This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges and tunnels 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.Bridges and TunnelsWikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsTemplate:WikiProject Bridges and TunnelsBridge and Tunnel articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Civil engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Civil engineering 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.Civil engineeringWikipedia:WikiProject Civil engineeringTemplate:WikiProject Civil engineeringCivil engineering articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
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
Can I suggest just waiting a few days? Given that the railway line and service operating on it, i.e. Elizabeth line, is going to become (almost) fully operational on 24 May, quite a bit of information from both here and TfL Rail is going to go over to that Elizabeth line article. At that point this article will be all about the project to build the line - a key part of which is its history. I'm suggesting wait-see because I think at the point the article (including the merged in history and moved-out operational stuff) will likely be of an acceptable size. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted it back to how it was before, so that a clear consensus can be reached before we decide anything. Personally I think it should remain a separate article, with the Crossrail article's History section being a summary of the History article, with a "Main" link. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I have reverted the history section back to where it was before the content was moved across from the other article. Obviously there's work to be done on both to reduce overlap and make the summary here more succinct / focused. --10mmsocket (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i got to know that Crossrail was bogged down by numerous delays and other controversies between 2015 and 2019. But there is no mention of these issues in the article. Shouldnt we have a separate section dedicated these issues? Learninglawry (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Great Pyramid is a completed funerary project? It's an odd description. Is the name Crossrail not used for the result of the project? —Tamfang (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]