Jump to content

Talk:Metropolitan line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Over-detailed station list

[edit]

User:81.111.168.160 has added out-of-station interchange information to the list of stations, which I undid, citing "WP:NOTTRAVEL interchanges are often included in individual stations' articles". Rather than follow WP:BRD the editor has restored the information. I have removed it once more and opened this discussion.Bazza (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current practice on some lines simply shows an icon, with more basic information about interchanges in notes. I believe this extra information adds far too much off-topic detail to this article and makes the table less accessible. Compare [1] with [2]. The information looks like a travel guide for users of the line, against WP:NOTTRAVEL. The editor stated "I can't see how WP:NOTTRAVEL applies - the examples given are details of 'best' hotels/restaurants and prices, rather than this sort of fundamental information about stations. Other lines' station lists (and all the line diagrams - which these station lists are more detailed expansions of) have interchanges listed - should they be removed and you click through to the specific page?." Contrary to that assertion, none of the other TfL lines have this over-detailed information.Bazza (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support your removing the IP's editing.
Gareth Griffith-Jones (contribs) (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks Bazza for being clear now that it's out-of-station interchanges specifically that is what bothers you with the missing content that I added to this page. Your initial reversion summary did not specify OSIs, but the more general "interchanges", which are clearly the norm to mention in station lists (see below). Nor did it follow the advice of WP:BRD to "In the edit summary of your revert, <snip> and (possibly with a link to WP:BRD) encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted.", and so I didn't know about WP:BRD, hence my violation of it. Sorry about that.

I, therefore, got confused with the issue of interchanges being somehow unsuitable content, because *every other* Tube line (save the W&C, where you similarly reverted my edits to add the interchange information), along with several Overground lines, and TfL Rail have that information.

All the above examples which use text, like I did. Only some using the icons from Template:Rail-interchange, but that is in addition to the text when in the body of the article.

And contrary to your assertion that "none of the other TfL lines have this over-detailed information.", the North London line and Goblin don't have station lists, but describe connections to other lines as a section in the body of the article - including OSIs, and even (on the Goblin) walking connections that are not even valid OSIs. Perhaps you unaware of this, and that's fine, but there are TfL lines with what you find here as over-detailed information, only with more detail than I included - something which you incorrectly said wasn't so. No one seems too concerned to have done a purge of this content as unencyclopedic or violating WP:NOTTRAVEL, despite it being there for years (looking through the history it was added in 2007!), whereas my edit lasted a mere 7 minutes before being rejected and reverted. I know (thanks to you) about boldly editing Wikipedia, but to emphatically reject something after 7 minutes that's been on another similar page for 12 years, strikes me as rather too bold!

Furthermore, you now (didn't initially) suggest my edit to this page has a accessibility issue. TfL Rail not only has the same format (albeit without OSIs), but you, Bazza, cleaned up the original iteration of that format to give the current one (edit 1, edit 2). If you think that the formatting is accessible on TfL Rail - and given that you were the last person to edit it, presumably it is - then the accessibility problem is merely the inclusion of OSIs that could be edited out without the need for a full revert (especially as WP:BRD asks one to consider the possibility of fixing the edit to preserve some of the edit).

Given all this, I don't understand why my edit to this page given the strong option of a revert despite Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary, as well as the guidance on WP:BRD, rather than just edited. Can you please tell me why everything had to go? At the moment this newcomer is very much discouraged from editing here due to my whole edit being treated as trash, despite the guidance that the person who threw it in the trash saying not to do that! Why both spending the time adding information that is on similar pages, if seemingly *any* false move means that the whole baby gets chucked out with the bathwater? 81.111.168.160 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not a complaint or supporting either side, but that's a lot of extensive research into the standard formats and wikiguidelines. Have you considered registering an account? I'm not saying anyone here is acting as such, but there is a (unfortunate, unsanctioned, but understandable) trend on Wikipedia for IP edits to be assumed guilty until proven innocent. Having a blue-linked account can avoid this knee-jerk reaction, not that it's required. Shadowssettle Need a word? 23:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@81.111.168.160: Firstly, I recommend taking Shadowssettle's helpful advice to get a Wikipedia username. It makes conversations like this much more constructive. For a new editor (I can't tell if you really started in December 2020 because IP addresses can change) you have given a lot of detail on WP processes and procedures. You have asked lots of questions about why I did things, have lectured me on what I have or have not done, and instructed me on what I should or should not do. I suggest, to help with your understanding of how editing works, you have a look at Help:Introduction to Wikipedia. It gives some information about what new editors might expect, including what happens when edits are reverted (as in this case, which seems to be your first), and the WP:BRD process. I also recommend you read the alarmingly-named WP:NPA as a lot of your comments above are about me, rather than improving this article. You asked "why everything had to go?" (which is hasn't: nothing goes, it just becomes history. Not everyone can spend as much time as they like on manually changing or correcting other people's contributions, which is why the "Undo" link is available for just about every individual edit, and is the method a lot of people use to follow WP:BRD. You will see that another editor has agreed above that the detailed information you inserted here is too much, so I am not intending to reinstate the original edit you made. Regards, Bazza (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Transit / Suburban rail

[edit]

I have changed the infobox of the line from rapid transit to suburban rail and it has got 3RRed.

This line is undoubtedly a suburban rail from an Amersham / Chesham / Watford point of view, but east of Finchley Road / Baker Street it is no doubt a rapid transit.

The same argument can also be applied into Elizabeth line as well.

What should I put in the infobox then? -Miklcct (talk) 11:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it has got 3RRed Only twice Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as all the other Underground lines that have a similar combination of services, Central, Northern, Bakerloo, Piccadilly, District, Jubilee. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the other London Underground lines offer a similar combination of services as the Watford / Chesham / Amersham branches of Metropolitan line, which is a faster service connecting the commuter towns outside London run to a public timetable. --Miklcct (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Piccadilly/District lines from Ealing to Hammersmith. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are still high-frequency service within London, which is not what Metropolitan line does. -Miklcct (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, RT would be right for the Tube, Elizabeth line and metro services (e.g. DLR), whereas SR is more for National Rail services - so although they operate over some of the same route, the Met would be Rapid Transit, and Chiltern would be Suburban Rail. Happy to be convinced otherwise! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are both right (different sides of the same coin), why not put both in the infobox? This type = [[Rapid transit]] and [[Suburban rail]] works. Your (joint) call re whether to make it live. Consider yourselves lucky that it doesn't go out to Verney Junction any more. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the infobox,
might be better. Bazza (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, unless anyone has a violent objection I'll do it tomorrow. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Magenta or maroon?

[edit]

Hello. I noticed this morning that a number of editors are edit warring over whether the Met is shown as magenta or maroon. Personally, it is maroon because it is darker than magenta, which is a type of pink. Please tell me what you think, as I would be interested. Thank you. Roads4117 (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

as far as I'm aware, it's usually referred to as magenta. I've never heard anyone calling it maroon before. That would imply a brownish or chestnut colour, which it definitely doesn't have. That said, I'm struggling to find any definitive sourcing that gives a name to the colour rather than just its RGB values. There must be some sourcing somewhere.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.londontubemap.org/en-7-Metropolitan-line-london-tube-map.php regards it as magenta rather than maroon, and I agree with Amakuru that I haven't heard of it being referred to as maroon. Pantone 235 is the colour. Some sources mention purple, but some of those recognise the possibe confusion in that terminology with the Elizabeth Line's royal purple. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with you that it is not maroon, however magenta is pink, and maroon is closer than magenta (in my personal opinion). Roads4117 (talk) 11:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Names for colours are always going to be somewhat subjective, unless you're using a system like the RAL colour standard that has defined and unambiguous official names for most of its shades. The Pantone Matching System, which TfL's designers use, only employs numbers – but because TfL also publish the CMYK co-ordinates that are used for line colours in printed publications when a Pantone match isn't available, we can know that the Metropolitan line's colour is made by taking process magenta  , adding a 40% grey shade, and then adding a very small amount of cyan to end up with what might be described as dark magenta:  . But this is chosen for front-lit glossy paper, and won't look correct on the web, so we pick the colour that TfL use for on-screen presentations by eye-dropping the colour swatches they publish and get this:  . It's still predominantly magenta, but the cyan tint is replaced by 44% yellow.
Things do get a bit more subjective here, because there are one or two definitions of maroon that do get close to this colour – but in my opinion, those definitions are not in common use and I think that the majority of readers would visualise a brownish-red colour more like this   if told to picture maroon.
The print colour definition that TfL use gets very close to the web colour definition of purple:  , but as @David Biddulph notes that term is much more closely associated with the Elizabeth line now. XAM2175 (T) 12:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got involved in this subject after nearly reverting @Roads4117's edit to change "magenta" to "maroon" but deciding, after some attempts at referencing, that theirs was the more accurate description. It looks, though, like we need to sit back and review that decision objectively. It's worth remembering that we're looking for a reliable description of the colour which is not also used for other hues.
The Maroon article states it is a a brownish crimson color, and gives definitions from various dictionaries as:
  • dark reddish-purple (CED)
  • dark brown-red (CED (US))
  • dark brownish-red dictionary.com (US)
  • dark red to purplish-red dictionary.com (GB)
  • brownish crimson (strong red) or claret (purple color) (OED)
  • dark red (M-W)
The Magenta article states it's pinkish-purplish-red, reddish-purplish-pink, and mauvish-crimson.
The highlights from those articles might be that "maroon" is a dark red, and "magenta" mauve/pink and red. There's a suggestion that WP:ENGVAR may play a part in our disagreements on what the TfL colour for the Met line is called.
The X11 extended set of web colours (helpful diagram at {{Color chart X11}}) includes both magenta and maroon. The RAL system has a group of Reds from which several are close matches. There are some other named colours in the set with similar names and, combined with available equivalent names from the , gives a set from which we might pick a comprehensible name for the unnamed colour TfL has assigned to the Metropolitan line.
  •   TfL Metropolitan rgb(155,0,88) compared with...
  •    X11 "Maroon"
  •    X11 "Magenta"
  •    X11 "Dark magenta"
  •    X11 "Purple"
  •    X11 "Dark red"
  •    RAL "Brown magenta"
  •    RAL "Magenta red"
  •    RAL "Aurora magenta"
  •    RAL "Madder red"
  •    RAL "Raspberry ice red"
  •    RAL "Carmine red"
  •    RAL "Ruby red"
My own opinion is that "magenta", as shown in the X11 set, is simply vivid pink; "deep magenta" might be called "purple"; and "maroon" is overloaded with red. Although some of the RAL named colours look better matches, I do not think that their names are acceptable for WP:COMMONALITY. Were I to express my preference for an easily understood colour, it would be dark red, even though that may not been the best colour-match, it's name is well understood not to mean "red", "pink", or "purple", which colours have other meanings in TfL's scheme. Bazza (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bazza 7, it isn't crimson, although magenta is simply miles off the Met line colour. Roads4117 (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru has added a reliable source (Baracaia, Alexa (22 August 2006). "Seven Wonders of London". London Evening Standard. p. 21 – via newspapers.com.) stating the colour's "magenta". Good find! Not my favourite outcome, but that's irrelevant. If other similarly-reliable sources give other descriptions then we can look again. Bazza (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metropolitan_line&oldid=1200262649"