Talk:Emirates Air Line (cable car)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gondola or Aerial Tramway?[edit]

I don't think there's any clarity whether this is technically a proposal for a Gondola lift or an Aerial tramway. The British English term cable car covers both, but the TfL info published to date does not appear to specify. Can anyone confirm either way? Otherwise I think the article should reflect the uncertainty.

Also, the project does not appear to have an official name. The current article title (Royal Docks and Greenwich Peninsula Cable Car) is the closest to official descriptions but if a snappier name is adopted by TfL feel free to move the article. Cnbrb (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
It not possible for an aerial tramway to "provide a crossing every 30 seconds" over a distance of more than 1000 meters. So it must become a gondola.--MrEnglish (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Isle of Dogs.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Isle of Dogs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • 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.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Some changes reverted[edit]

With apologies if it's a bad call, I have just reverted some uncited changes by You can see them here. I was concerned by the strange levels of precision in the changes to numbers and by the oddness of the 5m extension story and its wording. If this editor - who doesn't really have a track record that I can use for reassurance - really has access to this information then they need to give us a good, and verifiable, source - please see WP:RS and WP:V for example. In any case I think it needs discussing here - for example I can't imagine when precision like .723 of a metre is ever going to be appropriate here (that last digit is 3 *millimetres*, right?); the 5m paragraph would certainly need a citation and rewriting into better English; and the accidental trashing of the "opening" bit in the template though easily done is unfortunate and doesn't inspire confidence. If is a serious editor and really has good sources for these changes and reasonable arguments for their inclusion, I hope they will come back and participate on this Talk page. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Current Construction Status[edit]

Similarly "Current Construction Status" has been updated without references and seems generally light on sources. It's nice to have it in but isn't a bit of a hostage to fortune if it doesn't tell us where all the data is coming from? Again, maybe this is good-quality information from people who really know - but even so, it needs a verifiable reference for the rest of us who would like to check! :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


I added a bit about the branding of the Emirates Air Line - it's possibly an interesting aspect of the system because of its semi-autonomous status in relation to the TfL network. Curiously they don't seem to have decided upon a corporate colour yet - on the tube map the line appears in #E41F3A, but on the Emirates website they use the ever so slightly darker #D9002A. Very subtle difference, but worth mentioning if anyone wants to be precise. Cnbrb (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 17:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Emirates Air Line (cable car)Emirates Air Line – The company is call "Emirates" and the cable car is call "Emirates Air Line". There is no need to disambiguate the page Emirates Air Line between the two. To help potential readers landing at the wrong page, a hatnote such as already exist at EmiratesEmirates (airline) will be sufficient. Relisted: Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 06:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC) KTC (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  • This seems reasonable to me, if hatnotes are provided. The titles are different (although there's still some potential for readers to arrive at the wrong one, due to the similarities, so hatnotes are essential) so I think " (cable car)" is not needed as a disambiguator. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Struck out !vote - I find the opposition below to be quite persuasive. bobrayner (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – part of the point of the title is to tell the reader what the topic of an article is when he gets to a page. Emirates (airline) does that for the airline, but Emirates Air Line would not do so well for the cable car. Leave the current title. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
    But that's not what it's for at all. The (...) is used to disambiguate between two or more articles that has the same name when there is no primary topic. See WP:PRECISE. The only reason this article isn't at Emirates Air Line is because when it was created, the Emirates name wasn't known, and by the time it was it couldn't be moved by non-admin due to page history. You can actually see in the page history that an article was created at Emirates Air Line covering the cable car coverting from the previous redirect. That was then change to the current disambiguation page when the creator realised there was already an existing article. KTC (talk) 09:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have a sliiiiiiight preference for leaving in the (cable car) bit as I think it is an immediate and accessible aid to clarity in a slightly silly, sponsorship-created mess. Having said that, it doesn't really matter that much as it's only ever going to be one or two clicks away ... linky linkoids, hypertext, an ting, are all the rage with Wretched Young People™ and the so-called Internet™ nowadays I understand. So I am unlikely to pick up the pitchfork over this one. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the disambiguating "(cable car)" is doing no harm whatsoever and anyone out of touch with London will thank en.wp for leaving it it. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The proposed change of title would be misleading / confusing to readers. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
    I can see this won't pass which is fair enough, but to call it "misleading"? That's the official name, since when has using a subject actual name become misleading? KTC (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - Quite. Can we agree on "potentially confusing" or "not as nice as bunny-wunnies" perhaps? But I agree that "misleading" sounds like the runup to a fist fight. (I will bring beer.) DBaK (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Emirates Air Line" should redirect to Emirates (airline). -- (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    Comment - gosh, I honestly don't think it should, no. Chalk and cheese, and pulling the rug right out from the sponsor's slightly silly punningness. I really think that Emirates Air Space Line in whatever form should get you here, not to the actual airline with planes and stuff, because I don't think that the Word Space Word usage is at all common when people mean the Wordword version. If you see what I mean. :) Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I think you're right; "Emirates Air Line" probably shouldn't redirect to the airline's page (instead it should go to the disambiguation page), but "Emirates Airline" should. —Compdude123 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose – I think that if someone was to type in "Emirates Air Line" into the search bar, it would be far more likely that they're searching for the airline article rather than the cable car article. A change would be misleading and would confuse people. —Compdude123 00:37, 9 July 2012 (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.

Generic name better than corporate branding[edit]

Please move this article: it is ludicrous for Wikipedia to call this thing "Emirates Air Line". That name is the result of a sponsorship arrangement in which the operators of the cable car refer to it by a contrived name in return for money from the sponsor. A new sponsor might be found in the future and a new name then used by the operator, with all mention of Emirates being erased from history in Orwellian fashion. We are not bound by such arrangements and should just call it the Thames Cable Car. By way of comparison, we don't refer to St James' Park as the Sports Direct Arena, though we do (and should) mention this name in the article. Wikipedia has no obligation to provide free advertising to Emirates by behaving as if we are bound by the contract that exists between them and the operators, and it is not a service to our readers to file our articles under contrived commercial names. Credulity (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And yet right next to it we have "The O2". The bottom line is that the cable car acquired the full official name even before it opened, and is likely to remain as such for quite some time to come. We can't ignore than and use an unofficial generic name, just because you or anyone else objects to the official one. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Well that's another good example of a misnamed article. That building is the Millennium Dome, was constructed as such, has been known as such for years, and then someone paid for it to be named after them and the likes of Wikipedia are for some reason dancing to their tune and providing free advertising without getting any of the sponsorship money. These contrived names are the result of private commercial relationships between two parties which do not bind users of the English language as a whole. Perhaps I am in a minority on this, but I can't believe everyone is happy dancing to the tune of sponsors, or that the average person in the street goes to great lengths to ensure the names they use for public landmarks conform to whatever the latest sponsorship deal dictates ("We went to London and visited the 'GlaxoSmithKline Coca-Cola CathedralARENA @St Paul'sTM' and it was great!"). I know this is turning into a general complaint about Wikipedia's naming conventions, and if I had the stamina I would raise it on the policy pages, but for now I'd just like to register my support for a move to the most straightforward descriptive name, which by my reckoning would be something like "Thames cable car" or "Thames Cable Car". Credulity (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yet we also have the example of Tower 42, which went the opposite way in losing its corporate branding, although many people still refer to it by its original name. It's very probable that the Emirates name will similarly "stick" to the cable car, even when the sponsorship come to an end. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Tower 42 is a poor analogy because it actually housed NatWest from the beginning, rather than just being sponsored by them. It was perfectly logical for everyone to refer to it by the name of the company that occupied it. Credulity (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
For the benefit of future readers, the operating principle is Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. We don't given special preference to official names, whether they have sponsor names in them or not. But we also don't avoid official names just because they have sponsor names in them. If the official name (with or without sponsor names) is the common name then we use that, if it's not then we don't. In cases where it's borderline what is the common name, we may have to consider other factors and so in that case it's possible we will decide to avoid a name likely to change such as one that's part of a sponsorship deal. But in cases where it's not and one name is clearly preferred, it makes no sense to give the article title a weird name which the vast majority of people don't use and instead refer to it by a consistent different name. (WP:Engvar and other issues can make things confusing but I doubt it's an issue here although in any case this article will follow British English usage.) There are some specific issues like those relating to capitalisation and use of the trademark symbol (see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks]) and titles (see e.g. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty_and_nobility) for example) which provide very limited exceptions in certain cases, notably including one example mentioned above (although I'm unconvinced the use of the trademark symbol is ever actually part of a common name anyway). I do not personally know what the common name here, but if you have good evidence the common name is not Emirates Air Line, you're welcome to open a WP:RM presenting this evidence. To be clear, this RM should be based on the principles of common name, if you make a big deal over other issues (like your personal disilike or sponsorship names or believe people shouldn't use them in everyday English even if they often do) but don't present compelling evidence Emirates Air Line is not the common name, and no one else does, then the RM is liable to fail. There's zero point complaining about our common name policy here. You will achieve nothing. Try WP:VPP or the policy talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


The infobox gives a speed of 6m/s but a pdf from the operators website mentions a journey time of five minutes during peak hours and a slower ten minutes ride at other times, neither would result in 6m/s. -- (talk) 01:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that 6 m/s is a maximum cable speed, and is reduced outside of peak times. Since the length is 1100 metres, that works out at a nett transit time of 183 seconds (say three minutes), so if we allow one minute for boarding and a further minute for alighting, that would give a total time of five minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Request reverting move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved. Number 57 11:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Emirates Air Line (gondola lift)Emirates Air Line (cable car) – Should the article be moved back from Emirates Air Line (gondola lift) → Emirates Air Line (cable car). It was moved with no discussion, and being a UK-based system would always be referred to as a cable car rather than a gondola lift.   JaJaWa |talk  22:34, 6 September 2014 (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.

So...was it or wasn't it?[edit]

It says:

  "In May 2012, TfL said that the cable car would be running by the summer of 2012, and that while there were originally no plans to have it open before the 2012 Olympic Games, there would be plans in place in case it was opened in time.[19] The public opening took place at noon on 28 June 2012."

I am going to assume that is trying to say that it was, in fact, opened in time for the Olympics, but since I'm not sure if they Olympic games typically open before or after June 28th, I am forced to guess. A simple "it was opened June 28th, 2012, in time to be in service during the Olympic Games" would clear things up greatly for people like me who don't keep track of that sort of thing..45Colt 04:22, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms section[edit]

This section states:

"The cable car's location has also caused controversy, with advocates of walking and cycling favouring a Sustrans-sponsored plan for a walking and cycling bridge east of Tower Bridge between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf.[37]"

The cited article does not criticise the cable car's location. It proposes a link between Rotherhithe and Canary Wharf. The inclusion of the reference as a criticism appears to be a backdoor way of promoting the "Sustrans" scheme mentioned on the Emirates Air Line Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:BE0F:1800:D931:DDFF:49F4:A823 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)