Hello. Let's hope this works (first time using a talk page). The reason for suggestion to edit the "stations" name of group 1 in the London Underground Line Templates is because of readability. According to relational database logic (which in essence these types of templates are), class names (in this case group 1, group 2, group 3) should reflect what is contained within the group (or list), as a whole, not what is contained within the individual elements of the group (or list).

Group 2 contains "rolling stock" which in English usually (ie most commonly) refers to a set of train types, ie it is plural in nature (yes, it can also technically mean one set of rolling stock, but that is very rarely used to refer to individual train types)

Group 3 contains "history" which is also correctly describable of the entirety of the contents of what is in List 3, as it relates to the Line that is referred to in the navbox.

Group 1 contains sub- navboxes that refer to a sub- part of the line itself (or "route", but the wording is less important). Therefor "stations" is in my opinion not a good umbrella name for group 1 as it would mean that all sub- navboxes would be parts of stations. The stations are also ordered in the progression of the line, it is only because of the route of the lines that the stations are ordered in that order, and not - for example - alphabetically.

Thus, I suggested to replace "Stations" with "Routes" as it would more accurately describe what is contained within the list, and it's sub- elements (not referring to the contents of its individual elements, which are clearly stations, but let's say you'd thrown an "end-point" or a "turning point" in there - this likely isn't going to happen, it's just for the sake of the argument - and it'd be a different story.

Alternatively, it could look good just to leave that group name empty, or just call it "line" or "lines" or perhaps even "stops" or something like that

That's my 5 cents

(PS. My interest in the subject matter is less that of London Underground and more so that I'd like Wikipedia to follow "best practices" as it regards to database logic)

--Danielsltt (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We write for human readers, not computers.

The items listed are stations. Readers who click on one will find themselves reading an article about a station, not about a route. They happen here to be listed in route order, but that's not very significant and doesn't make them routes; the purpose of the listing is not to lead the reader along the route. If they were listed in alphapbetical order, we still wouldn't call them alphabets.

Quite peripherally, our article Rolling stock and the navbox there may correct your misapprehension about how that English term is used. NebY (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)