Talk:Weaver line

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watford DC line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Watford DC line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Good start. And good upmerge destination for non-wp:notable station articles.

North8000 (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Weaver Line.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The split discussion from Lea Valley lines has just been closed. Anyone interested may start creating and editing this article. Thanks, Fortek67 (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

i have already finished splitting it out and is now published Faisalisonline2 (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Half woven, fully broken...

Looks like another discussion (which I missed) took place at Talk:Lea_Valley_lines#Splitting proposal: Split out a new Weaver line article, resulting in the creation of this article, following the previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#RfC: Adopting the New Overground Line Names. Almost all the content on this new 'Weaver line' article is copied over from the Lea Valley lines article, just with small edits made by @Faisalisonline2. Much of this new article's content does not even apply to the LO 'Weaver line' service, and some of it is simply incorrect. My view remains that this page should simply redirect to Lea Valley lines - the new branding for this specific service on those lines doesn't mean it is worthy of its own article. I'll use this space to repeat the concerns I raised in the previous discussion:

The existing articles already provide clear, comprehensive coverage of well-defined, historically stable railway lines. There is no need to move or split any of these pages. The newly introduced London Overground line names are merely branding layers applied to subsets of services on those lines. They do not represent new infrastructure, distinct routes, or operationally independent systems.

Creating standalone articles like 'Weaver line', 'Lioness line', or 'Suffragette line' would largely duplicate content, as we saw in Faisalisonline2's attempt to split the Lea Valley lines article out into 'Weaver line' against consensus. These branded lines map onto pre-existing, well-documented routes.

With the Weaver line in particular, the branding applies to London Overground services on the Lea Valley routes, yet the same infrastructure is also served extensively by Greater Anglia. We do not create separate articles for each Greater Anglia service pattern on those lines, nor should we.

This situation is also not comparable to London Underground line articles. Underground lines are long-established, operationally distinct entities with clearly defined service patterns, identities and histories that correspond directly to their names. By contrast, the new London Overground line names are recent marketing labels applied across shared National Rail infrastructure, overlapping with other operators and existing route-based articles. Treating them as equivalent would be a false analogy. Nothing substantive has changed about the lines themselves - the existing articles remain the most accurate, neutral and maintainable way to present this information. Waltforest (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

While this argument looks pretty concrete, I just have a few problems, first it being against consensus. When the discussion ended a few days ago, the majority voted for a split and so the consensus voted towards the majority as it had concrete evidence and was highly supported. There was one sole opposer that disagreed with the consensus but even they didn't rule out a full split. The elephant in the room that we have been trying to remove since 2024 isn't how to make compromises to make everyone happy or RM to revert. Its how to make the least people disappointed. Then we have notability. This is one of the major problems with this entire thing. The difference between Greater Anglia and the Overground is that Greater Anglia is (or was) previously owned by private operators which was common for many of the other national rail services. The overground on the other hand is different. It has a hybrid style operation with national rail. National Rail owns the infrastructure for the trains to run on while TfL hands out contracts to companies to run the trains and do station upkeep while they set the service frequency for the trains to run. This is the same way for how TfL operate the Elizabeth line (non core section). Due to this style of operation and lots of promotional branding (albeit that doesn't change the outcome too much), the Overground is (to many passengers and brandwise) separate to National rail. Which breaks down Walt's argument on Greater Anglia. While his Underground statement in his last paragraph is true, like I just said, The overground (or any tfl brand in general) isn't and wont be for the foreseeable future under national rail/GBR branding and therefore exempt from being under any of the generic branding. Faisalisonline2 (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)