Talk:East Coastway line

message: I note that lucy-marie is now using the reason "not many other maps have distance on them" for removing the distances.  This is very wrong. The templates have distance field in them. The fact that not many maps have distance information on them is more to do with the fact that they are still under development.Canterberry 16:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lucy, you have not gained support for your view, and must now cease the removal of the distances from the maps.  You may be right about using metric, but you lack the support of other editors and so your actions will from now on be considered disruptive and i shall use the 3RR against you.Canterberry 17:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You sir need to watch what you say as some of what you could be saying may be interpreted as threatening such "i shall use the 3RR against you" it is not you domain to threaten people because they say something you don't like. you should try and be constructive and can you provide you supporters for you position as well. I have to support Lucy here, as the metric system is officially used and should be primarily used here or distances should not be used at all.--Jjamesj 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you Jjamesj need to be aware, that I report "sock-puppets". Having not been involved in any previous part of the debate, I suspect that you are Lucy-marie using another account.Canterberry 17:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Note - reported as a believed SPA here —  iridescent (talk to me!) 18:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, reverted back in distnaces, its consensus, if someone wants to change it go to WP:TRAIL. Pickle 15:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Distance information

message: Shouldn't the Newhaven branch also be on the map, it's more a part of the East Coastway line than the Keymer Jn to Lewis line (that's part of the London to Eastbourne line). (SouthernElectric 18:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Newhaven Branch (aka Seaford Branch) has its own article Seaford Branch Line. The branch should probably be part of the East Coastway Line, but adding the map of the branch to the already large East Coastway map is not advised.  I think the Nehaven/Seaford branch sits quite happily on its own, but we ought to make it a clear and defined stub of the East Coastway line.  This is a sensible compromise IMHO.  Canterberry 14:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so sure, it would actually make more sense in having a small stub article with regards the Keymer Jn to Lewis line (being referenced from both the ECW & BML articles), IMO it's actually misleading as it stands (see Newhaven Town station for how it's not at all clear, look at the table). Is there any reason why the Seaford Branch Line article can't be merged with this one, perhaps using the two existing maps (Are there any reasons why two maps can't be on the same page?), as it stands the Seaford Branch article is almost orphaned. (SouthernElectric 15:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Do whatever makes you happy. Remember WP:BOLD. Canterberry 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone care to take a look at this suggestion as to how the two article could be merged, I've put it on my Sandbox. Comments welcome, but please remember that some Wiki links and the distances on the Seaford Branch map will need adjusting as they take their reference from London rather than Brighton. I still think that the Keymer Jn to Lewis line should probably be within the BML article. (SouthernElectric 16:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not fused either way, leaving it as is is a viable option but including the line in the wider east coastway article would also work. I'm not so keen on the way its dispalyed in your sandbox at the moment - merge it properlly if we all want to merge it (ie put the routmaps together). Don't go out of your way to make a difficult routemap though, there are pleanty of small short line aritcles out there (dudding hill line, etc). Pickle 23:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the work I've done on the East Coastway line I've decided to leave the Seaford Branch as is, although I do think the distances need unifying to those on this article - ie. distance from Brighton although there is no urgency to do so. (SouthernElectric 23:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newhaven Branch 

message: Can someone proof read the following (comment here); East_Coastway_Line rewrite Please. (SouthernElectric 23:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've uploaded it to the actual article, hope it doesn't break any style guidelines or toes etc, also the route map still needs some work. (SouthernElectric 15:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the required modification to the route map, to bring it in line with the textual content, have now been done (SouthernElectric 23:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  East Coastway Line rewrite 

message: Can someone with the route distance references please check the template, looks like they might be still in Km rather than Miles and Chains (per consensus) or at least have an incorrectly header. Thanks. (SouthernElectric 00:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distances revisited 

message: Not sure I like the new version, surely the Jnc. with the BML should be left off (as it was), there is no real info supplied but plenty of confusion possible, ideally there just needs to be a 'LUECKE' type icon for the ABrg icon - IOW just allow the line to dissolve, allowing those who want/need to know about Keymer Jnc to go to the BML page. I think it's gone from to little/wrong info to to much. Sorry!(SouthernElectric 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The map/article has become unwieldy. The inclusion of the Keymer Jn to Lewes line was a mistake, it added nothing. This should have been added to the BML article, or made a stub of its own (like the Seaford Branch). Those editors wishing to incorporate the Seaford/Newhaven branch into this article should take heed ... it ain't gonna work!!! We have "Stubs" for a reason, and that is to keep primary articles clear of "clutter". Stubs allow main articles to do their job, whilst informing readers of things directly related to the main article. Canterberry 22:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've taken note what you say re' the Seaford branch, having raised the merger idea recently myself and now firmly changed my mind, but I do think that the Kymer line (as was originally on the map) was OK, even if the two stations on the line were also included it's not to unwieldy. I would also add that part of the Keymer line is important to the history of Lewis station and short of a line-diagram the route map is the easiest way of describing the changes made in the late 1800s without writing another 100 words - on that score, what has increased the textual content is the amount of information about the line, if the text is to large perhaps we need to start thinking about splitting the article (Brighton - Eastbourne & Eastbourne - Hastings say). I suppose I really must ask this, is this project about recording the line or to act as a rail travel guide?(SouthernElectric 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have little else to add. The article is hardly (compared to some) a rail travel guide. I think the article is reasonably true to the ideal of being an entry in an encyclopaedia. I think the map needs more work ... but that is just "grist to the mill". Canterberry 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've had a fiddle this evening re the Keymer junction "spur"/"line" - what do you think ? Pickle 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hate to say it, but the map "still needs more work" ... call me a politician or what!!  I honestly believe that the Keymer to Lewes line should be kept off this map. I think this way, bot out of some dogmatic idealism, but simply because of the limitations of the maps.  The maps only have five columns to represent the railway (or other mode), and frankly, that just ain't enough in some cases to show all that there is to show. And I am sorry to say, this map has enough on it already, and adding more simply isn't going to work IMHO. I am not going to start reverting edits on the map template, as I am open to ideas on how it "might" be possible to show the Keymer to Lewes line in a clear manner. Sorry to say it, but the current map just doesn't cut the ice for me. Canterberry 23:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really want to say, that I am not trying to be critical of the efforts of others. I have inputted to many maps (including this one), and I know how hard it can be. I appreciate the work being done to try and fit the Keymer-Lewes line on the map. It is a tough ask, and the work being done to show the "options" for how it might fit is applauded. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I do believe the the map was about as good as it could get before this work started. Canterberry 00:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but I agree with Canterberry but not that the Keymer line should go, the previous version worked (within the limitations of the available icons) but now it's just crowded and confusing. I might add that I'm not just saying that because I edited the previous version but because of the route map needs to contain the Keymer line if the history of Lewis station is going to be easy for all to understand, the two station on the line are not causing any real problem but trying to join it up with the BML is. (SouthernElectric 00:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  hey its a consensus building (sorta democracy) encyclopedia, so if you guys think we've reached the limits of what we can do here (with the Keymer junction "spur"/"line) then lets think of an artile name for it and create a new article. Pickle 00:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, taking on board the various opinions and having slept on it, I'm going to be bold and put up another version, feel free to revert if you really don't think it works but I would prefer to discuss it first. Hopefully it does all it needs to do without being to crowded/confusing? (SouthernElectric 11:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised map c/w Keymer Jnc. 

message: Re recent edit by user_talk:80.42.214.152, rational as to why I reverted the edit;
All station names are wiki linked even if no article exists, allows the page to be created easily (without having to alter the route map), in any case there are many examples of wiki links that have no article. (SouthernElectric 19:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki links and stations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on East Coastway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050315014416/http://www.southernrailway.com/route_info/route_info.shtml to http://www.southernrailway.com/route_info/route_info.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified