Talk:Victoria line/Archive 1

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

Older comments and questions

At Euston station the track layout is particular in that the Northbound Victoria trains correspond to the Southbound Northern Line trains of the City Branch.

Looking at CULG (the Northern Line page, in particular) and my Quail map, I think this is wrong. There is cross-platform interchange between Southbound Victoria and Southbound Northern (City Branch), but the trains run in oppposite directions along the adjacent platforms. The Vic runs right-handed at this point in order to allow this. Similarly the NB Vic has XPI with the NB Northern. The signalling diagrams on Tubeprune confirm this, too. Having said that, I'm a long way from Euston and I can't go and check. --rbrwr

I think you're right. I think it's me that wrote that bit & I think I got my wires crossed. The Euston deal is the reason why the Vic tunnels cross over for Warren St - Euston - KX. The idea with these is always that the paired directions are "central"->"burbs" and "burbs"->"central" - in effect, it means you can treat the lines as branches. So yeah, a Walthamstow train will let you change to an Edgware train. And Eastbound Vic runs with Westbound Northern. -- Tarquin 16:44 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, so the Vic is running NE to SW and the City branch is sort of NW to SE at that point. The tracks are pretty much east-west at that point, so a northbound (Walthamstow) Vic is going east while a northbound (Edgware/Barnet) Northern is going west alongside it. I shall change it... and yes, it was you that put that in there ;-). --rbrwr

Also dumping this in here for the moment...

a new two-platform system with a central hallway and transverse connecting corridors was built, but only one of the new platforms is used for the Victoria line. The other receives the diverted connecting line, while the existing platform pair of the connecting line has one platform switched to the Victoria line.

...which is not quite true. It's true of Highbury & Islington, and of Euston (though a third new platform was also built there), but at Finsbury Park no new platforms were built (they reused the Northern City Line platforms) and at OXO and Stockwell the Vic was put in either side of the existing station. See CULG, for example.

Anyone have the cost of building it? 81.178.107.120 12:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 no consensus established Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Note: Centralized discussion concerning the potential move of all the London Underground lines

Victoria line → Victoria Line — Multimove - Grammatical error. Proper noun and so should be capitalised. — Clover345 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

  • "Victoria Line" is a proper noun and so the "L" should be capitalised in "Line" just as the "H" in Hospital is capitalised in "Royal Free Hospital" or the "S" in "School" is capitalised in "Westminster School". "Line" is part of the name as everyone including TfL refers to "Victoria Line" as opposed to "Victoria". TfL use an uncapitalised "l" in their literature as a trademark. Clover345 (talk) 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
    • See here and here for the discussions on the London Underground article talk page and here for the discussion on the Northern line talk page - all from 2007. If you want to propose this where it will be seen most, I suggest you raise the issue at Portal talk:London Transport. Personally, I think there are now too many internal links with the lower case format to warrant making the move and creating a mass of redirects.--DavidCane (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments but do you not think that it is irresponsible for such a widely used research source to promote the use of incorrect English? Clover345 (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Blame Transport for London. They name the things, after all, and clearly use the lower case form. – iridescent 15:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I was heavily involved in this discussion in autumn 2007 and all my comments (and Northern line Exhibits A and B) can be seen in the linked discussions above. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose - These should be kept as is, in line with Transport for London's usage on their website and maps. These are their services, they should know what to call them! Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? Please give me a good reason why branded formats should take precedence over correct English. And if so can we use the foreign names, used officially, for foreign related articles (for example foreign station names) because im sure they know what to use as its their name. Also why can't we name "The Guardian", "the guardian". After all, its their name. My point is why is there no consistency here. Its confusing for readers like me. Please explain, I don't understand how you decide on article titles here. Clover345 (talk) 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
How about iPod? c2c? etc. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • District Line and Central Line should be disambiguated, and Central line replace with the dab page, and a dab page built for District line. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support: Wikipedia policy is to capitalise tradenames (EasyJet not easyJet; BMI not bmi; Adidas not adidas). iPod is an exception specifically identified in the policy. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to support this request in general (I did 18 months ago as well), but it doesn't appear that the move request is mentioned on the other pages involved, so I don't see how this can go through. Dekimasuよ! 01:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    Moved to uncontroversial. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Moved back to controversial - a requested move to which there is opposition is not uncontroversial. Please do not move it again. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, I posted notices on the talk pages of the articles for the other lines pointing to this as a centralized discussion. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Grammatical correctness is supposed to take priority over brand name stylizing. --DAJF (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
This is hardly a case of "brand name stylizing", it's one of usage. Clearly, in the view of Transport of London, there are numerous subway lines, and their names are "Victoria", "Waterloo" etc. and not "Victoria Line", "Waterloo Line" etc. The argument being put forth is that "Victoria Line" is a proper noun, so it is gramatically incorrect not to capatize the "L", but Transport of London is the entity that created those proper noun, and the proper nouns they made are "Victoria", "Waterloo" etc. They are the authority as to what is the proper noun in this case, and their judgement should control.

In any event "line" is a descriptive term, not a proper noun. A "Three Musketeers" candy bar is not a "Three Muketeers Candy Bar". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice of this discussion posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Grammar Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose. This is not a grammatical error. Capitalisation is not a matter for the great tin god grammar, it is a matter of orthography.
    If the owner's choice of spelling is aloud (that's "misspelled" not "ungrammatical") once as for iPod then that is how it goes. TfL tries to lay down rules for all its publicity, even the corner radii of notice board frames, OK, it slips up sometimes but who doesn't? It says LU lines are named "XX line" so that's what they should be. To move and change dozens of articles for some misperceived non-error is preposterous.--SilasW (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Strongly oppose. I second and agree with SilasW's comments above - this discussion has shades of autumn 2007! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Almost all TfL usage has "line" in lower case immediately following the proper name. It's clear that to them "line" is a descriptor and not a part of the proper name of each line. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose Although I commented above with links to the 2007 discussions, I didn't make a definitive statement as to my opinion as the the article move. Here is a link to the TfL style guide specifying the lower case usage for line. --DavidCane (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
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.

Note: It is clear that line is the preferred style of use by TfL. However, when it is referred to in a non TfL, encyclopedic article the debate is whether it is gramatically correct or not. It is clear from this debate that people would rather go against this policy so please change it. Topic_creation#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Proper name = "Victoria". It is a line. Therefore correct article title is "Victoria line". It stops at Warren Street tube station, not Warren Street Tube Station, and is operated by London Underground 1967 Stock trains, not London Underground 1967 Stock Trains. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. – iridescent 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
UC or lc is not a matter dealt with by grammar so that is not the debate. One of the proclaimed clarities of an earlier edit is not apparent to me - what is the policy that people would rather go against? From the e-reams on the matter it is clear that there is no clear concensus in this matter and it is an old burnt chestnut for ever being pulled out of the ashes, read Iridescent's link.--SilasW (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Im not debating anything. I gave up ages ago. But I guess youre all just presuming Im continuing just like everyone on wikipedia does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As an observation, while TfL may use line, it's predecessor, London Transport, definitely capitalised the word Line, as in Charles E Lee's series of short histories of the various lines (or Lines) published by LT.Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent large edits

It would appear that the large edit at 22:33, 5 April 2010 by 69.23.114.159 consisted of the replacement of the whole article with the equivalent from simple English Wikipedia. I've restored to the previous version, but one difference between the normal-English and simple-English versions seemed like a reasonable change: the motif images in the station table. I've put these in, which means they largely duplicate the gallery. I guess one set could be removed again; I'll let consensus decide which should be kept. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the larger images in the gallery. If the images are to stay in the table, they should be enlarged slightly to be a bit clearer. The text in the table also needs formatting to remove the references to the second motifs which are not shown.--DavidCane (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Step-free contradiction

The article appears to contradict itself in the matter of step-free street level access.--SilasW (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

According to TfL (who ought to know) the only stations on the VL with step-free access are Brixton, King's Cross and Tottenham Hale; this is also what the article currently says. – iridescent 17:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I note that the table shows the wheelchair icon next to King's Cross, whilst the adjacent RDT does not. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Good point. I'm not actually sure what's the case at the moment; King's Cross is undergoing so much redevelopment work that it may be the case that the step-free ramp (which IIRC ran through the old Thameslink entrance) is currently shut. – iridescent 15:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Bill/Act

After hunting around, it appears it was probably the "British Transport Commission Act, 1955" which authorised the construction of the section from Victoria northwards (including the Finsbury park trial tunnels). However this could do with some proper citations. —Sladen (talk) 21:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 16 September 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: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:42, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

– This is a request move for all of the London Underground line pages (note that "line" was not part of a named line). I think that the capitalisation of this should be done as the "Line" in the various articles is a proper noun, and not omitted in any case. Just as someone stated before, the "College" in - for example - "Sussex Coast College", is capitalised and is not typed as "Sussex Coast college" (or "Sussex coast college"). The London underground names should be written with the "Line" capitalised. For example, "Victoria line" could not be simply said as "Victoria" to some people, as the noun would be omitted. The official London Underground map does only say the first words of each line, but that is only for diagrammatical state, such as in RDTs, the words "railway station" are omitted. The situation would be different if the prefix was "the", as that could be debated, but like all of the other lines in the UK, they have capital "Line"s (to name a few Great Eastern Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Hounslow Loop Line etc.). To name the main confusing example, the following two sentences are different. The Bakerloo Line is a railway in London. One of the lines in London is named "Bakerloo". The difference is subtle, but the capitalisation is needed. Furthermore, the London Underground signs on the various routes under London are all in capitals. Nothing actually on the system names the line with a capital or not. But, to reiterate my first point, the "Line" is a noun in the case of the whole name "Bakerloo Line" and should be capitalised appropriately, rather than only typing things such as "Buckingham house". I leave it up to the people on this talk page to decide, but I strongly believe that Line is the correct term. I would suggest taking a look at rule 2 here [1] and [2]. Nathan A RF (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose; not this again. If you can persuade TfL to change the names of the things by all means Wikipedia will change to match, but we don't rewrite reality just to match a rule you found on stackexchange.com. Use lower case when referring to Tube lines: Hammersmith & City line; Northern line if you want chapter-and-verse from the actual style guide for these matters. ‑ Iridescent 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
    (adding) "Victoria line" could not be simply said as "Victoria" to some people, as the noun would be omitted is possibly the silliest argument I've seen in a move discussion. Variations of "take the Victoria to Oxford Street and change to the Bakerloo" are probably said a million times a day, with no apparent ill-effects from people omitting the word "line"; do you get confused when someone says "the 10:30 from King's Cross" because they didn't say "the 10:30 from London King's Cross railway station"? ‑ Iridescent
  • Oppose per Iridescent, I trust now that the TfL editorial guide has been drawn to Nathan A RF's attention she/he will do the decent thing and withdraw this proposal. --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:27, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Clarity, please! See this image [3] - when the Jubilee line opened, it had a capital l, as I guessing most underground lines did when they opened (as the common grammar style at the time they opened was to capitalise them). If the owner/operator of the lines at the current time is the steer, then all articles like Woodhead Tunnel, Dinmore Tunnel and Hadley Wood Tunnel are incorrect because the Network Rail documentation refers to them in the plural.
I am not in favour of changing the article names at all; but are we saying that what TfL says is correct, but Network Rail is incorrect? Like I say, some clarity would be nice. Regards (and sorry to have muddied the waters....)The joy of all things (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the bible for LU's varying house style post-1960, Underground Maps After Beck, they stopped treating "Line" as a part of each line's name with the introduction of the Garbutt map in 1964 but continued to capitalise "Line" in their public-facing signage (e.g., in the keys on the tube maps the circles with white-line connectors are "Interchange between Underground Lines"). From 1987 onwards, "line" has been consistently in lower case in all public-facing material other than vintage signs. (The easiest way to track this across various incarnations of their house style is to look at how Turnham Green is treated on the tube map, as from 1979 onwards the map always includes a "Piccadilly Line/Piccadilly line early mornings and late evenings only" note.) ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Regarding the tunnels parallel, I'd say we should continue to use the singular for Dinmore Tunnel and the like under WP:COMMONNAME, given that they're not generally referred to by the people likely to be reading the articles in the plural. Likewise, we don't move the names of railway lines whenever a TOC decided it would be a good publicity wheeze to rebrand the Little Piddling to Grimbleton branch line as the "Grimpiddle Railway", unless the name passes into common usage. (As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm not particularly happy about even reasonably well-established names like Mayflower Line or Tarka Line being used in Wikipedia's voice.) If there were strong documentary evidence that verified that most writers routinely treated "line" as part of each line's name and capitalised it accordingly then a move would make sense, but otherwise it makes no more sense than routinely capitalising "station". ‑ Iridescent 17:31, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I am not in favour of any name change whatsoever, I just needed some clarification as to how and why we were naming things. I used the tunnels as an example as I started a thread and the well thought arguments from the community were against it. It was just a suitable analogy for my question about naming conventions. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose; for the same reasons outlined by Iridescent above and discussed previously. We have a clear policy on naming from TfL to follow. What happens elsewhere in the world or on Wikipedia is not relevant to this approach.--DavidCane (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, primarily per Iridescent. Consider adding the Jubilee and Circle line pages to this nomination; not sure how you managed to miss those. —Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
    to reply to me     02:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Transport for London. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose we've had this several times before; plus, why would we want to move Central line, which is a disambiguation page? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree with the nominator that it should be Jubilee Line, and when I design reports for LU I capitalise Line (side note: "interchange with Underground Lines"? That makes even less sense). However those are internal reports, and until such time as my subtle act of rebellion reaches the signage department, Wikipedia should follow the current public practice, which is to use a lower case line. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. Most reliable sources use the lowercase "line." That said, I agree with mattbuck's uppercase "rebellion" because it's cool a proper noun and because in other places, they capitalise "Line"—which seems not to be the case here. epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Victoria_line/Archive_1&oldid=1137296801"