Talk:District line/Archive 1

Fake Buildings
Sorry if this sounds foolish but I heard some while ago that a certain part of the london subway - not sure which line, may even be gone now - was made in such a way that they couldn't have real buildings up anymore so they built fakes to either side of the road. I don't know much more about this but if it's true can you give me the name? Chooserr
 * You may be talking about the Circle/District Line bewteen Bayswater and Paddington. During the construction of the cut & cover tunnel nos 23 and 24 Leinster Gardens W2 were demolished. They were replaced with a painted facade that exists to this day. More details and some pics here. Sapient 18:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

S Stock
Need to add how C & D stock is being replaced by S Stock around 2009...
 * Is it that soon? I think 2009 will be the earliest! Besides, the refurbished D stock isn't even finished yet! Ajn91 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Closed Stations
Is there much point in putting closed stations in the list of stations. I know it says that they are closed, but would it not be better to put them under a separate sub heading, or just leave them for the history section of the main LU page? Ajn91 16:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal of Edgware Road Service
Shouldn't there be a reference to the upcoming withdrawal of the Wimbledon - Edgware Road service (scheduled to be closed December 2009) ?


 * Is it? Sunil060902 (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
There is a proposal to move all the articles of the Transport of London tube lines, capitalizing the "L" of "line". Please see the centralized discussion at Talk:Victoria line. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now closed. --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Route Map
''' [Map] on Project London Transport page. '''

I would like to propose this revised version of the route diagram. I think it shows the branches more clearly than the current version. Useddenim (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please can we lose the suggested map above right, because there is now a somewhat different version at WT:LT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Useddenim (talk) 13:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Coords as footnotes
Is there a good reason why the geo-coords in the District line tables are presented as footnotes? What is the advantage? The disadvantage seems to be that information which might otherwise be viewed inline is relegated to a footnote section, causing the article to be longer than would otherwise be the case, and introducing a disconnect for the user which does not seem very beneficial (e.g. did I click on map 22 or map 23?).

I appreciate there are limitations on space in the first four tables - but not in the rest of them - because of the placement of the District Line RDT. The possibility exists that that template might be moved above the map such that we ridded ourselves of an artificial constraint? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I support these proposals. Far better, from a reader's PoV. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article page looks like crap
Really, to be blunt, the page looks terrible. Huge white space to the right of the tiled route diagram. Lots of tables of varying widths. Coords as footnotes - what the f is that all about ... why have a huge cell in a table empty except for a ref to a coord which is positioned at the foot of the diagram. Oh. And takes an age and a half to render. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that, I am working on a new version of this page on a sandbox. Which should make it better although I'm not sure of the reaction of other users. Will post link when finished (most likely this evening) Mark999 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, you will find the current layout an improvement. Edgepedia (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture section
My understanding is that things listed in "popular culture" section need third-party references to show their notability. I tagged this, but it has been removed. Does anyone have an opinion about what is listed? Edgepedia (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Railway line diagram
When looking at how to deal with this article, I came to the view that the line diagram had become too complex and was showing too much detail for the average reader of this page. Following WP:SUMMARY STYLE, I considered that this needed to be split from the article (rather than lost), and a simpler one used. However, when I created the District line diagram‎‎ page, based on East Coast Main Line diagram, it was considered a duplication. Any other thoughts on this?

I will be writing a history for this article. The first half (1868 - 1933) is a summary of District Railway, but from 1933 we could have too many details to fit into this article and a History of the District line may be needed, and the complex diagram be used in that article. However, I would rather see how far I get with the post-1933 history before making that judgement. Edgepedia (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One part of the judgement is the white space in the article. I have sandboxed the current text and complex diagram at User:Edgepedia/District line route Edgepedia (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments copied from my talk
Moved from by talk page. Edgepedia (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC) Edgepedia, you deserve a pat on the back for your work on this article, to which you've given a lot of careful attention. However, I hope you will allow me to make a few suggestions. Currently I'm working on an English-language encyclopedia being prepared in Taiwan and so am very aware of the need to cater for people whose first language is not English and who live outside the country being described (the UK in your case). Two things struck me immediately as wrong at the start of your lead: 'The District line is a London Underground service that crosses the capital (1), from Upminster in the east via Earl's Court, where it branches, to Ealing Broadway, Wimbledon and Richmond in the west; there is also a line from Earl's Court to Edgware Road (2). I've italicized the bits that aren't clear. I've had a shot at clarifying the lead section but haven't combed through the rest of the article. Now you seem to have come to the end of your labours, you may care to give it a stylistic check. I hope you find these suggestions helpful and not too intrusive. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (1) Reference to 'the capital' is confusing. I wondered about substituting 'the city', but you would probably object that this would also cause confusion since 'the City' is generally used only for a small part of London by Londoners.
 * (2) The grammar is too involved, even for people who are native speakers of English.


 * Thanks for the comments, they are always very helpful and I hope you don't mind I've moved them here. I find it always difficult writing the first sentence of an article as it has to define the article and lead people into reading the rest. I've made some alterations:

Edgepedia (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The article name needs to be in bold in the first sentence.
 * 2) I orginally said 'the capital' because we've already said London Underground ... . I've no easy solution but the first sentence now has London in it twice.
 * 3) I've unlinked London because WP:OVERLINK says major geographic features should not be linked
 * 4) and I've rearranged the rest; I removed the junction with national rail services about Ealing Broadway because, to me, that sounds as if there are through services - you may have meant interchange, but I would wish to avoid that because the long distance intercity trains don't stop
 * I've had a go fitting everything in and hopefully it's clearer, without losing any of the meaning. However, I struggling with the sentence "Unlike London's deep level tube railways, the railway tunnels are just below the surface and are a similar size to those on British main lines.". This is an introduction to the two sizes of the underground lines in London: the deep level tubes with their small trains and the sub-surface railway that runs trains that are about the same size as on the main lines. I will think about this. Edgepedia (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Using http://www.read-able.com/, I see that we've managed to lower the reading age (Flesch Kincaid Grade Level) from 12.1 to 10.5, although your version was 9.4. I'll see what I can do tomorrow afternoon. Edgepedia (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Low reading age isn't an issue, I think, since the audience includes many readers for whom English is not their first language and who may find negotiating multiple clauses difficult. I too was bothered by repetition of London at the start, but it seemed necessary for the sake of clarity. Your solution of 'Greater London' is neat. What is special about Ealing Broadway is that trains run from stations to the west (Oxford, Maidenhead, Reading) just to there, not all the way to London. So it is an interchange station, even though not served by Intercity, and some acknowledgement of that needs to be made. I thought all that stuff about depth of station in the second para was unnecessary in a lead section. It's probably better left for fuller discussion later in the article. The stuff about changing from steam to electric at Barking doesn't belong in the lead either and needs to be made much clearer when it does appear. What bothers me most about the lead is that it covers much the same ground as the article on the District Railway. Perhaps it would be better to give as much, if not greater, emphasis to what happened after 1933 in that section and to streamline information shared in common with it in the main article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The trains announced at Oxford (xx:07 and xx:37), Maidenhead and Reading as being "to Ealing Broadway" don't terminate there: all continue to Paddington. Once they've passed Slough, they're announced as "to London Paddington". The reason that Padd is not given as the destination until Langley is because faster trains to Paddington run from these stations (e.g. xx:01 and xx:31 from Oxford) which overtake the slower train at some point between Reading and Padd. If the slower train was announced as "to Paddington", people would board them without realising that they are going to arrive a lot later. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * About the depth of the stations/line: I've put my statement back in (for the moment). What I am trying to explain (succinctly) that there are two types of London Underground railway line, the sub-surface railway and the tube lines, and that this is a sub-surface line. We have 'sub-surface' in the infobox, and this was once in the lead until I wrote that explanation. It is important for a number of reasons, such as the size of the trains, that the new trains can be air-conditioned, etc...
 * I've taken out the steam/electric locomotives: it's not as important as was on the Metropolitan line, and is difficult to explain accurately and succinctly.
 * I agree the history in the lead ends abruptly at 1933, but most of what happened later was really just maintenance... i.e. they bought some new trains, replaced these with another lot etc... I think a couple of sentences would be helpful though. Edgepedia (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of sentences that get us to 1959, but really the shape of the line hasn't changed since then and I can't see anything of real significance to put in the lead. Edgepedia (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've managed to get the history up 1985. Bearing in mind your original comment, I've tried to keep language relatively simple, and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for the lead is now 9.7. Edgepedia (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but the lead needs shortening. Its job is to give a summary of what is in the article and, I suppose, a brief synopsis of the subject. Your strategy is to use the lead to show in what way this article is different from the one on the District Railway, otherwise you might eventually find someone stroppy demanding a merger. I don't really see why you need more than that first para, it covers everything important. All that historical and maintenance stuff in paras 2-3 doesn't belong there at all but in one section or other of the main article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now you've lost me. The Wikipedia Manual of Style for the lead is at MOS:LEAD. Let's consider your points:


 * I don't have to work hard to say why the District line is different from that District Railway, that's clear in the first sentence: Consider The District line is a London Underground service that crosses Greater London from east to west. and The Metropolitan District Railway (commonly known as the District Railway) was a passenger railway that served London from 1868 to 1933
 * The lead is 350 words summarizing a 3033 word/18 kb text/58 kb wiki text article. The suggested length for an article this length at LEADLENGTH is 2-3 paragraphs. The lead is currently 2 paragraphs long.
 * From MOS:LEAD, the lead summarizes the article and provides a concise introduction into the subject. About 50% of the article covers the history of the line and about 50% of the lead covers the history. When writing a article about something, surely you to write about is its history?
 * The first para as a lead would be too short, not cover everything important and not provide a concise introduction to the subject. Edgepedia (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * However, following your comment I did take a critical look at the District line section of this article that summarises the District Railway, and trimmed it a bit. It did have quite a bit of detail about the electrification that wasn't really needed. :) Edgepedia (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Fictitious station section
What about Hobbs End? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_rapid_transit_stations#List_of_fictional_London_Underground_stations )?

that was cut-and-cover. Is it district or circle line? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.63.170 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)