Jump to content

Talk:Chester–Warrington line

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

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route Map

[edit]

Can I just point out that you cannot go from Manchester to Chester on that route map.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it is is there anway of making the Junction at Earles town clearer?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving it some thought. Britmax (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a solution. What do you think? Britmax (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody add Newton-le-Willows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.158.139.101 (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BSicon xKRWxl+xl.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:BSicon xKRWxl+xl.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The 'Parkside' wikilink on the route diagram takes you to a 'Parkside' station on a Derbyshire narrow-gauge heritage line. This is obviously causing confusion as currently no wikipages exist for the northwestern 'Parkside' Paul Gaskell (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early History

[edit]
I'm not sure if you are chatting or offering content for the article. If the former, see WP:NOTFORUM, if the latter, we unfortunately cannot accept personal knowledge and reminiscences, which fails the core policies of WP:NOR and WP:V. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was offering content, because I know a lot about this line, but fair enough. Gone.

Does this railway actually exist? ... I could go and take a look, but would that be original research? If I point to a map showing this as the northernmost point of the LNW/GW joint network, is that wrong too?

No wonder it just reads like a history-free trainspotter's page. Who is 'We', by the way?5.81.29.34 (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"We" means the Wikipedia community; see WP:Five pillars; WP:What Wikipedia is and also WP:What Wikipedia is not. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I contribute quite a lot to Wikipedia, so perhaps I am actually a member of the community on whose behalf you speak. It's just that I don't log in any more, or blow my own trumpet on a massive self-agrandising user page covered in medals and barnstars. So what should I do? I could quietly edit-in things about the history of this route which I know to be fact, but I tend to avoid pages that have an obvious self-appointed 'guardian', because then every second word gets plastered with 'Citation Required'. Maybe I'll just leave it as a train-spotters guide, because there is much more - and better - information about this route elsewhere on the web. ChrisRed 5.81.29.34 (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 November 2016

[edit]
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: move all as proposed. The consensus from this conversation is to follow the convention for railway lines, in which the word "to" is avoided as it specifies only one direction, and en-dashes are used (without spaces) to connect the place names. Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus to avoid capitalizing the word "line". This consensus matches the original proposal, so we can move them all as proposed. (non-admin closure) Bradv 01:57, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Per discussion at Talk:Settle-Carlisle_Line#Requested_move_12_October_2016, there seems to be broad agreement that connecting symmetric line endpoints by an en dash is preferable to using "to" which is a one-directional concept. And none of these are proper names, so "line" should not be capitalized (most have been fixed already, but not all). These are from Category:Railway lines in North West England; presumably the result will be propagated to other regions in England if accepted here. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Ebonelm (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting comment: I've decided to make a seperate comment here rather than adjecent to the nominators statement as I have a number of points to make. I have relisted as discussion has become stale. While in term of just counting WP:!VOTEs there are currently more supports than opposes, there actually appears to be a difference of opinion within the supports as to what they actually support moving the articles to: the two main issues appear to be whether or not the word 'lines' should be capitalised as 'Lines', and whether there should be a space between the terminus names and the en dash. Neither the various support groups or the oppose side has presented much in the way of WP:EVIDENCE. Ebonelm (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps relister missed the section #Evidence in books, below. Dicklyon (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon, I've read the full page, I said that neither side had "presented much in the way of" evidence, that doesn't mean no evidence, the point I was making is that the vast majority of commments make little effort to engage with policy or evidence. Though frankly I'm not sure that a book search is necessarily the most compelling form of evidence either, lines change names and books do not form part of the every-day usage of line names. Ebonelm (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they "change names" and are called various things is the whole point of the books evidence: that is, they are not proper names and we are free to use house style, as others do. Web search is much harder to use for such things, since so many sites just mirror the current Wikipedia name. Dicklyon (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Okay, I was really trying to stay neutral on this whole issue, particularly as I was the one who relisted but given the complete failure of anyone to bring evidence into this debate I have had a look into it myself (and yes I am including the so-called "book evidence" brought up previously as part of this complete failure as on closer inspection it is completely invalid as it was just a link to a search in books, no quotation marks were used meaning anything can just pop up and in many cases the books brought up were totally irrelevant, and whatsmore there was no comparison). Therefore I have done a full analysis of both book searches and general Google search results, using quotation marks so the results are actually valid. NB: quotation marks does not affect captialisation or spacing so it does not matter if it is 'line' or 'Line' or whether it is 'Chester–Manchester line' or 'Chester – Manchester line' or for that matter if actually a hyphen or em-dash have been used instead of an en-dash by mistake, all variations are covered.
Looking at the usage we this move proposal should clearly be rejected by WP:COMMONNAME:
In books:
"Chester to Manchester Line": 547 hits v. "Chester–Manchester Line": 7 hits.
"Crewe to Derby Line": 7 hits v. "Crewe–Derby Line": 7 hits
"Crewe to Liverpool Line": 6 hits v. "Crewe–Liverpool Line": 115 hits.
"Crewe to Manchester Line": 3 hits "Crewe–Manchester Line": 205 hits
"Ellesmere Port to Warrington Line": 3 hits v. "Ellesmere Port–Warrington Line": 0 hits
"Glazebrook East Junction to Skelton Junction Line": 0 hits v. "Glazebrook East Junction–Skelton Junction Line": 0 hits
"Leeds to Morecambe Line": 650 hits v. "Leeds–Morecambe Line": 6 hits
"Liverpool to Manchester lines": 407 hits v. "Liverpool–Manchester lines": 2 hits
"Liverpool to Wigan Line": 747 hits v. "Liverpool–Wigan Line": 7 hits
"Manchester to Preston Line": 4 hits v. "Manchester–Preston Line": 5 hits
"Manchester to Southport Line": 6 hits v. "Manchester–Southport Line": 3 hits
"Shrewsbury to Chester Line": 201 hits v. "Shrewsbury–Chester Line": 45 hits
"Stafford to Manchester Line": 4 hits v. "Stafford–Manchester Line": 332 hits
"Stockport to Stalybridge Line": 65 hits v. "Stockport–Stalybridge Line": 4 hits
On wins: 8 wins for "to", 4 wins for "–", and 2 draws. On raw numbers: 2650 hits for "to" and 732 hits for "–".
In general Google search:
"Chester to Manchester Line": 2760 hits v. "Chester–Manchester Line": 1670 hits.
"Crewe to Derby Line": 8800 hits v. "Crewe–Derby Line": 736 hits
"Crewe to Liverpool Line": 1170 hits v. "Crewe–Liverpool Line": 2480 hits
"Crewe to Manchester Line": 2260 hits v. "Crewe–Manchester Line": 2680 hits
"Ellesmere Port to Warrington Line": 3060 hits v. "Ellesmere Port–Warrington Line": 69 hits
"Glazebrook East Junction to Skelton Junction Line": 432 hits v. "Glazebrook East Junction–Skelton Junction Line": 7 hits
"Leeds to Morecambe Line": 1840 hits v. "Leeds–Morecambe Line": 1370 hits
"Liverpool to Manchester lines": 3040 hits v. "Liverpool–Manchester lines": 1830 hits
"Liverpool to Wigan Line": 2020 hits v. "Liverpool–Wigan Line": 1800 hits
"Manchester to Preston Line": 2950 hits v. "Manchester–Preston Line": 2350 hits
"Manchester to Southport Line": 2180 hits v. "Manchester–Southport Line": 2980 hits
"Shrewsbury to Chester Line": 2610 hits v. "Shrewsbury–Chester Line": 1750 hits
"Stafford to Manchester Line": 4430 hits v. "Stafford–Manchester Line": 1030 hits
"Stockport to Stalybridge Line": 890 hits v. "Stockport–Stalybridge Line": 1330 hits
On wins: 10 for "to", and 4 for "–". On raw numbers: 38442 hits for "to", and 22082 hits for "–".
From these results it is massively clear that WP:COMMONNAME supports the status quo. Ebonelm (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
False dichotomy. An en dash in this context is synonymous with "to" used in this way (while a hyphen is not, except in news style guides that do not use en dashes ever, for anything, which is irrelevant to us because WP is not written in news style). Just the fact that the usage is this inconsistent in off-WP sources proves that it's simply arbitrary from author/editor/publisher to author/editor/publisher, so WP is free to seek consistency between these articles for its own purposes and under WP's MoS rules. WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy; it tells us what the name is (i.e. Chester [to or –] Manchester [line or Line], versus Weaselsmiths Fairy tunnel versus the Route to Hell; it does not tell us how to style the nit-picks in Chester [to or –] Manchester [line or Line] once we've determined that the sources tell us the common name is Chester [to or –] Manchester [line or Line] in various capitalisations/punctuations/spacings. MoS is what tell us how to capitalise, punctuate, and space the nit-picks.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well if this is a purely stylistic debate then the move should be closed as malformed as its not representative anyway. 14 railway lines in the North of England should not be used to determine the editorial style of all railway lines across Great Britain (or maybe even the world, as the original nominator did not frame this as a purely editorial discussion, or set any parameters), a broader consensus needs to be reached! Unless of course the aim is to have different editorial styles for different parts of Great Britain? Ebonelm (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think most rail lines worldwide do use en dash and lowercase line. See for example Category:5 ft 6 in gauge railways in India; not consistent, but more en dash than not, and more lowercase line that upper, it looks to me. Dicklyon (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And your long editing history in the field of rail transport certainly adds weight to your opinion (not). Lamberhurst (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My rail editing history is pretty long in Indian, American, and Canadian systems; not so much in UK. But we do have a WP style that we try not to have pockets of weird diversity in. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—this is a generic usage ... we don't need "evidence that a dash is used in their name". It's a matter of one's own house style. The dash is far, far easier for readers. That's why dashes are used. Tony (talk) 02:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Tony1, and: Absent clear COMMONNAME either way (Lamberhurst's argument is an application of selective burden of proof), we fall back to reasoning and editorial judgment. Partly because the "to" incorrectly implies a single direction of train travel, the dashes seem more reasonable to me. They show a connection without a direction (an arrow would show a direction). Those pointing to other articles should refer to the widely-accepted essay WP:OSE. Consensus can change, but not if it is repeatedly used to reinforce itself. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with corrections per WP:MOS basics (specifically at MOS:DASH, MOS:CAPS & its WP:NCCAPS derivative, and MOS:TM). (Corrections, also per MOS:DASH: Those with multipart name elements are spaced: Ellesmere Port – Warrington line, and Glazebrook East Junction – Skelton Junction line.) [The spacing bit ended up leading to discussion on another page, for later resolution; striking it as a concern for now.] When actual RS usage is divided, just do what MoS says, and move on. That ends a pointless dispute before it even really gets started, which is why we have a Manual of Style in the first place, otherwise people will rehash over the same sorts of emotional but ultimately arbitrary stylistic trivia on thousands of articles every single day, forever. These articles are not some "magical snowflake" exception to anything. The rename does not create inconsistencies with other line articles (the inconsistency is random and runs through our coverage of mass transit topics globally, with RMs like this being stepwise attempts to reduce that problem). The other articles closely related to this one are also already included in the nomination (if any were missed, either add them or move them to conform later – there's certainly ample RM precedent even without the current one). It is these articles, not this move proposal, failing to comply with WP conventions, so the complaint that the RM is breaking some convention is ackbasswards and invalid. MoS, like all guidelines, can have exceptions, but we only apply them when the vast majority of RS consistently use that specific variance, and the MoS-preferred version is virtually unattested in the wild. That scenario simply is not the case here, for either point at issue.

    In detail: The "to" in the current names is misleading, implying one-way travel and/or a hierarchical relationship between the cities (this also makes it a WP:NPOV problem). An en dash is the standardised usage for this sort of thing (regardless of topic), implying simply a relationship between distinct entities (like cities) without judging anything about the nature or direction of it. MoS has been stable and clear on this point for years. Use lower-case line because this usage of the word is a common noun, not a proper name. Do it also for consistency with other transportation articles (on other transit lines, on stations, on bus terminals, etc.) And as has been said in innumerable prior RMs and other discussions about transportation-related article titles. Do not mistake capitalisation on signage for a proper name The sign right next to that one probably says "MIND THE GAP", and the next one over may say "First Aid By Platform 10" (not making that up; I just looked at images of actual British railway signage, and that capital-B "By" isn't standard in any style, register, or dialect, it's just sloppy). This is capitalisation for emphasis, and it is the first thing that MOS:CAPS says never to do on Wikipedia. Also, avoid confusing proper names with officially preferred functional descriptions, which is what these are; the Chester–Manchester line is, quite literally the Chester–Manchester line, i.e. the line running between Chester and Manchester. If it were designated the Pink Line or the Princess Diana Line, either of those evocative appellations would be proper names, since they are not descriptions but arbitrarily symbolic (the railway line is neither pink in color nor has anything intrinsic to do with Diana Spencer). It's the same difference as that between Washingborough railway station (literally the railway station in/of/for/to/from/through/at Washingborough – a formal but merely descriptive appellation) versus Grand Central Station (an evocative, symbolic proper name that is not just descriptive/categorising). Another example: the Berkeley I-80 bridge, a description (albeit a semi-official one sometimes thought of as a name, like "Chester–Manchester line") versus Golden Gate Bridge (an imaginative, symbolic, non-descriptive proper name – it is not golden, isn't a "gate bridge", and doesn't have a "golden gate").

    It is not an excuse or a "precedent" that we have many other transit-related articles that need capitalisation cleanup, e.g. many of those in and around San Francisco: Fruitvale station (the station in Fruitvale, Oakland) is named correctly but Van Ness Station (the station at Van Ness Ave., SF) is not. It looks like BART articles have been cleaned up and Muni ones have not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • "In detail: The "to" in the current names is misleading, implying one-way travel and/or a hierarchical relationship between the cities (this also makes it a WP:NPOV problem). An en dash is the standardised usage for this sort of thing (regardless of topic), implying simply a relationship between distinct entities (like cities) without judging anything about the nature or direction of it."...... This strikes me as being a fairly spurious argument, does anyone really think that the line goes in only one direction, or that it implies a hierarchical relationship? I've never heard such utter nonsense in my life! Also the average reader is likely to find it rather confusing that we have some articles with the upper-case 'Line', and others with the lowercase 'line' based on essentially arbitrary criteria. Surely a railway line is a railway line and it either is capitalised or it is not. It is daft to have a mishmash of different standards based on an arbitrary criteria. And if this proposal is accepted then it will inevitably lead to endless arguments over whether a particular line name is formal or descriptive. I'm thinking Woodhead Line or Glossop Line for example. The only way to avoid these inevitable and unnecessary arguments is to just leave things as they are. G-13114 (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      Except there are many transit lines (mostly buses) that are one-way, at least in significantly differing in route back to point A from point B (even entirely differing other than the end points, e.g. going in a ring). In the BART light rail system, I can take a train directly from an outlying city, town, or suburb into San Francisco proper, but getting back may require a transfer between two separate lines (depends on day and time). Your supposition of a universal 1:1, to-and-from correspondence is imaginary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone talking sense! Rcsprinter123 (spiel) 00:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see any sense in the criticism of a valid point. The en dash is clearly bidirectional, requiring no metaphorical process; this is on top of the greater ease of reading what is usually a long, chained nominal group. Tony (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's not a valid point, it's utterly ludicrous pseudo-logic. Furthermore if one of the objections to the 'to' is that it implies a hierarchical relationship between places, then could it not also be argued using the same logic that putting one place before the other in the title also implies a hierarchical relationship? Does by this logic calling it the Chester-Manchester line imply that Chester is somehow more important than Manchester as it is placed before it? And if we put it the other way round then by this logic = same "problem". Or could it be that this (like the supposed bi-directional claim) isn't really a problem at all, and therefore needs no solution? G-13114 (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            Addressed above already. Your supposition of a universal 1:1, to-and-from correspondence is imaginary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way to deal with the current mishmash, and avoid unnecessary arguments, is to just follow the settled guidlines such as WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS; "just leave things as they are" just leaves things in a mishmash. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Golden Gate Bridge: Poor example. Read the first sentence of the lede: it's the "suspension bridge spanning the Golden Gate strait". Useddenim (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which just raises exactly the same point I made. The straight is the "Golden Gate", a proper name, because it's an evocative, poetic, symbolic name, not the "golden gate", which in theory would be a simple description, of something that actually is golden and is literally a gate. Similarly, notice that the same lead refers to "a strait on the west coast of North America that connects San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean", and "the headlands of the San Francisco Peninsula and the Marin Peninsula", yet does not capitalize "straight" or "headlands" despite each referring to a very specific geographical feature; they're descriptions, not proper names. By contrast, "Marin Headlands" is a proper name for the latter, and "Golden Gate" for the former.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of "to" and replacing with a dash For obvious reasons. I have no view on the formatting of the dash.--MrStoofer (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in books

[edit]

Please review to see if you can find status of either proper name status or even common use of the various names; I think you'll find that the route names are descriptive, not proper or standardized (and the en dash stands in well for "and", "to", "between" etc. symmetrically per en dash) (Note that the search terms are purposely not quoted, so that we get all variety of expressions mentioning the two endpoints in either order, and line, so we can judge the range of naming and styling variability in sources):

It seem overwhelmingly clear that with few exceptions, line is not capitalized; exceptions are a few "Main Line" cases, which nobody is proposing to change; those are treated as proper names by sources, so are treated as proper names in Wikipedia. The rest are not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "Main Line", like "Grand Central Station" or "Something Memorial Something" (Henry G. Shirley Memorial Highway, etc), is evocative/symbolic rather than descriptive, thus a proper name, not a common-noun appellation used as a classifier.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And WP doesn't cap (railway) "Station", I believe. Tony (talk) 07:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Modification for spaced endashes

[edit]

@Dicklyon, Andy M. Wang, SMcCandlish, Absolutelypuremilk, Lamberhurst, Randy Kryn, RGloucester, Rcsprinter123, Amakuru, David Biddulph, G-13114, and Tony1:

Please support or oppose SMcCandlish's modification for spaced endashes, in the parent section. I would expect Opposes from editors who oppose any move at all to be ignored by the closer—this is only about the modification—but I'm pinging them anyway as they may wish to modify their Oppose after reading SMcCandlish's essay.

  • Support spaced endashes per SMcCandlish. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite: The MOS:ENDASH bit in question: "The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space." We surely don't really need to have a separate !voting section for this; it's simply a rule, and the closing-and-implementing admins will know to follow it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RM closes don't require an admin. If it's simply a rule, that will be obvious to !voters here, this subsection will SNOW close, and that will avoid any potential complications at close time. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of implementing moves will require an admin [or, these days, a "page-mover" sub-admin, I suppose]; "same diff'rence" as we used to senselessly say in elementary school.  :-) Anyway, if anyone wants to argue about the MoS particulars on this, they should do so here. The wording needs to be clarified (and a bad example fixed) so it's clearer it applies to geographic as well as numeric ranges.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:56, 3 November 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.

Pacers withdrawn

[edit]

If anybody has any news sources stating when pacers were withdrawn please could the future developments section be updated with this information. Maurice Oly (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Railway line

[edit]

I am wondering why the connection in this article is described as one line. The only source I could find where this name is used is a book about the route via Altrincham (Mid-Cheshire line), an entirely different line. This article instead begins with the line between Chester and Warrington but then continues to describe a section which is part of the L&MR Liverpool–Manchester line. These are effectively two different lines built by two different companies. --PhiH (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Attached KML/Chester–Warrington line

[edit]

Can somebody add Template:Attached KML/Chester–Warrington line ? 92.71.60.62 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because it doesn't exist Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KML is the geographical data that can be used to create something interactive on Google Maps. Have a look at M53 motorway, top right corner, you have a little icon labelled "Route map", you can zoom in, see all the other landmarks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.71.60.62 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chester–Warrington_line&oldid=1216816018"