Talk:Abbey Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in UK (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hertfordshire (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hertfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hertfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rewrite[edit]

As explained, I have rewritten this to include some history - I know it was in the Xlink, but it should be here too - and to put it into some chronological order Peter Shearan 06:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Transfer to TfL[edit]

I had to remove this nonsense.

If this were to happen the St Albans branch line could be transferred to the Bakerloo Line or Metropolitan Line once they are extended to Watford Junction.

This would require the line to cross the WCML which is simply not feasible without the construction of an expensive and un-necessary flyover.Sheepcot 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Not necessarily, they could just run a shuttle service from Watford Jn to St. Albans Abbey, a la Chalfont & Latimer to Chesham. I've reverted the deletion and amended the post to reflect this D-Notice 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I am sorry, but it still had to go. What you are proposing comes under the catergory of "original thinking" and has no reference or citation. Try again, amigo.Sheepcot 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

References[edit]

I have removed the 'unref=yes' in the TrainsWikiProject tag as I believe that this article now has a reasonable number of inline citations and references.Sheepcot 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Map[edit]

I have removed the 'mapneeded=yes' in the TrainsWikiProject tag as I believe that this article now has a reasonable map.Sheepcot 22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

If we can get a photograph added to this page, then do people think that can we apply for "GA" status?? If not, then what more needs to be done. Canterberry 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this field but it does seam awfully short for GA article (even a "B"), the self references (point 3 on city status) probably won't go down well. IMHO the history bit could be expanded quite a bit, the line website has stuff on it and there appears to be a book on the line.... Pickle 23:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The reason for this is that according to official sources this line is called the Abbey Line (and when doing a search, minus all the mirror sites, this name appears to be the most common). Simply south (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a redirect, didn't see any harm in doing so (if article moves then just overwrite the redirect, and make this one the redirect). However the UK railway history does conform quite strongly to conventions so I disagree simply on the basis that it may break existing articles. If not then I have no objection. SimonTrew (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

What Links Here puts 90+ railway pages. These will need manual checking since some will mean St Albans and some will mean Abbey Branch. I have to say nope not a good idea until that is done; I've put in the redirect so it's easy to change appropriately to that in those articles. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Most of the railway line articles can easily be fixed as they only link here due to the railway templates. Changing the links in the rail templates and they should follow suit (not immediate, there is a bit of a lag time of a couple of hours, but that's WP generally). Simply south (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I have no objection as such, but probably best to check those articles first. It's a pain I know, but I've just checked and augmented over 100 references on one article, it can be done. The templates are a nuisance I agree there, you kinda wonder where the link is when it's not in the article, oh sheesh it's at the bottom in a box. I dunno what the solution is to that but it's annoying, I agree. Need "What Really Links Here" or something.
My worry is not so much people linking to St Alban's Branch, which I guess is rare except in railway articles, but linking to St Albans, or to St Alban's Abbey i.e. having chosen the wrong link. That's part of the fixup process IMo to make it all better. SimonTrew (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Actualy I changed my mind. Nobody in his right mind is going to link to St Alban's Branch for any other reason than it being the Abbey Branch. Be Bold, go ahead and change it! Support and Be Bold just do it. SimonTrew (talk) 00:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Abbey Flyer[edit]

Time to start a discussion asking why Abbey Flyer cannot be bolded as an alternative name? Simply south (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

rail services which extended out of Greater London[edit]

This surely isn't one because it's not in greater London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)