Talk:Chatham Main Line

Line / Route - Conflict with Kent Coast Line article

I don't understand why there are two separate articles on what is essentially one service of trains. This "Line" (which is not an official title is it?) is part of the SET service from London which divides at Faversham - one section carrying on down the coast to Ramsgate - what is called in the OTHER article the Kent Coast Line; and the other section calling at the stations in this article. Indeed the SET timetable shows just that situation. I have commented elsewhere on the fact that the other long-distance train service, - that through Tonbridge and Ashford - has no article at all. This one has two!

Surely what is needed is that this and Kent Coast articles are merged into one with the title being the latter; and a separate new article, which I am now raising, entitled London - Ashford- Dover Line. Peter Shearan 14:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I have amended the wording here. Since Strood is not mentioned as one of the stations on the line it would complicate things; and according to the SET timetables trains for Ramsgate do not start from Charing Cross, only Cannon Street and Blackfriars. Peter Shearan 14:55, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Kent Coast Line would be a good name to describe the London-Chatham-Ramsgate/Dover route, since this could be confused with the Folkestone-Dover-Ramsgate route which also runs by the coast. Perhaps London to Dover via Chatham Line would be a better title? Our Phellap 15:56, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

This article id defiantly mis-titled. The trains leave London (primarily Victoria) and divide at Faversham into Dover Priory and Ramsgate trains. Thus the Kent Coast Line and this (Chatham Main Line) defiantly need merging. Pickle 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

See my big peice on SET talk page --Pickle 21:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

In light of the above i have begun a big overhaul - comment, revisions, etc welcome. As you can see I've extended the start to cover the route to Victoria and included the Catford Loop option. At the other end I've stated it as "Chatham Main Line - Ramsgate Branch" and "Chatham Main Line - Dover Branch". Where this leaves the Kent Coast Line article is an issue i haven't got my head round yet.Pickle 02:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Name

Upon reading "The Future of Rail in Kent" by Kent CC and Medway UA ([1]). It deatials the lines passing through medway as the "The Mid-Kent Line" and "North Kent Line". At somepoint this article may have to be renamed? The atricle also mentions an "East Kent Line", and seams to reffer to "Ashford to Margate via Canturbury" and "Ashford to Margate via Folkestone and Dover". Pickle 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a very late reply, but it may help. The North Kent Line diagram is absolutely correct except that it has too much on either end. In reality it goes from St Johns to Strood, but the map shows London terminals to St Johns, and Strood to Gillingham.

However the Mid Kent line is nowhere near that lot. Nowadays it runs from Ladywell as far as Elmers End (formerly it continued to Addiscombe).

As always, Quail map#5 tells all. Ivor the driver (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Map

The "closed curve" shown on the map at Canterbury is the wrong way round. Trains coming from London could use the curve to go to Canterbury West and Ramsgate, but not towards Ashford as the map current ly indicates. Four Ceps 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have amended the map to show the correct sense of the closed curve.Four Ceps 19:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers mate ;) I made this routemap some time ago, and the coding has improved and i need to sit down and redo this to exploit the new code ;) Pickle 19:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

St Pancras

No matter where trains now start to get to this line, is the modern connection to St Pancras really part of the Chatham Main Line?--SilasW (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is a common mistake on Wiki where someone is confusing a service with a line. The Chatham Main Line has absolutely nothing to do with Bedford or St Pancras which are on the Midland Main Line and Moorgate Line respectively. The map is (currently) showing the route correctly. The text is wrong.-- Fu Manchuchu (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

RDT Map

Chatham Dockyard branch is now closed-Please amendSteamybrian2 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC about the name

Should the article be moved to "Chatham Main Line" or "Chatham main line",
Sources and books use "Main Line"[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] and "main line" [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] –Davey2010^Talk 13:00, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Dicklyon who reverted the move. –Davey2010^Talk 13:01, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Please revert this RFC and subsequent secstions outside of it, and use the process at WP:RM instead. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes; I agree with what Dicklyon said (we don't always agree, but in this case we do): this is a WP:RM matter, not WP:RFC. Also, if a RfC was truly warranted, the level 2 sections below should have been level 3 subsections. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. / Withdrawn- I hadn't realised there was already a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_39#Moving_forward_on_Line_case where RedRose and Dicklyon are seemingly on a mission to decap everything thus making this RM a complete waste of time. –Davey2010^Talk 02:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Chatham main line → Chatham Main Line – Should the article be moved to "Chatham Main Line" or "Chatham main line",
Sources and books use "Main Line"[18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] and "main line" [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose – It's not a proper name. When nom moved it with edit summary "Moved to caps so is consistent with other similar articles", the only similar article it mentioned was South Eastern main line, which is already consistent. If you look at better sources (e.g. books, news), you see that lowercase is common enough, meaning it's not generally treated as a proper name. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, we avoid caps in such cases. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose—Davey, I agree with Dicklyon: the evidence of usage as a proper name is very thin. Tony (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

• Both names have equal usuage as shown above so I fail to see how it's thin at all.... –Davey2010^Talk 02:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

I originally set this up as an RFC[34] however editors believed RM was better. –Davey2010^Talk 20:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for switching it to the usual process. Dicklyon (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, No worries, If I'm honest I did debate between the 2 however I wasn't really proposing moving if that makes sense Anyway no worries, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@Davey2010: Please indicate exactly what makes you believe that I am "on a mission to decap everything". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, the Wikipedia consensus, per MOS:CAPS, is to avoid unnecessary capitalization, which is why these RMs – with the participation of various editors with distance from both the rail/transport articles and the MoS – keep going lower-case. The usage in sources is mixed, and when it is, WP avoids the capitalization as unnecessary. If it were considered necessary in the real world, then usage would not be mixed in reliable sources. Usage being mixed does not amount to "either way is okay, so I want my way" when we have a site-wide rule for the other way. "Blaming" two editors for a community result (and a common sense one) that you don't like is not useful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:02, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's bollocks for a start - I'm not blaming anyone nor have I said "I don't like it" - I wanted to get a wide range of comments instead these 2 appear so you can understand my frustration but regardless - It's closed, I've struck the statement so can we all go back to doing something useful. –Davey2010^Talk 16:29, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Let me get one thing clear: in the thread linked by Davey2010 (talk · contribs) (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 39#Moving forward on Line case), I made exactly one comment; it is dated 10:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC). It is in response to Dicklyon's post dated 04:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC), and is in clear opposition to what they had intended to do (i.e. to move pages to decapitalise the word "line" without discussing). So absolutely no way am I "on a mission to decap everything" (I also offer this as evidence). So, Davey2010, if you don't want me to demand an explanation (if not an outright apology), don't libel me in the first place. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Redrose64 - I sincerely apologise, You did indeed make one comment so it was my error and so I apologise for the comment, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 23:27, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty wacky, too. I'm also not on that mission, and I thank RedRose for being one of those most willing to discuss line capitalization, but he was clearly not (usually) pulling in the same direction that I was. Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

As to nom's comment above that "Both names have equal usage as shown above so I fail to see how it's thin at all....", that's the point. When case is mixed, we default to lower, per MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chatham main line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928003510/http://www.electric-railways.co.uk/L2_DC_750_CR/1_general/g3_proj/prj-0d75-sr.html to http://www.electric-railways.co.uk/L2_DC_750_CR/1_general/g3_proj/prj-0d75-sr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:South Western main line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)