be hard to imagine an argument to make any of the topics primary here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The present situation doesn't make much sense, and this is especially true if we are going to use lowercase "line" per WP:NCCAPS. The present title implies a generic category, as opposed to the specific London line, and there are "central lines" all over the place, in various fields. There is no reason to make navigation difficult in this way. RGloucester — ☎ 20:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as someone whose own city has a central line (for now). SounderBruce 22:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Clearly there's no primary topic here. However, I would not capitalize Line in the disambig page title. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as common sense! Jeni (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial support. OK for the London addition (Proposer seems to think that any ambiguous term should be 'clarified', but this is not the case here: Central L/line could be a primary topic (by WP:DAB standards). In that case, no DAB term would be needed. However, the London line does not convince as a primary topic, so indeed the DAB term should be added).
wrt the capitalisation of Line/line? As is today, both Central Line and Central line are corvered in the Central line (disambiguation) page, which is OK per WP:DPAGE. With this, I think the DAB content should be in Central line (lowercase, as is today btw). Of course a redirect in the uppercase name page. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central line (London Underground). 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Central line (London Underground). 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) 03:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Central_line_(London_Underground)&oldid=1073373909"