Talk:New Guildford Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
||
 |
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) | ||
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject. | ||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
|
||
 |
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Please work with the Images task force to add a suitable image to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the Imageneeded parameter from the {{TrainsWikiProject}} template call on this page to remove this image request. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the county of Surrey in South East England. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.) |
||
| Low | This article is on a subject of low-importance for Surrey-related articles. | ||
|
Article Grading: Surrey WikiProject tasks:
|
|||
[edit] Route Map changes
Hello. I am wondering whether the changes to the map made by Kevin Steinhardt are an improvement on the previous version. In particular the new version suggests that the line via Cobham is a secondary route and that the line via Bookham is the main line. I also find the layout of the junctions at Guildford confusing. Am I alone in thinking this? Mertbiol 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, you're not alone, I much prefer the previous version too. It shows the route (which is the subject of the article) as a straight line, and shows the junction layout at Guildford more accurately. With these routemaps there is no harm in showing a 'geographically accurate' diagram, where the map templates will allow. The wiggly nature of the present map is also highly distracting. The previous map still required some polish, particularly with regard to the names of adjoining lines, but was generally clearer (IMHO!).
- EdJogg 12:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- I also agree. User:Kevin Steinhardt has been making a lot of changes to maps recently, and not all of them are very good. The changes seem to be based on "condensing" the maps (to save space?), which is not necessarily a good thing in terms of improving their readability and hence their value. This users has also made some other changes which add little or no information, but just re-arrange existing data ... one wonders what this editor actually contributes materially? Four Ceps 20:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- To be fair, not all of his changes are bad, although this particular line appears to be an exception! Most of his edits recently have been to route maps, and the sample of five or so that I looked at all seemed to be an improvement, although whether the junctions are still 'geographically accurate' is another matter, as I don't know the lines concerned.
- In terms of simplifying maintenance, I find it easier to have all the rows the same type (eg BS5), as it is much easier to work out how they will align once displayed.
- EdJogg 22:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree about using BS5 for the maps. In fact it is the very reason that I do not use spoorstrip as it tries to replace anything BS5 with a simpler BS3 if it can. I think we ought to standardise on BS5, and do away with the BS3 and BS4 templates. Canterberry 22:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Anyhow, getting back on topic, the issue of having the railway line that is the subject of the article as a "straight line" on the map is fundamental ... we MUST!! Canterberry 22:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. So the consensus is that the changes should be reverted. Mertbiol 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Information from Hinchley Wood
There was more detail on the line and the services under the entry for Hinchley Wood than in this article (it was getting to a point where it was even linking to the station article to get information. I have copied some of the information here. It needs editing: there may be some NPOV against the services to weed out, balance or reference and the Old Rolling Stock paragraph needs to be broken up and the references converted. Anywikiuser (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
