Template talk:Transport in London/Archive 1

message: Why delete big template? Simply south 21:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete

message: I don't think Moorgate is managed by a train operator. MRSC 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: If one is splitting major/minor, I don't think St Pancras should be in minor at present, and St Pancras International surely should not be considered a minor station.   This indicates possibly that operator is not a good way to make this split.  Morwen - Talk 12:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I would suggest that a station is either "major enough" to be in this list, or is not included. MRSC • Talk 17:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St Pancras

message: copied from User talk:MRSC: While I accept that Holborn Viaduct can legitimately be included on the London railway station list, I think it's taking it a bit far to include Bishopsgate and Minories, since they were replaced by existing stations, not to mention the fact that there is no living memory of either of them. Taking that view, I think then that there is a case for including both Holborn Viaduct and Broad Street on the template . Hammersfan 08/11/06, 12.35 GMT
:I am personally of the view that this template should just show current stations. My reasoning is that adding more makes the template too cluttered with information. An alternative might be to create a template associated with List of closed railway stations in London (and some improvement of that article). What do others think? MRSC • Talk 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disused

message: Is there some reason why City Thameslink and Farringdon have not been included in this box?
They are both very central London and see a heck of a lot of trains per day..  I can see less of an argument for Barbican being included as that only sees a few Thameslink trains, and those only in the morning rush.--Peeky44 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to including these two stations, although I'll wait a couple of days to see what others think.  --RFBailey (talk) 19:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody's said any more, so I take that as consensus.  Come back and correct me if not, but for now I'll add them. --Peeky44 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thameslink stations 

message: I added stratford as stratford had 38millon people from tube, dlr & rail to this station last year  making it having more people than Clapham Junction I think it erned the right to be there.Likelife (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stratford 

message: Moorgate is operated by the tube meaning that Moorgate is not operated by National Rail and should have an other section for this.Likelife (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What we've actually got is "Primarily managed by Network Rail" and "Not primarily managed by Network Rail", but for (again) the want of briefity, I (personally) think the table headings "Network Rail" and "Train Operator" cover it with enough accuracy and without involving details. As has been noted above; this is just a navigational aid and not a formal or fully encompassing list.  —Sladen (talk) 23:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Moorgate is managed by London Underground.  London Underground is a train operator, i.e. an organisation that operates trains.  Yes, I know it's not a TOC (in the National Rail sense), but for the purposes of keeping the table simple, listing Moorgate under "managed by train operator" is perfectly adequate.  --RFBailey (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: OK fair Likelife (talk) 13:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I give up.  Renamed the second row to be just "Other stations".  Is that good enough, everyone happy now?  —Sladen (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moorgate 

message: Here is another idea, lets start again. Just have a template on "Railway stations in central London", using those overground stations in Zone 1. Although this would get rid of potentially important stations such as Clapham Junction and Stratford, it would also sort out what are controversially deemed as major and minor stations. 
Simply south (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds sensible to me.  I've made a couple of fixes to the version above--hope you don't mind!  --RFBailey (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. I just thought, if Clapham Junction and Stratford need to be added, there could be a third section "Other important stations". Simply south (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections so i am going ahead and implementing. Simply south (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: Sunil060902 (talk) 10:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it is original research, maybe it isn't.  But your continual raising of this issue is starting to look an awful lot like trolling, while trying to start two discussions in different places at once looks like forum shopping.  Stop it.  --RFBailey (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How can it be original research when the above quote is from a secondary source (see link provided)? Think before answering, please. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You missed my main point.  I honestly don't care whether it's original research or not, and didn't make a claim one way or another.  I'm just sick of you constantly labouring this same issue over and over and over again, and I don't think I'm alone in this.  Also, I suggest you read the link about forum shopping in particular.  --RFBailey (talk) 13:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't aimed at you personally, but to those who deny the name-change was real or claim it is WP:OR. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 10:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: St Pancras International - HM the Queen's speech, 6th November 2007