Talk:Cambuslang railway station

Cambuslang railway station was a Engineering and technology good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Trains: in UK / in Scotland 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

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 UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Transport in Scotland (assessed as Low-importance).

Extensive article in need of work

I am not sure what this means. This is an extensive article, of which Cambuslang Station is a relatively little part. The article also links to many other sub articles on various aspects of Cambuslang - buildings, schooling, history etc. The station will be of special interest to some people but I would think the main article will always be Cambuslang. I suppose whoever is suggesting this merger thinks that railway stations might be a good way of organising some geographic aspects of Scotland, but this would mean, say, merging the Glasgow article with that for Glasgow Central Station. This does not seem to make much sense, so please do not merge these two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony164 (talk • contribs)

I support User:Tony164 (who didn't sign the above comment) as above: the two are completely different articles. However I do believe that the section of the Cambuslang (town) article regarding the railway station should be deleted/moved to the Cambuslang railway station article and the section remaining linking to the railway station article. Anthøny

Happy to support moving Cambuslang Station section to join a separate article if the original writer of that article is happy. Tony164 15:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony: remember - be bold (see WP:BOLD); it isn't about the original writer it is about how to improve Wikipedia! Anthøny

Gaelic Name

Inclusion of the Gaelic name "Camus Long" inside the Infobox infers (to me at least) that it appears on the actual station signage. If this is not the case, then I think it should be deleted. This is an article about a railway station, not a lesson in the Gaelic language. Signalhead 22:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you live in or around Cambuslang railway station? (Feel free to ignore this question on grounds of personal question, but it is related to the article)? Anthøny 12:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About three miles away. Signalhead 19:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the same; although I haven't noticed any gaelic signage, most Scottish stations are permitted to use the Gaelic name since it is still technically Scotland's second langauge. I am for keeping it there, similar to Partick railway station has Gaelic as its second name. Regards, Anthøny 14:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought about this - to my knowledge (and I am happy to be corrected), the (Scottish) stations that have the Gaelic name in the info box, display the Gaelic name at the station. Partick railway station is interesting as the Gaelic name is on a secondary sign, whilst Bridge of Orchy railway station has the Gaelic and English on the same same. Meant to have a look at Cambuslang at lunchtime but did not manage it (got too wet tracking the Glasgow Central Railway between Maryhill Central and Botanic Gardens. Camera stayed in the car as well.)

Only a slightly different note, as the crow flies I live around 3 miles south of Cambuslang. Stewart 14:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original Gaelic name signs at all the West Highland Line stations comprised a secondary sign placed below the existing signs. Partick station received Gaelic signs at the same time. It was only in the last year or so that all the West Highland station signage was renewed, putting the Gaelic and English names onto one single sign. As far as I'm aware, Partick still has the older separate signs. Signalhead 15:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right; I was interchanging at Partick the other day and its still got the Gaelic on a smaller, secondary sign below. I've never been up the WHW so I can't pass comment on the signage in stations on that route. However, I think the Gaelic is a nicer touch to the article and gives it a more Scottish look rather than just Cambuslang. What do you think? Anthøny 23:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that information about the Gaelic version of the name "Cambuslang" belongs in the article about Cambuslang village itself, and there is no need to duplicate it in the Cambuslang railway station article. If the Gaelic name did appear on the station signs, then it would be reasonable to reflect that in the Infobox. Signalhead 21:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept an eye out this morning (I commute from there every weekday morning) and there is no gaelic; therefore, support not putting it on infobox. Matter resolved? Anthøny 23:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. Signalhead 14:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article review

I'm seeing a lot of uncited facts and possible opinions, such as the train classes used post electrification and "There have been some complaints about this building, which is architecturally unpleasant to the eye; and calls have been made to demolish it." (The only references there are a few images, from which drawing the conclusion that it's "architecturally unpleasant" is original research, and the complaints and calls are not sourced.) The "summary of services" is perhaps too "crufty" in its description of service patterns; the train class used is uncited.

It could also use a diagram, since it's at a junction or intersection, though I don't think this would be a disqualification.

Basically, it needs citations to reliable sources for most of the facts. --NE2 20:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments; I will take this on-board and try to research some sources - which may take some time: the calls where in a local newspaper a few months ago, so the story will have been archived.

Regards,
Anthøny 00:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have some luck finding those articles, or at least their titles, in Google's news archive. --NE2 00:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stock

Is it really appropriate to have a picture of a class 318 leaving Gourock? It has very little to do with Cambuslang itself.

Agreed --Stewart 01:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be removed. Anyone who's really curious to know what a Class 318 looks like can always click on the wikilink to the article about those units. Signalhead 19:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Location

The town of cambuslang lies within the Greater Glasgow area within the local authority area of South Lanarkshire.

I state this with regard to the stations regional context. Notice I did not cvlaim Glasgow City (Council) but Greater Glasgow (Urban Area) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George R. Allison (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous edit stated "town of Cambuslang, Glasgow in South Lanarkshire, Scotland." The link to the article about the City of Glasgow implies you were meaning Cambuslang was part of the city. You did not mention Greater Glasgow first time round. --Dreamer84 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and apologise for this error and Greater Glasgow was my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George R. Allison (talk • contribs) 22:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]