User:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline. Please update the page as needed, or discuss it on the talk page.

There is currently no consensus on what constitutes a notable railway station. Because Wikipedia is not a democracy, this proposed policy aims to set out reasonable guidelines for dealing with railway stations, so that all railway station articles are treated equally if/when they are nominated for deletion, and so that trivial station articles are not created.

It is also the intent to provide guidelines about the kind of content appropriate to such articles when they are written.

Contents 1 The situation 2 The infobox versus a nice map 3 Some related points 4 Reasons for not including timetable trivia on Wikipedia 5 Articles on railway lines rather than railway stops 6 Current criteria for including a train stop 7 Notability guidelines 8 Proposed criteria for the notability of train stops and stations 9 Notability tests

[edit] The situation

Articles about station stops are proliferating. There are in the vicinity of 5000 articles which refer to either train station or railway station.

So -- why would you want to read most of these articles?

For the trivia content? Well, Latrobe, Pennsylvania does seem to be an interesting place-- Rolling Rock, Arnold Palmer, and all that. And Latrobe (Amtrak station)? Well, there's a station there, all right, and you can get there by taking a Pennsylvanian, and can catch a bus there — least you can until the schedule changes.

Did you know that you can get to Hoboken, New Jersey from Dunellen (NJT station)? At least you can until they stop service there.

Did you know that in 2004 it cost $15 to park at the Route 128 (MBTA station)? I wonder how much it costs now.

Even as trivia, this information becomes dated rapidly; schedules and stops and services change constantly. Trains can stop just about anywhere, after all, at the whim of the operator.

Some station buildings are notable, such as Union Station (Washington, D.C.). Some subway stops are worth a comment (the "Forest Glen" stop on the Washington Metro is one of the deepest in the world). But how worthy of comment is it that passenger trains stop at Oyama Station? Wouldn't it be enough in the article on Oyama to mention that there's a train station? Very few of these articles are about the station building, when it comes to that, though many of them have images that show "just another brick box where they sell tickets".

[edit] The infobox versus a nice map

One also sees the "successor/predecessor" infobox used all over the place on these articles. But which is better: a hundred articles on Moscow Metro stops, or a nice system map? Of course, maybe Moscow is a bad example; the artistic level of the stations is pretty high. But all too often the "station" is nothing more than platforms. Often enough it is not there at all, as when articles describe closed stations.

Usually a description of the lines in a system suffices, and for the lines, a list of stations. Operating information is best left to the railroad or the transit authority. Wikipedia is not a timetable, and timetable information is best obtained elsewhere.

[edit] Some related points

• Rail lines are best served with a map and a table of stations/points.
• "Predecessor/successor" infoboxes are the wrong model. A map (schematic or not) conveys these relationships better.
• An infobox listing all the stations on a line is painfully redundant.
• Articles about station buildings ought to convey some architectural information.
• Services provided at a station are usually not encyclopedic unless there is something unusual or otherwise notable about them.

[edit] Reasons for not including timetable trivia on Wikipedia

1. Encouraging and leading by example: If we create serious and brilliant articles then more editors will be encouraged to create more and more such articles. If we create trivia then more and more editors will be encouraged to create more and more trivia.
2. Credibility of Wikipedia: Wiki occasionally comes under criticism from academics and the media for inaccurate articles, vandalism of the articles, and the trivial and poor quality of much of the content.
3. Reliability of Information: Timetable information such as station stops must of necessity proceed from the railroad or other operating authority. Wikipedia's information can never be better on this than the actual timetables, and will be worse every time the timetables change. These articles require constant assessment and maintenance, particularly so when (because of the interlinkages) every change effects three or for articles instead of one.
4. Wikipedia is not an alternative to the World Wide Web: Editors who argue that Wiki is capable of containing information on everything in the world, appear to mistake Wiki for the World Wide Web.
5. Wiki is an encyclopedia; as such the articles are more aimed at helping people understand topics rather than merely listing them. Certain individual items on a list, like certain train stations, are worthy of an encyclopedia entry because the item is notable, and an article is needed to help people understand why that train station is notable. If a train station is not notable, it is simply an item on a list. It may be that the list of stations in itself is not even notable. But certainly, in this case, we are simply talking about individual non-notable train stops. That the train stops have some information about them is indisputable. But so have pubs, shops and people. That an item has individuality is not in dispute - it's the notability that is.

[edit] Articles on railway lines rather than railway stops

It is proposed that information on non-notable stations should be used in articles on the town or village and/or included in a general article on the railway line. The information should not be destroyed or lost - but handled in a more logical and user-friendly manner.

[edit] Current criteria for including a train stop

Notability and inclusion guidelines

Notability guidelines Companies 'Cool' ideas Fiction Internet content Music Numbers People Pornographic actors Other Places of local interest Gender/race/sexuality categories Neologisms Active proposals Academics (talk) Books (talk) Candidates and Elections (talk) Churches etc (talk) Computer and Video Games (talk) Fandom (talk) Organizations (talk) Royalty (talk) Science (talk) Software (talk) Songs (talk) Schools (talk) Trivia (talk) More... subject-specific See also: Precedents, Notability verification

• That the train stop exists. Example: Category:Railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship

Or:

• That the train stop existed at some point. Example: Category:Non operational railway stations in Pomeranian Voivodeship

Under these criteria all train stops that ever existed would be included; indeed, every named place on the railroad could be entitled to its own article. There are editors in favour of this all inclusive approach. However, the majority of editors on Wikipedia favour using some form of notability criteria. See: Wikipedia:Notability.

[edit] Notability guidelines

Editors on Wikipedia are working on creating usable criteria for the notability of articles. Current and proposed notability criteria for a variety of topics can be seen on the infobox to the right.

[edit] Proposed criteria for the notability of train stops and stations

A station or stop is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:

1. Is mentioned in [a number] of published works (other than timetables or similar ephemera).
2. Is the main subject of at least one published work.
3. A significant event occured at the stop. However, if the event has its own article and is not of a railroading nature, it is probably preferable to simply mention the station in that article or to redirect to it.
4. Has a unique or rare feature.
5. Is historically significant (e.g., the first passenger station in Poland).
6. The station building has some architectural importance.
7. One or more of the structures at the station is a listed building.
8. The station building is a recognisable landmark of its city or town. In this case the article should supply more information about the station besides the mere fact of its existence and the rail lines it serves. It may suffice in many cases to mention the station in the city/town article.

[edit] Notability tests

See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents

The most popular test among editors for the notability of a topic is the "Google Test". This test is not seen as reliable by all editors. However, a station or stop that returns less than 100 hits is unlikely to be notable.

Some editors feel that subway stations are acceptable, but that bus stops are not.

However, no single group of stops can be deemed either notable or non-notable - criteria have to be applied to each stop article. As such, a subway stop may be non-notable if it fails to meet criteria, while a bus stop may be notable if it does meet appropriate criteria - see: Category:Bus stations.