This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. I am wondering whether the changes to the map made by Kevin Steinhardt are an improvement on the previous version. In particular the new version suggests that the line via Cobham is a secondary route and that the line via Bookham is the main line. I also find the layout of the junctions at Guildford confusing. Am I alone in thinking this? Mertbiol 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. So the consensus is that the changes should be reverted. Mertbiol 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There was more detail on the line and the services under the entry for Hinchley Wood than in this article (it was getting to a point where it was even linking to the station article to get information. I have copied some of the information here. It needs editing: there may be some NPOV against the services to weed out, balance or reference and the Old Rolling Stock paragraph needs to be broken up and the references converted. Anywikiuser ( talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says that Effingham Jn to Guildford is shared with a branch of the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines but that article, although its map shows a tremendous mileage of track beyond what it claims as the S & M V lines, stops them at Effingham Jn. That a service on line A continues on line B hardly seems to warrant including B in A. How well are lines defined? Is there an official list? The S&MVL article mentions confusion apparently caused by different meanings for S&MVL.-- SilasW ( talk) 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New Guildford Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Guildford 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The article says 660 volts but the infobox says 750 volts. Which is correct? I understand that the value is only a nominal one but the difference here is sufficient to be able to say that this is a contradiction that should be corrected. 87.75.117.183 ( talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. I am wondering whether the changes to the map made by Kevin Steinhardt are an improvement on the previous version. In particular the new version suggests that the line via Cobham is a secondary route and that the line via Bookham is the main line. I also find the layout of the junctions at Guildford confusing. Am I alone in thinking this? Mertbiol 11:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. So the consensus is that the changes should be reverted. Mertbiol 13:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
There was more detail on the line and the services under the entry for Hinchley Wood than in this article (it was getting to a point where it was even linking to the station article to get information. I have copied some of the information here. It needs editing: there may be some NPOV against the services to weed out, balance or reference and the Old Rolling Stock paragraph needs to be broken up and the references converted. Anywikiuser ( talk) 19:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This article says that Effingham Jn to Guildford is shared with a branch of the Sutton & Mole Valley Lines but that article, although its map shows a tremendous mileage of track beyond what it claims as the S & M V lines, stops them at Effingham Jn. That a service on line A continues on line B hardly seems to warrant including B in A. How well are lines defined? Is there an official list? The S&MVL article mentions confusion apparently caused by different meanings for S&MVL.-- SilasW ( talk) 19:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
New Guildford Line. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New Guildford 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:18, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
The article says 660 volts but the infobox says 750 volts. Which is correct? I understand that the value is only a nominal one but the difference here is sufficient to be able to say that this is a contradiction that should be corrected. 87.75.117.183 ( talk) 09:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)