Talk:Tamar Valley Line

Trains: in UK C‑class Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 24, 2019

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

C

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Mid

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

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

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon 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.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cornwall Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CornwallWikipedia:WikiProject CornwallTemplate:WikiProject CornwallCornwall-related articles

Low

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

See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:

Be bold - if you know something about Cornwall then put it in! We value your contributions and don't be afraid if your spelling isn't great as there are plenty of spelling and grammar experts on clean-up duty!
Articles on settlements in Cornwall should be written using the standard set of headings approved by the UK geography WikiProject's guideline How to write about settlements.
At WikiProject Cornwall we subscribe to the policies laid down by Wikipedia - particularly civility and consensus building. We are aware that the wording on Cornish entries can sometimes be a contentious topic, especially those concerning geography. You don't have to agree with everything but there is no excuse for rudeness and these things are best solved through consensus building and compromise. For more information see WP:CornwallGuideline.
These pages are not platforms for political discussion. Issues relating to Cornish politics should be restricted to those pages that directly deal with these issues (such as Constitutional status of Cornwall, Cornish nationalism, etc) and should not overflow into other articles.
Most of all have fun editing - that's the reason we all do this, right?!

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Tamar Valley Line.

Route diagram

Could we have a discussion about the route diagram before being bold and just replacing it? In my mind the old version gives a better representation of the geography of the line, and also helps to interpret the history which is rather complex due to the complete diversion of the line between Devonport Junction and St Budeaux. Geof Sheppard (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just replace it; it still exists (Template:Tamar Valley Line). The complicated nature of the original RDT was, although of a higher detail, quite a mess to get through; so I stepped in and created a simple route diagram (Template:Tamar Valley Line RDT), that shows stations and connecting lines. Gradually, I intend to use information from the original to update the simple route diagram, to a higher detail and standard. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to the original diagram while we discuss this. If your finished version is going to be more detailed and informative, would you consider developing it to that standard before removing the existing map? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea. --Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apologies for being a little brisk. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balls; I thought I could have slipped it in. Kevin Steinhardt (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge RDTs

I suggest that the RDTs here and here should be merged to form one, or one deleted. Nathan A RF (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]