Talk:Cross-City Line

message: It's ridiculous to have two seemingly identical lists of links, going to differenet targets - and it's contrary to the W3C WAI guidelines on accessibility. I'm not sure, if the non- tabular list cannot be removed, how to deal with this, but the page as it currently stands is a mess. Andy Mabbett 13:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: I've added a route diagram to this page. Unfortunately the text is a little small, so I'll try to produce a better image. I'd like the map to appear alongside the sidebar table of stations - does anyone know how to do this?
I've also put the stations back from north to south, to match the diagram, and the Chase line. --Tivedshambo 20:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Route diagram

message: On the Belwell Lane bridge on the right hand side when travelling towards Lichfield there is/was a piece of graffiti which reads (or read, I don't know if it's still there): 'Jailed For Telling The Truth'. Anybody know what it's about? Martyn Smith 21:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I note the correct change to line from Line. But I also note that what I would regard as the most official source, the current timetable refers to it as Cross City line, i.e. there is no hyphen. Here is an article in the Birmingham Mail that also omits the hyphen and again here in the Birmingham Post and based on this reported tweet, Network Rail also omit it. I'd say that was pretty solid evidence of the official name. Use of the hyphen is mostly confined to "fan-created" sites.Thorsson64 (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no change to line from Line, but I agree it would have been correct.  On the hyphen, I agree that's probably right, too, if "Cross City" is the proper name.  It is more common that way, and it is unusual in general to use hyphenation in proper names.  The generic version "cross-city line" would use the hyphen, based on usual grammar and style guidance.  So it all depends on what is a "proper name" here, which is what we haven't come to much agreement on.  Based on books, I'm actually leaning toward Birmingham Cross City line (though you'll also see Birmingham's Cross City line, Birmingham's Cross City Line, Birmingham Cross City Line, Birmingham's cross-city line, Birmingham Cross-City line, . Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming revisit 

message: Bringing this here at the request/suggestion of . I removed :File:Birmingham Cross-City Line.png from this article, with the following rationale:
:What value does this give that the route diagram doesn't? They are visually comparable, but this one falls short of MOS:ACCIM - "Avoid using images in place of tables or charts. Where possible, any charts or diagrams should have a text equivalent or should be well-described so that users who are unable to see the image can gain some understanding of the concept." We shouldn't present text in a format incompatible with screen readers.
G-13114 disagreed – could we have other editors' opinions on the above, please? I really can't see what this provides that the accessible version doesn't. I've looked at other similar articles, and Birmingham to Worcester via Bromsgrove Line (for example) has a not-particularly-accessible map, although that one does have value because it is a superimposed map and therefore gives geographic context. All this one seems to do is duplicate content in the article, but in a non-accessible way. If there is a consensus that there is value to keeping the image, then it really needs to be recreated as SVG. MIDI (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A tricky one this, and I admit to having a COI as I created :File:Birmingham Cross-City Line.png back in 2007, before the BS system of route diagrams was introduced. At the time I had intended to create many such diagrams, but with the introduction of BS this became unnecessary. In my opinion, my diagram is more compact and better shows the route and related connections. However the BS system allows easier updates for future changes, and allows easy linking to articles (though this can be achieved with files as well). I agree we don't need both, but due to my COI I'll leave it to someone else to decide which is better. I may be able to recreate the file as SVG, as the software for this has improved since I first created it - I'll see what I can do.  — Voice of Clam 08:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the RDs and geographic maps can co-exist as they show different information. RDs are somewhat limited, as they are purely technical line diagrams with no geographic context, so I don't agree that one must exclude the other. Though it's true that the current map is somewhat less than perfect, it does show more of the geographic context than the RD in an at-a-glance way. User  has been creating lots of the geographic maps on railway line articles, maybe they could create one for this article. G-13114 (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fast-tracked its creation and added one to the article. Rcsprinter123 (palaver) 16:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Route image