![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Cross River Tram map. |
Transport for London is taking this proposal quite seriously. Check the references listed in the article. While nothing is definite, I think a lot of people, whether Londoners or tram enthusiasts, will want to read about the proposal. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section of opposition to the proposal. Many people are likely to be affected by the siting of depots along the route. I am aware of a large community of people in Peckham who will lose jobs and will be kept awake at night, and woken early in the morning if a depot is built next door or on their places of business. Little information has been released as TfL would rather not get any opposition, and would prefer to buy out as much land as they can. C hris_huh talk 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This provides no counterarguments for the points given and does gives unsourced statements e.g. "destroying local churches and places of business" which is read nowhere -brownfield. -- Qu e ntin Smith 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
After being tagged for citations for well over a year, nothing has been added that justifies this rather vague section. I suggest that it be deleted, especially since it pre-dates the Sept 2007 consultation polling results. Nick Cooper ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across this page whilst looking at a number of pages about public transport in London and was struck by "in London, UK,". As well as being clumsy the "UK" is not necessary as when you say London the vast majority of people will think of the capital of England.
So I removed it saying "The UK is rather redundant as this is [the] London that most readers will think of". As evidence of this London points to the capital of England. All the others Londons are qualified but this one is not.
Ground_Zero reverted my change saying "this provides clarity for the minority that think of one of the other Londons around the world"
I don't think that such a major city needs to be qualified and this is not done in other cases and is even omitted in some, e.g Baker_Street_and_Waterloo_Railway, Bakerloo_line, Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell, Crossrail. Similarly PATH assumes the user knows where New York is.
If anyone is unsure which London is being talked about then all they need to do is click on the link although the context (reference to London Underground, various places, moderately well known people such as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson) will make that unnecessary in all but a few cases.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 13:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Cross River Tram map. |
Transport for London is taking this proposal quite seriously. Check the references listed in the article. While nothing is definite, I think a lot of people, whether Londoners or tram enthusiasts, will want to read about the proposal. TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I have added a section of opposition to the proposal. Many people are likely to be affected by the siting of depots along the route. I am aware of a large community of people in Peckham who will lose jobs and will be kept awake at night, and woken early in the morning if a depot is built next door or on their places of business. Little information has been released as TfL would rather not get any opposition, and would prefer to buy out as much land as they can. C hris_huh talk 13:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This provides no counterarguments for the points given and does gives unsourced statements e.g. "destroying local churches and places of business" which is read nowhere -brownfield. -- Qu e ntin Smith 20:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
After being tagged for citations for well over a year, nothing has been added that justifies this rather vague section. I suggest that it be deleted, especially since it pre-dates the Sept 2007 consultation polling results. Nick Cooper ( talk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I came across this page whilst looking at a number of pages about public transport in London and was struck by "in London, UK,". As well as being clumsy the "UK" is not necessary as when you say London the vast majority of people will think of the capital of England.
So I removed it saying "The UK is rather redundant as this is [the] London that most readers will think of". As evidence of this London points to the capital of England. All the others Londons are qualified but this one is not.
Ground_Zero reverted my change saying "this provides clarity for the minority that think of one of the other Londons around the world"
I don't think that such a major city needs to be qualified and this is not done in other cases and is even omitted in some, e.g Baker_Street_and_Waterloo_Railway, Bakerloo_line, Bakerloo_line_extension_to_Camberwell, Crossrail. Similarly PATH assumes the user knows where New York is.
If anyone is unsure which London is being talked about then all they need to do is click on the link although the context (reference to London Underground, various places, moderately well known people such as Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson) will make that unnecessary in all but a few cases.
FerdinandFrog ( talk) 13:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)