Talk:Underground Electric Railways Company of London

Article name
Per Naming conventions (companies), I believe that the words "Company" and "Limited" should not occur in the article name. Thus, I think that Underground Electric Railways of London should be the article name. -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Inclined to agree with Redrose, unless there's a particular reason (disambiguation with another company of the same name, for instance) for including the "Limited". As far as I know "Limited" wasn't in common use when referring to the company (it's UERL, not UERLL…) and moving this one but not the others seems to be confusing. – iride  scent  11:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree. On a similar note, a redirect here from UERL may also be justified as the acronym seems not to have any other uses. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the naming convention when I moved the article, although, ironically, it lived quite contentedly at "Underground Electric Railways Company" since I created the article in 2005. It may be appropriate to leave "Limited" off the end of the article name in accordance with the convention, but I don't think "Company" can be left out of the middle. If it was, we would create an article under a name that the organisation was never known by. In this context, I think Company represents part of the name, in the same way as the News Corporation example given in the naming convention.


 * As Iridescent notes, when an abbreviation was used it was UERL, and as Alzarian16 comments there should be a redirect from UERL. I did make a start on fixing the numerous redirects that already existed as variations of the name and my plan was to end up with them all pointing here, but I can easily aim them at the existing redirect Underground Electric Railways Company of London instead.


 * The company itself also seems to have struggled with the name, using various combinations such as the one shown here on the cover of first Underground Map. It became very quickly just the "Underground" or the "Underground Group" in most usages. although the full formal name continued to be used for reporting company news in the press, right up to its liquidation in 1933.--DavidCane (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Many railway companies had the word "company" as part of the legal name, yet few (if any) Wikipedia article names reflect this. The formal name is verifiable:
 * (if you have earlier editions, page numbers are: 1st to 4th editions p. 76; 6th edn p. 61)
 * However, since "Company" is in the middle of the name, I can to agree to the use of Underground Electric Railways Company of London as the article name (and full name in prose where needed), with UERL as the abbreviation (you may notice that this was used in the title of the section I created at WT:LT). -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll make a start on all the redirects this evening, unless anyone objects. --DavidCane (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor nitpick
The 1907 map shows Marylebone station on the Bakerloo, but was it not still "Great Central" then? – iride  scent  14:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Underground station was renamed from Great Central to Marylebone on 15 April 1917 . -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite right. missed that one. When I get a moment I'll fire-up Inkscape and fix it.--DavidCane (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Front page?
Have you considered submitting this as a non-date specific candidate for Today's Featured Article? I'm very happy to help with drafting a TFA blurb and so forth if you're interested. Bob talk 11:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interest Bob; I've got a few older ones that I will be proposing first.--DavidCane (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well now it's there fore everyone to see. Congratulations to you and everyone else concerned on an extremely interesting, well presented article.--Ipigott (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Public ownership vs Nationalisation
To my mind these are synonyms - I don't think the claim that the Combine was brought into public ownership without nationalisation makes sense, does it?

If it does, it needs clarification and/or further explanation

Roybadami (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a government-owned corporation or statutory corporation like Royal Mail is now, but it was not a nationalised industry. The London Passenger Transport Board still had redeemable but non-voting stock of various categories that paid dividends at various rates. For example on 30 June 1934 LPTB had outstanding stock totalling just over £109 million on which dividends of between 3% and 5% were payable. The nationalisation did not occur until after the war, when most UK transport organisations were nationalised.--DavidCane (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats on the FA today

 * Lovely to see this as today's featured article. Actually, I rarely go to the main page but to my own areas of interest, and although I have never contributed to this article specifically I have a hand in many more subsidiary articles to which this has been a good reference point (Metro-Land and so forth. So with sincerity, though it may not seem so, may I congratulate you all for I am sure all the hard work of many contributors to get this to FA. I would take my hat off to you but I left it at Neasden. Si Trew (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

"Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Underground Electric Railways Company of London/GA1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 01:47, 8 January 2023 (UTC)