Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Disused railway goods stations in the United Kingdom

There are 24 pages in this category, named five different ways (six if one includes capitalization and ignores disambiguation)
Note: 12 more international and active pages added (second column)17:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC):

Xxx railway station (9)
Xxx Goods railway station (9)
Xxx goods station (8)
Xxx Goods Depot (3)
Xxx railway goods station (2)
Xxx railway station (goods) (1)
Other (4)

Aside for the last four that have unique names, these should probably be renamed in a consistent uniform manner. Should they all be simply Xxx railway station, or should the word goods be included in the name? Useddenim (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, the very first in the list (Birkenhead Grange Lane) was originally a passenger station, then continued as a goods station for over a century. I haven't checked any others. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much the same for Witney railway station (goods) except it was 97 years. The disambiguator is there because Witney railway station replaced it for passenger traffic. I think that at the time it was created (June 2009) there wasn't much precedent for naming goods-only stations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Generally, it should be Foo railway station where a station saw passenger use, even if it was later downgraded to goods only, and Foo Goods railway station for those that were goods only. These usually had Goods as part of their official name. There will of course be exceptions, such as Dudley Freightliner Terminal and others. Bricklayers Arms really needs separate articles for the railway station and the area that took its name. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Slight modification, is should be Foo railway sation where a station saw passenger use or was intended to have this use - even if it didn't happen. Nthep (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
We would still need a disambiguator for Witney. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
The original Witney station could be dabbed by year of opening. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Surely we should go with whatever the sources say they were called. There wasn't consistency in their naming between different companies etc. G-13114 (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Sources show that the goods station at Witney was always named simply "Witney". Although this might seem ambiguous, if you consigned a wagon load of goods to that station from somewhere else - like Oxford - the wagon card would simply say "Witney", and the operating staff (shunters, guards, signallers etc.) would know from simple experience that a wagon consigned to Witney should be sent to the goods station, not to the passenger station. Similarly, a passenger train wouldn't be routed to the goods station. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ivanhoe line

There seems to be a pattern that former 'branded' lines, such as this one, retain the lowercase 'line'. As as a marketing name, the 'L' should be capitalised, shouldn't it? Does being no longer in existence change that? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Colonies Chris: For marketing names where some/any(?) reliable sources use lowercase "line", it appears that what WP:MOSCAPS implies is that we should assume the operator uses or used title case, and that since the Wikipedia norm is to use sentence case we can/should ignore their capitalization as we like (where sources support it, anyway). I don't think it's a good idea to do it wherever possible even if only one or two RSes for a line or network use lowercase, and the recent RMs for metro lines might end up messing with real-world English usage, but it doesn't really seem like something to get worked up about. Jc86035 (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

More naming capitalisation anomalies

Why 'Hayes line' but 'Addiscombe Line'? Colonies Chris (talk) 14:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Before we go through this yet again is there any chance we can resolve that either line or Line is OK and is not a reason to move an article. We're never going to get consensus for one as everyone can find numerous examples that disprove whichever case is being discussed so let's just accept it's an imperfect world. Nthep (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm neutral on the subject, but it's my understanding that it has all been discussed and certain principles agreed. I'd just someone to clarify if that's the case and whether this is an oversight that should be fixed, or not. If you've agreed to disagree, I'm happy to leave the whole thing alone. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
If you want to look at some of the previous discussions, try WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line' and WT:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 38#Decapitalizing Line. Those might indeed tempt you to leave the whole thing alone. - David Biddulph (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sheffield station

Another problematic station move

Camerton (LNWR) railway station has been moved to Camerton railway station (Cumbria). The problem is, that the station closed in 1966, and Cumbria did not exist until 1974. Why is it that people want to keep rewriting history? Suggest that the article is either returned to the LNWR title, or moved to Camerton (C&WR) railway station, reflecting the company that built it. Mjroots (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree - Cumbria and Cumberland are two distinct entities, and while people have got "used" to living in the former there is no formal divide and pre 1974 it is just factually wrong. The best source would be a contemporary BR timetable from the 1960s, which would have to have had some qualifier against the other Camerton station in Somerset Avon Bath and North East Somerset the Bristol area. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
It was Camerton, Somerset. Mjroots (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I've moved the article back to the LNWR title. This issue of rewriting history when moving pages really needs to be thrashed out. As far as I'm concerned, we do not rewrite history. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
A move request has been opened at talk:Camerton (LNWR) railway station. Opinions there please. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wally Oakes

Wally Oakes has at last been given a headstone. He is buried somewhere in Crewe in the churchyard of St Matthew's Church, Haslington, Cheshire. Are there any members of this WP who can get a photograph of the headstone? Mjroots (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Restaurant Standard Buffet

The Restaurant Standard Buffet article has been nominated for deletion Mjroots (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Galleries in articles, again

Following comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 41#Large gallery, Moylesy98 (talk · contribs) (who was mentioned there) is now insisting on including a photo gallery at LMS Jubilee Class 5596 Bahamas. They have now made three attempts to add one; the third being immediately after starting User talk:Redrose64#Photos to Bahamas page. Their justification is "a page for sister engine Leander has got a photo section" (presumably they mean LMS Jubilee Class 5690 Leander), which as an argument is pure WP:OTHERCONTENT weakened still further when you consider that they added that gallery themselves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

London Underground stations with related Network stations -- one Wikidata item or two?

Are there advantages to having separate Wikidata items for a LU station and a corresponding Network Rail station?

Or, unless/until a Wikipedia in some language decides to have separate articles, is it okay to keep the two together?

Are there some stations that are so integrated, that it would never make any sense to consider them other than as a single integrated entity?

Current state of play reviewed, and further discussion encouraged, at this thread on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Jheald (talk) 23:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Undiscussed page moves

A consensus was reached on this page on a number of occasions that we would follow the National Rail form of disambiguation for station names. We now have an administrator (Amakuru) running roughshod over this policy even in cases where the station name was reached following a RM discussion. I have reverted what I can but certain moves can only be done by an administrator. Is there someone out there who is willing to take a stand or are we now to consider that the National Rail approach is deprecated? Lamberhurst (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Lamberhurst, I believe this would be per the RfC last year which determined that the disambiguation style should be changed. Jc86035 (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Jc86035 that doesn't answer the question as the policy is now in WP:UKSTATION which indicates "use natural disambiguation if available". Lamberhurst (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Lamberhurst: The guideline specifically deprecates the use of the parenthetical before "railway station"; I'm not 100% sure about this but I did note in the RfC (as did Amakuru) that the NR website and station signage often don't display the parentheticals so they're not strictly part of the actual station names. Jc86035 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

"Chafford Hundred Lakeside railway station"

Has anyone actually got any sources that Chafford Hundred Lakeside railway station is actually called that by anyone other National Rail Enquiries (who presumably include the name so it comes up when people search for "Lakeside" in the same way they call Greenhithe railway station "Greenhithe for Bluewater")? The claim that the name has been changed is unsourced, and C2C (who operate the place) still call it "Chafford Hundred"; C2C's current Track Access Contract still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; the signage at the station still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; the ORR still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; indicator boards and on-train announcements still call it "Chafford Hundred"; Intu (owners of Lakeside) themselves—who would presumably have the most to gain by boasting of having a station named after them—still call it "Chafford Hundred"; TfL's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; National Rail's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; C2C's map still calls it "Chafford Hundred"; even bloody TheTrainLine still calls it "Chafford Hundred". I can't find a single press release or article about any name change—and neither C2C, Intu nor Thurrock Council are exactly shy about anything that will get their name in the paper. ‑ Iridescent 21:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Last time I went there, it was still called Chafford Hundred and came up as such on the announcements. I believe the route maps at Fenchurch Street, West Ham and Southend Central all say the same. I have moved the article and slapped a {{fact}} tag on the unsourced claim for "Lakeside" in the article body. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
A source is easy to find; in the infobox, click the "Facilities" link. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't have been that easy as there's still a fact tag in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I see a few results putting the search term in quotes ("Chafford Hundred Lakeside"), but probably not enough to overstep WP:PRIMARYNAME. >SerialNumber54129...speculates 14:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA