Template talk:Northern line extension to Battersea

Whether to show Vauxhall as also being on the SWML
@User:Bazza 7 should we show Vauxhall as being on the SWR routes from Waterloo? I would say no, tentatively.

Reasoning. De facto rules in my view. My other wont is simplification as it very much is now. It is only a stop for "commuter lines": short-distance-ending SW routes. Secondly it isn't cause for people getting on off the train to then walk back on themselves to get to the Northern Line. Their obvious interchange is at Waterloo itself in whatever mode of transport, until a direct link is built to Clapham Junction. P.S. Vauxhall is I trust indelible as anyone in (or visiting) the new Nine Elms district will find themselves torn between two stations and they both serve its eastern half very well. And the new retail/leisure is a draw which people may well get to by way of quick walk up to (south from) Nine Elms from Vauxhall. Equally people will want to get onto the SWML and visit Winchester, Salisbury, Bournemouth, Weymouth and so on.- Adam37 Talk  14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd ditch nearly all of the NR infrastructure other than Battersea Park and the line to Victoria, given that any future extension to Clapham Junction is merely conceptual at this point, and not in the TfL Business Plan/long term plans. Showing the various complicated junctions of NR infrastructure distracts from what the map should be - a RDT of the of the Northern line extension to Battersea. Showing Vauxhall as on the Victoria line is reasonable (the "missed interchange"), but a NR logo would be adequate rather than the whole SWML imo. Turini2 (talk) 15:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The point of the RDT is to show the route of the extension. Vauxhall is not on the route and so is not relevant and should be removed (which I have been bold and done). The comments above about it being suitable to consider as an local interchange are original research so inadmissible without references. The Victoria line could be removed also (feel free to be bold also) but I think is useful as a reference point. Including Clapham Junction is, I think, relevant as the protected route is specifically mentioned in the article. I've also been bold and simplified the NR layout as suggested above (having included it originally, again as reference). Linking the main line and commuter routes to Boxing the compass is a midleading and frowned upon; simply stating main lines and commuter routes to the south (e.g. Southampton) and west (e.g. Reading) is all that is needed and what I have amended the note to. And finally I've returned the diagram heading to what it should be, for accessibility if nothing else; there is a "legend" link to explain the symbols used, as there is on all RDTs. Bazza (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * All I would say is your black bracket line round the actual part being discussed perfects what my hatnote/header note sought. Much more simply. I think that is the zeitgeist is it not? But in regards to your points on original research and easter egg/ russian dolls have you perhaps gone a little far. The substance of what you do is fine, though are not complex, 'west' rather belittles Paddington's main purpose/sector. I think it rather simplistic too far in that very petty point only.- Adam37  Talk  08:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. Have you considered the view of Turini2 that showing Vauxhall, a very near station to N.Elms, just on the V.Line was fine. I have recently engaged in debate elsewhere in which counting up opponents and supporters is generally seen as the way forward even if they are just repeating the very same arguments.- Adam37  Talk  08:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thanks. S, SW and W are fine, and I've used them (without the abbr hint as they are exceptions in MOS:ABBR). Paddington is nothing to do with any of this: Reading, Staines, Hounslow, etc are all served through Clapham Junction and are to the west, so that direction should not be omitted if others are not. Although I still do not support including Vauxhall for the reasons I gave above, it is mentioned as a discarded candidate for an interchange in the article so I would not revert its inclusion if another editor so decided. Bazza (talk) 09:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm coming around to your improvements. I'm particularly pleased to see mention of NE London or indeed just Walthamstow, as if one adds up the catchments of the station on the Victoria Line it's an amazing population. Let alone other links. Ditto the Northern Line. The upshot of all that is in the formal decision over the Options, as summarised in the article, that it was better all round for them not to interchange in SW London. And it is always implicit so near to London that a nearby station is fairly likely. So, all in all, future-proof now and better. Probably.- Adam37 Talk  14:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)