Talk:Hounslow Loop line

message: I have removed the 'mapneeded=yes'.Miner2049er 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simplifying the map is one thing, but now Richmond does not have any connection to the NLL, or anything to denote the interchange with LUL ... a very poor edit. Canterberry 12:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The map was ungainly before, but this edit is counterproductive. AlexTiefling 14:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think DrFrench has the consensus to have amended the route map like he did. Admittedly Lawsonrob's edit was not helpful. Perhaps we could come to some agreement ... ??? Pickle 01:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was being WP:BOLD to to try and make what was visually complicated into something simpler and easier-to-understand.  Following Canterberry's comment above, I added some text next to Richmond to indicate it was also served by NLL and LU services.  Additionally the differentiation between large and small station blob indicates which stations are major interchange stations and which are not.  It all comes down to what the map is for.  It's not meant to be like the sort of map you'd get on board a train, nor is it meant to be a track layout diagram.  The route map should be a simple illustration of the route in question, which helps the average Wikipedian understand the article - balancing accuracy with complexity.  DrFrench 10:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  DrFrench, you don't speak for the whole UK Railways project. The Houslow Loop is a pretty small section of track. I recall a conversation on one of the talk pages - in which you participated - in which there appeared to be a pretty much general consensus that details of junctions, etc, were appropriate for line descriptions at this scale. Edited to add: The kind of map you get on a train is pretty much useless for understanding how the network is really laid out. We should, at the very least, be significantly more detailed than that. AlexTiefling 10:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never claimed to "speak for the whole UK Railways project", so I'm a bit unclear as what you are referring to there.  The changes I made to the diagram did not remove junction detail - merely simplified it.  I removed a section of the NLL as it didn't seem appropriate to this article, if you think it is useful, then a simple use of 'ABZlf.svg' might be appropriate' - anything more is moving it to the realms of being a track layout diagram, which does not help the average Wikipedian.  (My undertstanding from the article is that the Richmond route is the main line and not strictly part of the Hounslow Loop anyway.) DrFrench 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies for my bluntness. You may well be right about the details of the track. When I finally have some free time, I'll dig out my copy of Baker's atlas and check it out. AlexTiefling 09:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you? What simple solution to the previous 1000 word Tis-Taint did it have?--SilasW (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Route template errs. There has not been a connection between NLL and Waterloo lines for many years except the single track facing W'loo out of platform 3.--SilasW (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And (as a memo in passing) the former Barnes curve and the former chord to NLL between Kew B and Chiswick are missing.--SilasW (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Error 

message: The Hounslow loop station articles seem to show an notable absence of dates. I'd have thought that such matters were more important in encyclopedia articles than such ephemeral data as coffee shops.--SilasW (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality of articles