Jump to content

Talk:List of closed railway stations in Britain: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Birmingham Snow Hill / re-opening dispute: change to somewhat less-provocative shortcut, and clarify
→‎Birmingham Snow Hill / re-opening dispute: Moved Personnal attack comments to the end of the discussion
Line 40: Line 40:


::and that clearly means you know more on the subject that anyone else... two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::and that clearly means you know more on the subject that anyone else... two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

:::See [[WP:LEGS]]. The words "book" and "cover" come to mind. I will ask once more that you don't judge other editors by what you mistakenly believe to be their ''entire'' contribution history. Further sniping based on what you ''perceive'' to be my history does not magically make it true. Since you evidently missed it the first time, I'll use a larger font this time: <big><big>[[WP:NPA]]</big></big>. None of us are perfect, yourself included. [[User:81.104.165.184|81.104.165.184]] 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


:::Would it not seem just as useful to put a section on the page of the new station giving the history of the station under the previous name, like I've personally done with [[Heswall railway station#Original_Heswall_station|Heswall railway station]] by using the # tag? {[[User:Stuey 182|Stuey 182]] 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
:::Would it not seem just as useful to put a section on the page of the new station giving the history of the station under the previous name, like I've personally done with [[Heswall railway station#Original_Heswall_station|Heswall railway station]] by using the # tag? {[[User:Stuey 182|Stuey 182]] 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))
Line 48: Line 48:
:Good idea, and done. [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:Good idea, and done. [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::PS: (edited whilst I was reading) The closed article is sufficient, and dosn't warrant yet another article, it this article needs is good editing... [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
::PS: (edited whilst I was reading) The closed article is sufficient, and dosn't warrant yet another article, it this article needs is good editing... [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
:::See [[WP:LEGS]]. The words "book" and "cover" come to mind. I will ask once more that you don't judge other editors by what you mistakenly believe to be their ''entire'' contribution history. Further sniping based on what you ''perceive'' to be my history does not magically make it true. Since you evidently missed it the first time, I'll use a larger font this time: <big><big>[[WP:NPA]]</big></big>. None of us are perfect, yourself included. [[User:81.104.165.184|81.104.165.184]] 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::::You might want to make your comments are added to conversation they belong to, this seems slightly off topic. I can't say I've missed anything from unidentified editors in this discussion page or the attached article other than inflammatory comments, inappropriate comments and unfounded edits. This article now clearly states what the station is and what happened. The Snow Hill article itself clearly shows the station's history, which is enough to understand the situation. Try and not include a 5-minute search of Wikipedia policies whilst actually breaching them. Whether you like or not, since you are not identified for a reason or another, your history are solely the edits that show in your history, any other IP is irrelevant since unless you own a static IP, anyone having the same ISP will one day or another have your IP. Try and think a few seconds before lessoning others and see how insignificant the edit your edit was and how ridiculous it is to actually bash each other for something so small. Bless the Internet and inflated egos. Regards, [[User:Captain scarlet|Captain scarlet]] 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:22, 26 April 2006

Listing by town or station name?

The title says it all really.

We currently have different styles, for example:
Kemptown (Brighton)
Aberdeen Ferryhill

The latter is easier to find, but the former is the station's actual name.

Personally I'd suggest the latter, always giving town name, is much more functional.

[Topic started by Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)][reply]

I think that the latter is formed from that being the actual part of the station name, also with the former issues with it being located in a very rural area could be problematic. Maybe something along the lines of this:
Station name (County) Year of Closure
would be a more appropriate format? Stuey 182 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An introduction to the page

Do people want to just have a list here, or would it be worth linking to pages about the various Railway Acts such as the so-called "Grouping" and "Beeching" Acts, to explain to readers why Britain is littered with closed stations? Kierant 16:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Snow Hill / re-opening dispute

There appears to be a mild dispute regarding the inclusion of Birmingham Snow Hill station. The original station of this name did close, but there is now a station of the same name on roughly the same site. It would help if this page were better defined; a paragraph with links to Beeching et al, for example (see point above). Meanwhile, perhaps the page should be re-named, to something like List of railway station closures in Britain? Kierant 16:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than one station that were closed but have reopened, in the same location or very nearby. This list concerns stations that have closed which is what Snow Hill did, regardless of it being open now. There is afterall an article for Snow Hill with the relevant station. Other stations that have closed but reopened that I know of:
  • Meadowhall and Wincobank (1947) now Meadowhall Interchange (1994)
  • Rotherham Central (195something) now Rotherham Central (1988ish)

No one would contest keeping the above stations in the list as they are closed, and now reopened. There is in brackets the mention of the current status of Snow Hill. Captain scarlet 16:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My main point is that's it's mildly ambiguous exactly what this list IS for; hence the (unanswered) point above which I made a while ago. As to the inclusion of re-opened stations, It looks like somebody (the user Mucky Duck, and possibly also somebody at 81.104.165.184, see the page history) does in fact contest keeping such stations in the list - that's what started this discussion. Kierant 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't contest anything of the sort! I've never (knowingly, anyway) removed anything from this list - All I've done is add a couple to it. Mucky Duck 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, apologies MuckyDuck, I'm going to have no more to do with this today as I seem to be getting garbled results from Wikipedia. Hopefully whoever it was at 81.104.165.184 (if that's correct) will have something to say. Kierant 16:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgiven. ;-) Mucky Duck 16:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the list is "List of closed stations" and not "List of station closures", it makes sense that this should be for stations that were closed and are not now open (we have Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom and its constituent lists for that), and not for every station that happened to be closed and since reopened (I imagine this list would be considerably longer, and rather less meaningful), unless the list is arranged differently e.g. grouped by closure rather than alphabetically. As examples go, I can think of more that have closed and since reopened, and still currently open, than can be counted in decimal on two hands, and my knowledge of the subject is somewhat limited, so I imagine there are a good many more. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. On closer examination, it seems the new Rotherham Central is not the same Rotherham Central as was closed in 1966. 18:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll remove every single station that has reopened then... Ridiculous, especially from un unregistered editor. Captain scarlet 17:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and therein you demonstrate the highest ignorance. This "unregistered editor" happens to have more history than you know. In the meantime, WP:NPA, please. 81.104.165.184 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and that clearly means you know more on the subject that anyone else... two letter edits only up your edit count, not your stature Captain scarlet 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Would it not seem just as useful to put a section on the page of the new station giving the history of the station under the previous name, like I've personally done with Heswall railway station by using the # tag? {Stuey 182 22:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps the best way to go would be a List of reopened stations in Britain, etither as a separate article or as a section on this one? Thryduulf 22:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and done. Captain scarlet 22:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS: (edited whilst I was reading) The closed article is sufficient, and dosn't warrant yet another article, it this article needs is good editing... Captain scarlet 22:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:LEGS. The words "book" and "cover" come to mind. I will ask once more that you don't judge other editors by what you mistakenly believe to be their entire contribution history. Further sniping based on what you perceive to be my history does not magically make it true. Since you evidently missed it the first time, I'll use a larger font this time: WP:NPA. None of us are perfect, yourself included. 81.104.165.184 10:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to make your comments are added to conversation they belong to, this seems slightly off topic. I can't say I've missed anything from unidentified editors in this discussion page or the attached article other than inflammatory comments, inappropriate comments and unfounded edits. This article now clearly states what the station is and what happened. The Snow Hill article itself clearly shows the station's history, which is enough to understand the situation. Try and not include a 5-minute search of Wikipedia policies whilst actually breaching them. Whether you like or not, since you are not identified for a reason or another, your history are solely the edits that show in your history, any other IP is irrelevant since unless you own a static IP, anyone having the same ISP will one day or another have your IP. Try and think a few seconds before lessoning others and see how insignificant the edit your edit was and how ridiculous it is to actually bash each other for something so small. Bless the Internet and inflated egos. Regards, Captain scarlet 12:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]