Talk:Hammersmith & City line/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Ampersand and and
The title of the article uses an ampersand. The Tube map uses an ampersand. Therefore, no matter what reservation WP has about "His last meal was eggs & bacon", the article should use "&", not "and" in its subject's name.--SilasW (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Future of the H&C
I made this edit regarding the lines future, based on this source. The change from what the article said before is major: Before the article said H&C would cease to exist as a separate line, but from what I could see H&C would continue to run as a separate line. Since I don't live in London, there is a risk I screwed up, and if I did, please revert me there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Geographical Tube Map
The map of the H&C Line is out-of-date (it doesn't include "Wood Lane" station). FMasic (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
There is a proposal to move all the articles of the Transport of London tube lines, capitalizing the "L" of "line". Please see the centralized discussion at Talk:Victoria line#Requested move. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 23:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
London Underground's Newest Line
Where does 1858 come from? --Redrose64 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Removed it! Sunil060902 (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Duplication of information
The article gave the impression that the Line was entirely separate for the whole of its distance, whereas the trains use the same metals as other lines for the greater part of their journey. The paragraph about it the Atlantic Tunnel is therefore superfluous here - it's already on the MetR article. That is the problem with treating Lines as being synonymous with railways: a Line is only, as the article says, a means of simplifying it from the passengers' point of view. Peter Shearan 05:55, 2 May 2005 (UTC)