Talk:London Waterloo station/Archive 2

Errors in service pattern
Have made edits to fix this but if it needs discussion here first that's a-okay. We're missing some services, and there are others which aren't shown. For clarity, there are two Woking stoppers (xx50 and xx20) and one Poole stopper (xx39) that are missing. There are also only 4 fast trains to Guildford which then continue to Haslemere and Portsmouth. Therefore these services should not be listed as "4 to Guildford and 4 to Haslemere" as if they are part of the 16tph to/from Woking.

In terms of how the timetable is configured from Waterloo, there are many services which have been designed to turn out a 15 minute frequency along most or part of a route, (such as the Dorking and Guildford via Epsom service) and thus 4 tph (of which, as such) is surely a better way of describing that route - ie "4 tph to Epsom, of which 2 tph to Guildford, and 2 tph to Dorking", rather than the current listing which treats the 4tph to Guildford via Epsom and Cobham as one, and leaves the Dorking seperate.

The same is the case for services via the Hounslow and Twickenham loops. Sjoh123 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Basically, the timetables make my head hurt, and if you understand them better than me, then I'd say go for it. At the moment, the timetable link that we're using is here. As you can see, in the wikitext when you edit, each service has a tag like  - just make sure each entry has some code like that at the end of each line, obviously changing the text after "loc=" to be the actual timetable. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  15:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright then. I noticed you pointing that out earlier in the edit page actually - suffice to say it wasn't me putting SWT links in - they were already there! I'll make sure the SWR ones are in as I do it. Am I alright to just revert it back to my original and then re-source it once I'm ready? Sjoh123 (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd rather it was all done in one hit - I know it sounds like a big faff, but if you start reworking halfway through and get called away by the postman / door to door salesman / charity collector / next door neighbour etc etc etc we'd be left with an article that's half right and half wrong. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Sure - what I meant is are you happy for me to use the content I'd already written, once I've got the sources in order? Or is there anything there you weren't initially happy with? Sjoh123 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think so, it sounds right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protection
I never thought I would have to apply page protection to stop edit warring by editors at the level of you three. And in the middle of a GA review yet. Trouts all around. No doubt I protected the WP:The Wrong Version - that's my job after all - but I expect you all to honor whatever it is for 24 hours, talk it over, and then come out of this with some kind of resolution. --MelanieN (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * ,, Okay, to pick this up, as far as I can tell the two actual bits of contentious content that we're warring over are linking to "Hungerford Bridge" instead of Hungerford Bridge and Golden Jubilee Bridges and linking to "lift shaft" instead of elevator. (4COR is no longer in the article, so that's a stale issue as far as I'm concerned.) I can say hand on heart that I have no particular preference for one or the other of the two links being squabbled over, and suggest we either take whatever was present in the article before the GA review started, or whatever the current version is. (I understand this conversation has gone over other threads, but it probably wants to be moved here as this is the most obvious place to discuss content disputes to this article) Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * My 2p worth. The accidents and incidents section appears to have been dumbed down. As 4COR was the correct designation for the units at the time, it should be stated as such. Maybe better to pipe, linking to the correct class article rather than using the redirect.  Mjroots (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * One man's "dumbed down" is another man's "more accessible to the layman reader". I tried your suggestion of linking to the correct article with a pipe, but was reverted, so I don't think that's going to get traction unless a lot more people agree on it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need to pipe when the link 4COR is WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would pipe the link. It doesn't look accessible to the casual reader as a series of numbers and letters. Directing readers to where it is via a better way than an alphanumeric code is the Wikipedia way. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently, the redirect target is wrong, though. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. Mjroots (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So why the revert? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you asking me, or ? Do you mean (which wasn't a revert), or another one? For that specific edit, the source (Moody) uses the term "4 COR", albeit with a space. What the source does not do is refer to British Rail Class 404: not only was the operator British Railways at the time of the accident, but these were former Southern Railway units, and the BR (TOPS) numeric classifications were still around twelve years away. For electric multiple units, these classifications came into use in 1972, at a time when the 4COR trains were undergoing mass withdrawal - less than a year after Class 404 was assigned to them, all would be gone.
 * I note that uses no pipe, even though at 13:16, 19 September 2017, you claimed "I tried your suggestion of linking to the correct article with a pipe". -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've reinstated the EMU class, linked to the correct article but piped to display the correct designation at the time. I also tweaked the display of the M7 class, as the LSWR did not exist then. Mjroots (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why pipe it, when the link 4COR takes you to the correct page? MOS:REDIR, WP:NOTBROKEN. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Because when you hover the mouse over the link, it shows the article name, which gives the lay reader a slightly better idea of the target article that 4COR does. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not get hung up on one link. I agree with Mjroots: think of the lay reader and pipe the link. This article is better than to-and-fro bickering doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've apparently still got this article on my watchlist from the RM, then yes, the EMU class should be mentioned. There isn't any need to dumb it down. jcc (tea and biscuits) 13:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the move to St Pancras ?
I think that question could be answered in the article. Were there no reasons given for move of the international trains ? If looking at a London map, then London Bridge station appears to be the best choice of the large stations at London, closest to Dover. Whilst St Pancras, north of the river, at first look at least, seems to be a strange location. Such matters would improve this article, I think Boeing720 (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * London Bridge was already over capacity, and had no room for expansion. St Pancras, on the other hand, had been underused since the 1970s (possibly earlier), and had a design that not only included spare space (the cab road) but also positively encouraged rearrangement in order to fit in more platforms. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Had Broad Street survived into the 21st century, it might have also been a suitable candidate to carry the CTRL. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)