Wikipedia talk:Notability (Railway lines and stations)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Notability (Railway lines and stations) page.
Can we get a guideline added on trains? Like Flying Scotsman (train), or Royal Scot (train), or Speed Merchant (train), or Fleche d'Or? Someone is arguing that a train up for AfD right now should be kept, even though its sources are two self-published websites and one timetable. I'm Tony Ahn (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't the GNG sufficient? Adding subject-specific guidelines tends to create drama that outweighs the benefits - especially if the subject-specific notability threshold is set lower, because it encourages rote creation of really low-quality pages. (They may well get a neat structure of templates and categories &c but they're bereft of sourced prose) bobrayner (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking of which... If Wikipedia:Notability (Railway lines and stations) "is not intended to be used as minimum requirements" then why do we have this page at all? The GNG already sets a baseline for notability. bobrayner (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Adding about new unannounced trains
With reference to the edits at Thoothukudi railway station and Aruppukkottai railway station, i was removing some contents like "Demand for new trains, Extension of trains, etc.," on the basis of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:CRYSTAL. These kind of information is present in quite a lot of articles related to transport of India articles particulary Indian Railways the most, since almost every city/town has its own demand of introduction of new trains/buses or construction of new lines, these are either speculative and unconfirmed. Those demands may or may not happen or even keep lingering for a indefinite period of time. Hence a concrete decision can be made on adding/removal of such informations in future, else such actions may result in edit warring in future. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 03:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- "Notability" decides whether we can have a separate article on something. The threshold for mentioning it in a different article (ie. mentioning demand for new trains in an article about the town) is a bit lower, and it's not exactly a notability problem. I think the best approach is to ask for reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- But if the issue features in a town or city related article with resources it may not be a problem, what if its presence in station articles? It seems like crystal.
- But i have raised another issue there. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 06:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- This page doesn't have many watchers - there are less than 30 (an admin can see just how few there are) so you won't get many participants. A page like WT:RAIL has a much larger audience, and is probably a better venue for the topic as well. Such threads have been raised there in the past. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Naming convention for railway stations in India
As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower caps. What about junction stations in India? Earlier there was a similar issue raised at India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- You already posted this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Naming convention for railway stations in India; per WP:MULTI, please can we discuss in one place? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. Just read WP:MULTI. I should have given a link, instead of posting at multiple places. I'd avoid posting in multiple places in future. Actually i did so to draw more editors to discuss the issue. Anyway we can discuss and come to consensus in one place. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 20:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Currently, this essay basically says to use WP:GNG for stations. However, it was made pretty clear to me here that despite GNG, that "the only time verifiably real rail transport stations end as anything other than "keep" is when articles about a group of stations are merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they're on. For heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) the latter almost always happens only if the stations are simply proposed/planned, or existed only briefly many years ago." Therefore, should we replace:
It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about a station or railway line to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article. If some source material is available, but is insufficient for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the subject under the article for its parent locality or parent company. If no source material, or only directory-type information (location, function, name, address) can be provided, the subject may not merit mention at all.
Consensus on Wikipedia is that if enough attributable information is available about a station to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article. For proposed or planned stations, historic railways stations that only existed briefly, or stations on metro, light rail, tram, people mover, or heritage railway lines, if insufficient source material is available for a comprehensive article, it is better to mention the station in an article about the line or system that the station is on.
List of trains with/without timings in Indian station pages
WP:NOTTIMETABLE states that
|“||Distinguish between stating, for example, that a station is served by a certain number of trains per hour, and specifying the times of those trains. The former is information about the significance of the station; the latter is timetable information.||”|
which by far assumably discourages the use of timings of train services in railway station pages rather than it allows number of train serving the station. As far as the Indian scenario is considered, the network of Indian railways is very vast that it was forced to change its numbering system from 4-digits to 5-digits as it runs about 10000+ trains everyday which is quite voluminous. Also there are about 7000+ railway stations in India. Considering the issue in this regard, when i used to remove timings or list of train services on station pages, certain editors do the challenge the edit as wrongful attempt. But apart from the rule some editors understand even logically to remove such information but some despite repeated explanations that, if they reinstate such things will lead to other registered or unregistered (IP) user to add more on that. For which, editors cite that mentioning number of trains is not at all an issue per WP:NTT and continue to add such things despite requests and suggestions by giving it high priority than adding other key info of the station. The incidence of such issue is more in junction station pages as it handles more trains. Hence an appropriate changes shall be made effectively at earliest in the best interest. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 22:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion of India railway stations
There is discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#RfC_India_railway_stations, which may return here. Rhadow (talk) 13:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Available information is not useful information
National railway station databases often include information that is not of interest or useful to a WP reader. I suggest that distance to nearest airport and elevation above mean sea level are two irrelevant bits. Just because they are available doesn't mean that they should be included. I suggest that guidance be added to the essay. Rhadow (talk) 14:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
The section about Stations states: It may be considered that if enough attributable information is available about a station on a main system to verify that it exists, it generally is appropriate for the subject to have its own article.
Why is it read as: a station is always notable? De normal appropriate rule here is WP:GNG, not a self-invented something. 18:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)