Talk:Jubilee Line Extension

Move

I've moved this to follow the naming we use at Jubilee line and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). MRSC • Talk 08:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but don't forget that the Jubilee Line Extension project is not the same thing as the Jubilee line. TfL itself capitalises the name, while using the lower-case "l" to refer to the line by itself - see e.g. [1]. You will find this usage (capitals for the JLE, lower-case for the line on its own) throughout TfL's reports and PPP documentation ([2],[3],[4] etc). As Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) says, "do not capitalize second and subsequent words, unless the title is a proper noun" - and TfL treats the term "Jubilee Line Extension" as a proper noun. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In which case we should capitalise London congestion charge, London low emission zone, Docklands Light Railway extension to Dagenham Dock, Oyster card etc. Of course TfL "capitalises" its projects in its publicity material, most organisations do. That doesn't mean we should follow the practice, especially when we have a house style that favours lower case use. MRSC • Talk 08:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, it's not simply used in publicity material - that's the way TfL's own internal materials, contracts, reports, PPP documentation etc, refers to it. Parliamentary papers, professional journals and local government documents use the same convention. See [5] for many more examples. Where proper names are concerned, I think we do have to make some effort to reflect the standard version. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Cost overruns

Shouldn't there be some more detail on these? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Should this be merged into "Jubilee line"?

Now that the frisson of having a new train set may have evaporated shouldn't this JLE be merged into the main Jubilee line article? Off hand I do not recall any other lines and their extensions living apart.--SilasW (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Southwark and Bermondsey added to plans by local MP

At the time of planning the extension Simon Hughes was MP for Southwark and Bermondsey, through which the extension runs. According to a speech he gave in Parliament on 11 Nov 2009 (documented in The Hansard) it was only on his insistence that Southwark and Bermondsey tube stations were included. Here is the relevant part of his speech:

The next battle that I fought was about the Jubilee line extension that Mrs. Thatcher's Government wanted. They were in discussions with the people at Canary Wharf about paying for it, but the proposal that was the main runner was for the line to run from Waterloo to London Bridge and then directly to Canary Wharf without stopping anywhere in between. That case required private legislation, and I am happy to say that I blocked it for long enough to achieve what was needed. I later saw a memo that said something like, "If we don't give in to the local MP, we're never going to get this line at all." So I think that the most prized success of my political life has been winning two extra tube stations-one in Southwark and one in Bermondsey-at a cost of £25 million each. They are very valued stations, and it would have been a nonsense to have a tube line extension that did not stop to serve the local business and resident communities, and visitors. Fortunately, we were successful.

I think this is worth adding to the history section. Ideally though it should be verified by some independent source other than just a claim by the man himself, and I don't know of any. However as it was given in Parliamentary debate it seems like it couldn't be an outrageous lie. Perhaps a mention could simply be made that Simon Hughes claims that this is the case? (This also seems appropriate to be mentioned on the individual pages of Southwark and Bermondsey tube stations, not to mention Mr Hughes' page if it really is "the most prized success of [his] political life".) Quietbritishjim (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jubilee Line Extension. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080212182726/http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee to http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tfl/corporate/modesoftransport/tube/linefacts/?line=jubilee

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Jubilee Line Extension → Jubilee line extension – "Line" and "extension" are not part of the proper name of this railway line, so they should be in small letters. 053pvr (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

support, this would also be consistent with the Jubilee line article. NemesisAT (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose : This project has always been referred to as Jubilee Line Extension (JLE) as per references throughout the page. Recent articles (e.g this one from RIBA) about the extension also use capital letters. Recent Transport for London heritage leaflets also refer to the project as JLE, although I don't have one to hand unfortunately. Turini2 (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, note the same discussion further up this talk page in 2008 - regarding the use of capitals. ChrisO stated As I said before, it's not simply used in publicity material - that's the way TfL's own internal materials, contracts, reports, PPP documentation etc, refers to it. Parliamentary papers, professional journals and local government documents use the same convention. Turini2 (talk) 16:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - At present it doesn't seem like there's a strong argument for one or the other. Examples of how independent sources refer to the subject really need to be provided to establish the WP:COMMONNAME. Of course, whether or not the words "Line/line" and "extension/Extension" are capitalised is actually relatively trivial so if there aren't independent sources providing evidence that one style is preferred over the other then I would say that we should keep it with the current capitalisation per MOS:STYLERET. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose while the railway line is indeed "Jubilee line", the project to extend it was the "Jubilee Line Extension". A look at reliable, independent sources that have a Wikipedia article shows "Jubilee Line Extension" is the common usage in running text:

Organisation	Source	Link	Usage
Bartlett School of Planning (University College London)	Project Profile	[6]	Inconsistent (uses all of Jubilee Line Extension, Jubilee Line extension and Jubilee line extension)
Bechtel	Projects/Jubilee Line Extension, London, UK	[7]	Jubilee Line Extension
Royal Institution of British Architects	RIBA Journal: "Happy birthday, Jubilee Line Extension"	[8]	Jubilee Line Extension
Institution of Civil Engineers (publisher)	Prologue of "Jubilee Line Extension: from concept to completion" by Bob Mitchell	[9]	Jubilee Line Extension
Museum of London Archaeology (publisher)	Blurb for "The big dig: archaeology and the Jubilee Line Extension" by James Drummond-Murray et al	[10]	Jubilee Line Extension
Save Britain's Heritage	"A modern ‘architectural sensation’: The Jubilee Line Extension stations" (online event)	[11]	Jubilee Line Extension
Rawlplug United Kingdom	"Jubilee Line Extension, London Underground"	[12]	Jubilee Line Extension
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (publisher)	"The Impact of the Jubilee Line Extension of the London Underground Rail Network on Land Values" by Stephen R. Mitchell and Anthony J. M. Vickers	[13]	Jubilee Line Extension

All of these are from the top 30 google hits for "Jubilee line extension -wikipedia". I also found 5 other sites that were independent but either of uncertain reliability or without Wikipedia articles, 4 of them used "Jubilee Line Extension", 1 (MyLondon) used "Jubilee line extension". The rest of the hits were either clearly not reliable, not independent (e.g. TfL, a University of Westminster study for TfL) and/or did not use the term in running text. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.