Talk:Bakerloo line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stanmore Branch section

I do wonder whether the map should include the Stanmore branch as we cover the history of the line and its relative position to the remaining branch would be useful to readers (maybe dotted or a lighter brown) --VampWillow 15:51, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Sounds good - go ahead ;-) - David Gerard 16:39, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think either include none, or please include the route to Watford too. Patrickov 14:38, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Possibly a separate map, e.g. the Northern Heights diagrams on Northern Line. Who feels like doing some bad art? - David Gerard 18:39, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fake Buildings

Sorry if this sounds foolish but I heard some while ago that a certain part of the london subway - not sure which line, may even be gone now - was made in such a way that they couldn't have real buildings up anymore so they built fakes to either side of the road. I don't know much more about this but if it's true can you give me the name? Chooserr

This is correct, although I do not think that it is the Bakerloo line has any of these. The earliest Underground lines used very shallow tunnels built using the "cut and cover" method and were originally operated using steam trains. Hence they needed regular holes in the tunnel roofs through which to vent their smoke. In the more afluent areas of London these holes where sometimes hidden behind fake house facades so as not to spoil the appearance of the area. The Bakerloo line was electric from day one and probably never needed any such holes but the District line does still have them. See: http://www.urban75.org/london/leinster.html for details and pictures. --DanielRigal 16:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See Leinster Gardens  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 18:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

South London Tube Plan: bollocks

No such plan exists I suspect: try googling it.

I've taken it out as unsourced. -- ChrisO 23:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading photo caption?

The photograph captioned "Bakerloo Line route map as seen inside a 1938 tube train" is somewhat misleading. The carriage may have been built in 1938 but the advertisement cards place it firmly in the late 60s or early 70s. One ad has an all-figure phone number, not introduced in London until 1966; the Eamonn Andrews "This is Your Life" lookalike presumably post-dates the 1969 revival of the TV series, and Linus Pauling's misleading notions about the health benefits of Vitamin C didn't really come into their own until after 1970. Also, the photo shows a blocked-off lamp holder which in the 30s and 40s would have supported a tungsten lightbulb with an art deco glass cover. These were removed when central fluorescent tubes were fitted instead. GardenQuad 20:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakerloo line, not Line!

Please could someone update ALL links and article titles? Thanks Sunil060902 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

I can't see any consensus in the discussion below, it seems evenly split, and looking at naming conventions I note that we Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is almost always capitalized in English. Hiding T 16:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am opening a formal discussion to move all the line articles at London Underground back to XXX Line with a capital L. This is to sort out the consensus, following the undiscussed moves recently. I have tagged all the pages for a centralised discussion. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Wikipedia policy is that we do not follow corporate naming conventions unless in very specific circumstances. c2c is one example of an exclusion, iPod is another. These are not that unique that we need to break naming conventions. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Iridescent 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:MOS-TM, which prefers normal English capitalization rules for proper nouns to stylized rules made up by organizations. If "line" is just a descriptor, as has also been argued below, it isn't even needed - the plain title, "Bakerloo", redirects here. Dekimasuよ! 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "line" is the correct terminology, so oppose D-Notice 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2.Your Honour, may I present Exhibit A and Exhibit B, as well as a new Exhibit C (apologies for camera shake), which I believe the Court has not seen before:

• 
• 
• 

Sunil060902 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I agree with Sunil060902 - London Underground itself does not capitalise "line" even when referring to a specific one, so neither should we. Nick Cooper 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Please see my comment in the discussions section below for my reason. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Because (a) Most lines colloquially referred to just by name - e.g. "Take the Piccadilly to Green Park then the Jubilee" (b) TfL are naming them so, and Wikipedia should stick to official titles irrespective of its own (ARBITRARY) policy says.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

In the real world, bear in mind line names are mixed case on maps, line diagrams, leaflets, and trains. True, some repeater boards in trains and on platforms do bear "Line" with capital L, but Occam's Razor surely must mean that they are programmed incorrectly, given the overwhelming number of "hard copy" examples listed above. Also another point, do we refer to Lambeth North Tube Station, or Lambeth North tube station? best, Sunil060902 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, the real world doesn't necessarily define how WP psge titles work. If LU changed them to read nORTHERN lINE we wouldn't rename them that way. We don't have theguardian or theGuardian for the same reasons. Regan123 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're talking hyperbolically about the reversal of case I fear! Anyway, I think it should reflect the real world, given that thousands of people from London, the wider UK, and around the world use these lines heavily every day. Thought about Lambeth North tube station yet? BTW, was it you or Iridescent who mentioned Capital Transport? I have their 1994 (pre-TfL!) Underground Official Handbook. Contents page has sections for all the individual lines in Mixed case. Don't know if I can legally scan and upload it though as Exhibit D. best, Sunil060902 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what we feel it should do, the naming conventions are clear that we shouldn't normally go with brand names unless there are very good reasons. So my comment is not hyperbolic or any other thing. It is a clear expression of the guidelines. Regan123 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh forgot to add, surely an Encyclopedia ought to reflect the real world usage of a term, or it wouldn't be encylopedic by definition! Maybe I'm not 100% correct in suggesting they are brand names per se, but approaching from a slightly different angle, hopefully you can see where I'm getting at if I ask you: Lambeth North Tube Station or Lambeth North tube station? best, Sunil060902 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"line" isn't necessary branding. In British English, the proper noun is usually capitalised. However in this case whether it should be "line" or "Line" depends on whether you see "Northern line", as a whole, as a proper noun or if you only see the "Northern" part as the proper noun. I personaly think that "Northern" is the proper noun and "line" is just a common noun and so should be written with an uncapitalised "l". Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Answering two points in one. People refer to the 'Northern Line' as an object not to the Northern. People refer to stations as 'Lambeth North', 'Watford Junction' and so on, so the two aren't related. To me the Line is a proper noun here. -- Regan123 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true but the common noun is used to put the Proper noun into context. For example if you were refering to the station, rather than saying "Lambeth North", you would say "Lambeth North station". In the case of "Lambeth North" and "Watford Junction", the "North" and "Junction" is clearly just part of the station name and do not describe them as a station. In the case of "line" here, this describes the subject as a tube line. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the London Underground hold trademarks, or something equivalent, on the names of the lines? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been unable to find anything to that effect on the London Underground website. Dekimasuよ! 11:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One has to remember that every single railway station article has station in small case. For example Waterloo. Should it be any different for lines? Sunil060902 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, were you replying to my question? If so, I missed the answer; could you please clarify? I haven't made any assertion about what the title should be, as I have no opinion on that topic. If you were talking to someone else, then never mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, not really, just making a point. I have removed the indent to my message above! best, Sunil060902 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The closer above said, "I have tagged all the pages for a centralised discussion." Where would that be? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean the "opener", User:Regan123! The discussion is the one listed right above these comments. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I see that was the opener... Anyway, I'm sorry, but I still don't see a link to a discussion "right above these comments." What discussion? Am I being quite blind here? All I see is a link to our naming conventions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you not see Discussion in the coloured box anywhere? It is there I assure you! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The word discussion appears 17 times on this page (not including the TOC), none of them with a link underneath. Why won't you just tell me where the centralized discussion is, please? Where are people currently talking about whether or not to capitalize the 'L' on Tube Lines? Please show me where it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here - although I don't know if that's what Sunil's referring to as there's no link to it above — iridescent 15:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not what Regan123 was referring to, he intended this page to be the main discussion (see history for any of the Underground line Talk pages). Here was the tag, since removed: multimove|Central Line|Talk:Bakerloo line#Requested Move. The one you linked to was a far older discussion. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also note that User:Hiding has closed the Discussion on this page, the relevant text enclosed in the coloured box just above that I was talking about. His comment to that effect is directly above the coloured box. If in doubt, click right here. HTH, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see the discussion directly above, but I didn't realize that this was the same as the "centralized" discussion you referred to. Thank you Iridescent for the link to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#Naming_of_lines - that seems to be a good place for centralized discussion that affects all lines on the Underground. There's clearly no consensus in either direction, and it seems to make sense to have a discussion affecting all lines in central location, such as the WikiProject.

All that's clear to me at the moment is that it's not obvious one way or the other, and that nobody needs to be moving pages around until we reach some kind of understanding about how to capitalize these article titles. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

London Underground seem to have a policy - see exhibits A to C above. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Depot

I find the citation of the depot section in the web side as follows. However, this document is exactly same as the depot section of this article. I am not familiar with the UL law but does TfL accept to copy part of its web site to Wikipedia?

Depots There are three depots for the Bakerloo Line. The main depot is at Stonebridge Park. Built in the late 1970s on the site of a former British Rail power station, it handles the maintenance of the Line's fleet. It was formally opened 09 April 1978. There are two smaller depots. . The original depot at London Road (near Lambeth North) is still in use. The Bakerloo Line is the only line on the Underground to run trains in passenger service through a depot at Queens Park, where a depot is situated immediately North of the station. The depot sheds were completed late in 1915 where some of the trains are stabled.

When Bakerloo Line services still ran to Watford, there was a depot at Croxley Green. This depot closed in November 1985.

--Hahifuheho (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Slap on the wrist for whoever let that through. – iridescent 23:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a proposal to move all the articles of the Transport of London tube lines, capitalizing the "L" of "line". Please see the centralized discussion at Talk:Victoria line#Requested move. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Now closed. --DavidCane (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Lewisham proposal

I'm afraid I'm not experienced with wiki enough not to make a complete hash of editing the article, but it does seem like the extension piece needs a rewrite.

The only public consultation - https://consultations.tfl.gov.uk/tube/bakerloo-extension/user_uploads/bakerloo-line-extension-consultation-report-final.pdf - has been run on the basis that the line goes to Lewisham, and the optionality is that the line goes there either via Camberwell or via the New Kent Road.

As such - shouldn't the subheading be 'Extension to Lewisham', with details of the two potential routes there underneath? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.92.19.35 (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Victoria line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)