Talk:Beaconsfield railway station (England)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buckinghamshire, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BuckinghamshireWikipedia:WikiProject BuckinghamshireTemplate:WikiProject BuckinghamshireBuckinghamshire articles

Trains: Stations / in UK Start‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Start

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Requested move 11 May 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Beaconsfield (Buckinghamshire) railway station, and redirect this page to Beaconsfield station. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)closure amended to show updated target Primefac (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beaconsfield railway station → Beaconsfield railway station (England), Beaconsfield railway station (Buckinghamshire), etc. – This may be the most prominent single station named "Beaconsfield", but it doesn't seem to be more prominent than all other topics combined, and therefore doesn't sound like the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It receives only 54% of the page views among ambiguous topics,[1] a pretty low amount, especially considering that a fair number of people are probably landing there by accident after searching for "Beaconsfield railway station" while intending a different station. Disambiguation isn't consistent for British stations, so I'm open to other options besides the one I've named. Beaconsfield railway station should redirect to the disambiguation page Beaconsfield station. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Too many railway stations named "Beaconsfield" to call this the primary topic. bd2412 T 20:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A station with 1.5million users is not primary when compared to a station with 200,000 users? Yeah right. Jeni ^(talk) 22:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant question is not how many people are on the ground using the station, but how many people are looking for it on Wikipedia. This is a relatively low-traffic page (averaging 12 views per day), and just in the last 60 days, it has been surpassed in page views by another "Beaconsfield" station three times, on 4/7, 4/29, and 5/7. bd2412 T 23:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't go so far as to say that station use figures shouldn't be consulted in determining whether something is the primary topic, but it can't be an overriding factor compared to usage and long-term significance per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Here, the British station gets barely over 50% of the page views among the ambiguous page views, and many of those are likely misdirects of readers looking for the other stations. And it has no more long-term significance than the other stations; the American station is the same age and the Canadian and Australian stations are older (the Australian station by decades). While it may the most prominent individual station among them, it's not more prominent than all of them combined.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't really see the value of this move. The page view figures show that, albeit by a small margin, this topic is viewed more often than all the other topics combined. As for common usage and long term significance, that's very hard to gauge. Stations don't tend to get a lot of dedicated coverage in books and newspapers. Of course, with each of the stations being a very regional topic, common usage is likely to vary heavily between those different regions... but the fact that the UK station has an order of magnitude more passengers going through it every day suggests that the current primary topic is likely not the wrong one. Finally, I actually think this topic is on the verge of being a WP:TWODABS, given that the word "railway" is not commonly used in the US and Canada. It would certainly be a good idea to include the Melbourne statoin as a hatnote on this one in addition to the dab page link, so that Melbourne people remain one click away from their destination. — Amakuru (talk) 21:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have an "order of magnitude" more passengers. The Canadian station has 700,000 riders a year, the Australian station 200,000, and the American 50,000, not counting transfers. The British station doesn't have a notably higher traffic count than all those. And "railway" is in use in the US and Canada, if less commonly; natural disambiguation needs to actually disambiguate titles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Primary topic is determined by page views and media coverage, not slightly higher passenger traffic. This is clearly not an unambiguous primary topic and many readers likely end up here after searches. AusLondonder (talk) 17:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The PrimaryTopic claim fails because many reasonable readers at another Beaconsfield railway station, such as Beaconsfield railway station, Melbourne, can easily know nothing of this Beaconsfield railway station. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.