The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I am opening a formal discussion to move all the line articles at London Underground back to XXX Line with a capital L. This is to sort out the consensus, following the undiscussed moves recently. I have tagged all the pages for a centralised discussion. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale

Wikipedia policy is that we do not follow corporate naming conventions unless in very specific circumstances. c2c is one example of an exclusion, iPod is another. These are not that unique that we need to break naming conventions. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Support

1. Regan123 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Iridescent 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support per WP:MOS-TM, which prefers normal English capitalization rules for proper nouns to stylized rules made up by organizations. If "line" is just a descriptor, as has also been argued below, it isn't even needed - the plain title, "Bakerloo", redirects here. Dekimasuよ! 12:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. "line" is the correct terminology, so oppose D-Notice 22:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

2.Your Honour, may I present Exhibit A and Exhibit B, as well as a new Exhibit C (apologies for camera shake), which I believe the Court has not seen before:

• 
• 
• 

Sunil060902 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

3. I agree with Sunil060902 - London Underground itself does not capitalise "line" even when referring to a specific one, so neither should we. Nick Cooper 11:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Please see my comment in the discussions section below for my reason. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Because (a) Most lines colloquially referred to just by name - e.g. "Take the Piccadilly to Green Park then the Jubilee" (b) TfL are naming them so, and Wikipedia should stick to official titles irrespective of its own (ARBITRARY) policy says.  — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

In the real world, bear in mind line names are mixed case on maps, line diagrams, leaflets, and trains. True, some repeater boards in trains and on platforms do bear "Line" with capital L, but Occam's Razor surely must mean that they are programmed incorrectly, given the overwhelming number of "hard copy" examples listed above. Also another point, do we refer to Lambeth North Tube Station, or Lambeth North tube station? best, Sunil060902 00:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, the real world doesn't necessarily define how WP psge titles work. If LU changed them to read nORTHERN lINE we wouldn't rename them that way. We don't have theguardian or theGuardian for the same reasons. Regan123 00:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You're talking hyperbolically about the reversal of case I fear! Anyway, I think it should reflect the real world, given that thousands of people from London, the wider UK, and around the world use these lines heavily every day. Thought about Lambeth North tube station yet? BTW, was it you or Iridescent who mentioned Capital Transport? I have their 1994 (pre-TfL!) Underground Official Handbook. Contents page has sections for all the individual lines in Mixed case. Don't know if I can legally scan and upload it though as Exhibit D. best, Sunil060902 00:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what we feel it should do, the naming conventions are clear that we shouldn't normally go with brand names unless there are very good reasons. So my comment is not hyperbolic or any other thing. It is a clear expression of the guidelines. Regan123 00:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh forgot to add, surely an Encyclopedia ought to reflect the real world usage of a term, or it wouldn't be encylopedic by definition! Maybe I'm not 100% correct in suggesting they are brand names per se, but approaching from a slightly different angle, hopefully you can see where I'm getting at if I ask you: Lambeth North Tube Station or Lambeth North tube station? best, Sunil060902 00:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"line" isn't necessary branding. In British English, the proper noun is usually capitalised. However in this case whether it should be "line" or "Line" depends on whether you see "Northern line", as a whole, as a proper noun or if you only see the "Northern" part as the proper noun. I personaly think that "Northern" is the proper noun and "line" is just a common noun and so should be written with an uncapitalised "l". Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Answering two points in one. People refer to the 'Northern Line' as an object not to the Northern. People refer to stations as 'Lambeth North', 'Watford Junction' and so on, so the two aren't related. To me the Line is a proper noun here. -- Regan123 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

That is true but the common noun is used to put the Proper noun into context. For example if you were refering to the station, rather than saying "Lambeth North", you would say "Lambeth North station". In the case of "Lambeth North" and "Watford Junction", the "North" and "Junction" is clearly just part of the station name and do not describe them as a station. In the case of "line" here, this describes the subject as a tube line. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 23:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the London Underground hold trademarks, or something equivalent, on the names of the lines? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been unable to find anything to that effect on the London Underground website. Dekimasuよ! 11:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One has to remember that every single railway station article has station in small case. For example Waterloo. Should it be any different for lines? Sunil060902 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, were you replying to my question? If so, I missed the answer; could you please clarify? I haven't made any assertion about what the title should be, as I have no opinion on that topic. If you were talking to someone else, then never mind. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, not really, just making a point. I have removed the indent to my message above! best, Sunil060902 11:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A separate article has been created at List of stations on the Bakerloo line. User:Amalthea tagged it for possible merger with the stations section of this article.

• Support merge or deletion for the following reasons:
  • The natural location for a list of Bakerloo line stations is as part of the main Bakerloo line article. Abstracting it into a separate article creates un-necessary complication, requiring readers either to make a search or a further click to reach the information.
  • The separate article does not provide anything that is not available elsewhere - either in the Bakerloo line article, the individual station articles or at the List of London Underground stations article (of which it is effectively a partial subset).
  • As the stations are listed in order from north to south, the last two columns, which list those on either side, are place-shifted versions of the first column and are, therefore, redundant.

--DavidCane (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support, agree with the above
  Ehrenkater (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Sorry to just drop the merge suggestion there without doing anything about it myself, but I couldn't figure out how best to do that. As far as I can tell the only new information in List of stations on the Bakerloo line is the connections to other lines and to the National Rail Service. The first is indicated in the schematic display with icons already (partially at least? There seems to be a discrepancy at Paddington). One could probably do the same with the railway connections, and also add the information to the stations section - if it becomes to cluttered, I'd remove the Opened and First served bits from it.
  --Amalthea (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

• Somewhere in between Looking at it it has the potential to expand and has some good info, but this might be incorporated easily, and i am wondering if there should be a partial merge with List of London Underground stations. Simply south (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No further comments for over a month or objections. I have looked at what needs to be merged and there is actually very little information to carry across. The Bakerloo line article already indicated which stations are also served by London Overground and National Rail and the actual NR service providers such as Chiltern Railways are of tertiary importance and are identified on the station articles. I am going to mark List of stations on the Bakerloo line as a speedy delete.--DavidCane (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've followed the merge procedure instead. --DavidCane (talk) 16:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.