Talk:Ascot–Ash Vale line

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Ascot to Guildford Line.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Overturn to no-consensus, 6 May 2018, see discussion.
Delete, 18 April 2018, see discussion.

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article. The editor who added the request suggests the following:

add a geographic map

Berkshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Berkshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Berkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BerkshireWikipedia:WikiProject BerkshireTemplate:WikiProject BerkshireBerkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Surrey Low‑importance

	Surrey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fork page[edit]

Tclode set up Ascot to Guildford Service, which IMHO is an unnecessary fork, carried out without the proper talk, or page movement notification that have created an editing fork.

While Tclode is right there is a service between Ascot and Guildford, there is also a specific bit of track associated only with that line, which called Tclode "Ascot to Ash Vale branch line". There is across the numerous UK railway line articles a huge conflict between services and actual lines. Some editors have written a specific article on the physical line, using its Network rail route number (e.g. North Berwick Line and Network Rail route SC 147 or Portsmouth Direct Line and Network Rail route SW 110 ).

IMHO this current page could be "moved" (not copied and pasted) to "Ascot to Guildford Service" if the appropriate article on the Ascot to Ash Vale branch line was created - but considering the lack of information and the lack of consensus across Wikipedia on how to the handle this issue I'm weakly in favour of keeping the status quo. Pickle 20:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Ascot to Ash Vale branch line[edit]

IMO the presence of this article in its current format is a bit misleading. I agree that a separate article specific to the Ascot to Ash Vale branch line would be beneficial, especially if coupled with detail unique to this stretch of track. It must be noted that the historical detail of the various pieces of line shared by this service differs from mile to mile. Apologies to all for the lack of consultation prior to the edit - the speed and interest of response is truly astonishing and a credit to the Wikipedia community. Lesson learnt :o) Tclode 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) Pickle 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support the creation of an article on the Ascot to Ash Vale branch line. The fact that there is sort of an article on the Ascot to Guildford line makes no difference, as this article is really the description of a train service (is this notable?). The fact that a service runs between Ascot and Guildford can be covered by the articles on the Ascot to Ash Vale branch line and the North Downs Line as part of the timetable information. Not sure how the above can be achieved, but perhaps the Ascot to Guildford line can be renamed as Ascot to Ash Vale branch line and then a map can be produced, the history added, and the fact that trains run between Ascot and Guildford can be mentioned (who would want to do this??) Catlows Cat 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L v u Case[edit]

London Underground uses "line" with a lower case "l" and that seems to be the WP aimed for use for LU. Heavy rail lines in WP go for upper case "L". This article which is heavy rail seems to exhibit a cavalier attitude. All its references should use a big L. Some of its links seems to show "line" even though the linked article is a "Line". Someone, perhaps even me one less diverted day, should bring consistency.--SilasW (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless Chords[edit]

There are various 'disused track' chords drawn in between the SWML and this line. These may have existed but do not seem to exist in track or track bed terms today. There is a difference between historic and disused in the sense that the latter could practicably be reconstructed at a future date. As these chords must be historic they should be removed to declutter the maps unless someone would care to expand on their significance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.85.233 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chords of the past may legitimately by revived by clever means unless some immense building is blocking the entire cross-over area (in which case note in small or underneath what is in the way). As to roads no such dichotomy would be made by their almost WP:PEACOCK WP:EDITORIAL editors. Engineering of railway junctions is comparably labour-intensive as road junctions. The fact of political difficulties at local and national level in building any new sections of railway is really the cause of your false dichotomy. - Adam37 Talk 17:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2017[edit]

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: page moved to Ascot–Guildford line. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ascot to Guildford Line → Ascot to Guildford line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use the symmetric dashed version (Ascot–Guildford line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in sources

news
books

Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred. It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed form is more common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom, preferring the dashed Ascot–Guildford line which is clearly more common, and more concise and consistent with other such article titles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support—and yes, I do prefer the typographical version: it's much easier for readers to apprehend. Tony (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.