Talk:Jordanhill (railway station)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
To-do list for Jordanhill (railway station): edit  · history  · watch  · refresh
  • Get a featured picture quality image of Jordanhill railway station
  • Go to your local university and search the 1887 archives of the Herald for mentions
This article has been certified as the Millionth English Wikipedia article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains.
See also: WikiProject to do list and the Trains Portal
Good article GA Quality: GA-Class. (assessment comments)
Low Importance: low-importance.
DYK Portal "Did you know" on April 2, 2006.
Sel Portal "Selected article" week 22, 2006.
This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Peer review Jordanhill (railway station) has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Good articles Jordanhill (railway station) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Did You Know An entry from Jordanhill (railway station) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 3 March 2006.
Wikipedia
This article is within the scope of the Transport in Scotland WikiProject.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This page has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.



Contents

[edit] WiFi

Is there free WiFi at the station? I searched for "WiFi" but couldn't find anything. --James S. 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • This is rampant speculation as I've never been there, but I wouldn't really expect a small unmanned station to have free WiFi? (And even in the large ones, you have to pay, in my experience.) -- Mithent 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Rampant speculation on my part as well, I'd be amazed if such a small station had wi-fi. However, the station could be located near someplace that is blasting out free wi-fi (a school or a park or...) If it is in range of wi-fi, it would be cool to host a wiki-meetup there. Attendees could sit and edit Wikipedia from "inside" our one-millionth article. (OK, from inside the topic illustrated by our one-millionth article) Johntex\talk 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No WiFi at Jordanhill, I'm afraid: [1] Nach0king 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that info about there being no wifi from the national rail service. However, it is still possible there is some spillover from a nearby internet cafe or office or house or something. Wifi signals generally don't understand property boundaries very well. Johntex\talk 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I should be the judge of that ; ) Pacific Coast Highway • blah 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
And if there were such "spillover", using the network without permission would be illegal. --Happynoodleboy 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On which line?

The article currently says "The station is five stops and eleven minutes journey time from Glasgow Central." My question is, on which line? The station is on "the Argyle Line and the North Clyde Line" - can you take either line to Glasgow Central and get there in the same time and same number of stops? Johntex\talk 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The station isn't actually "served" by the North Clyde Line; it's on the line but NCL trains don't stop there. I'll clarify that sentence. Nach0king 13:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This link?

Has anyone seen this link? That and the main page have a lot of detailed information, and a good non-copyrighted pic that could be stolen. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, some wonderful photos of the station here. The site is a goldmine! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed your wikibreak, Calgacus. Yes, that's a great site (sorry to say, someone else had discovered it as the site is referred to in the references section). Anyway, I've added a link to one of their photos to the external links section. Also: which pic do you reckon is non-copyrighted? --A bit iffy 11:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's [2] (from 1913). TZMT (de:T) 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ugly footnotes

This article is a good example of why footnotes are worse than in-line parentheticals in a hypertext-enabled presentation. Skipping over parentheticals is much easier than scrolling back-and-forth, up and down several screenlengths. --James S. 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to scroll up and down, the footnotes have anchor links from the text down to the footnote and then back up to the text again. If you want to glance at a footnote one click will take you there and then a second click takes you back where you came from. Bryan 08:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So? That's still two more clicks than it takes to scan past a parenthetical, or about fifty times the calories, I'm estimating. Footnotes are terribly inefficient. --James S. 08:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So if you mean "two clicks" don't say "scrolling back-and-forth, up and down several screenlengths" instead - those words describe two very dissimilar activities. Arguing against footnotes by complaining they make you scroll up and down over several screen lengths to read them is disingenuous when you're not actually having to scroll up and down to read them. Bryan 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For those who want to skip any in-line parentheticals, they have to move their eyes down to find the end of the parenthesis. It's also ugly in the text as a whole. I estimate the ugliness factor contributing to a loss of 100 calories and the finding-the-end-of-parenthesis-factor to be a loss of another 100 or so calories, so it is therefore very inefficient. 50 DKP minus! FranksValli 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] commemorative (blue) plaque

One day there shall be a plaque at the station commemorating it being the subject of the millionth article.... – Kaihsu 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Jordanhill commemoration. Daniel (‽) 18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ticket Machine

First Scotrail has now installed more Scheidt & Bachmann Ticket XPress machines at Scottish stations, following the success of the initial batch of 10 (including the Jordanhill one). When I next get the chance to check my definitive list of machine locations, I will update the two references on here with the correct number. (Not to mention getting round to writing the Scheidt & Bachmann Ticket XPress article, as part of my "British railway ticket machines (computerised)" project!) --Hassocks5489 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

List of S&B machines checked; there are 37 at 26 different First Scotrail stations. Will update article accordingly now.
--Hassocks5489 17:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Electrification (Blue Train) Logo on Crow Road Bridge

Up until the early 1980's, the station name sign on the Crow Road bridge had the logo that was developed when the Blue Trains - Class 303 - were introduced. A picture of this would add to the article.

Pencefn 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Millionth Article

Less than an hour ago (11:03, 25 November 2006) I added the following short section to the article:

English Wikipedia Milestone
This Jordanhill railway station article is unique in having been declared (in March 2006) English Wikipedia's 1,000,000th qualified article, "a remarkable showpiece of parallel collaboration."

Three minutes later [(11:06, 25 November 2006) User:Geni (Talk | contribs), cf. history] removed it with the edit summary "rv that isn't significant."

There is a banner near the top of this talk page proclaiming the very significance which the rv'er denied.

It is not mentioned on the article page. I think it should be. Because I do not wish to get into one of those notorious petty rv-scuffles with anyone, any time, anywhere, I dispute here that near-instantaneous removal and seek support for its inclusion, rather than restoring the section immediately. Athænara ✉ 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's significant within the Wikipedia community, which is why it's prominently noted on the talk page, which is part of the community rather than directly part of the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to inclusion of such facts in the main article, this should be based on the significance of the facts to the world in general, not just to Wikipedians. Due to the recent prominence and popularity of Wikipedia, facts about it sometimes do meet such a standard of notability, meaning that a total ban on self-references wouldn't make sense; however, that doesn't mean that all trivia of interest to Wikipedians is automatically notable in articles not directly related to it. *Dan T.* 12:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, it has nothing to do with the station itself. If a notable plaque of the event manages to be placed at the station the plaque could be mentioned, but otherwise any mention of it being the million article should be at Jordanhill railway station (wikipedia article) Which would probably be deleted within minutes of creation anyway. EnsRedShirt 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal from the article text as that information is data about the article and not data about the station. Until we have meta tabs for article metadata, the talk page is the place for information about the article. Slambo (Speak) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not have protested, even as mildly as I did, had Geni's removal not been so brusque, crude, and deliberately provocative:

(1) unfactual edit summary ("that isn't significant")
(2) time frame (3 minutes)

Thank you, Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo, for addressing my concern so reasonably. –Æ. ✉ 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding inflammatory (which is not my goal), I see perfect justification for both of your points. The edit summary was factual, as it was removed due to insignifigance. Perhaps a better word would have been "relevant", as in "rv not relevant", but I think we can agree that irrelevant things are insignifigant to their topics. Secondly, time frames should not be seen as insults. Wikipedia moves very quickly. I personally do RC Patrol quite frequently, and those changes are made within seconds of the initial change. Three minutes would seem to indicate a fair deal of thought, or else someone watching over the article. Erich Blume 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Reply to Blume: As Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo clarified, significance is not in dispute. Three minutes indicate not thoughtfulness but reflexive retaliation. Weasel words and spin do not ameliorate insult. –Æ. ✉ 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors would be quite justified reverting the edit within seconds. There have been long discussions archived above which have already formed the consensus that the Wikipedia article should not be mentioned in the article. It is therefore a straightforward act of policy. Three minutes is enough to thoughtfully verify that there hasn't been any change to the situation. You can be excused for being unaware of this consensus (although I would have wondered why this hadn't been introduced to the article after eight months) but considering your knowledge of Wikipedia policy it would have been nice of you to have assumed good faith. BigBlueFish 09:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As it would also have been had Geni courteously assumed the same and been factual in the edit summary (e.g., "rv, topic belongs on talk page"). I considered the matter closed after thanking Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo for their quite reasonable replies the same day, but some keep worrying at it anyway. –Æ. 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arnt this crazy?

  • Do you guys think anyone in a right mind would type in "Jordanhill railway station" in search box of encyclopedia when they going to use Jordanhill station for first time or for any other reason? Very good article, but idea is sick. TestPilot 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You read it and even took the time to comment on it, so perhaps you're crazy along with the rest of us. :) Bryan 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • More likely he would type in Jordanhill, and in it find a link to Jordanhill railway station. Anthony Appleyard 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Appearance on imagine

The appearance of Jordanhill station on Imagine seems notable enough to be included. The bloke who created the 1,000,000 article even got an interview! 172.142.252.56 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Per earlier discussions we've had about coverae related to the 1,000,000th article, most coverage (including this) is about Wikipedia predominantly, and the article about Jordanhill station secondarily; little of it has anything actually to do with the station itself. JDoorjam Talk 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Although, if this coverage has caused the station itself to be featured on TV, it might have enough notable relation to it to be featured. *Dan T.* 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have to agree with the above point - if because of wikipedia someone is Interviewed on national tv about his views on Jordanhill railway station and the words jordanhill railway station therefore appears in The Times' TV guide then it seems notable enough for inclusion. If anyone saw the interview it was as much about the station as wikipedia! Francium12 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

Discussion closed

This article is being refered to Wikipedia:Requested moves, for changing to Jordanhill Railway Station. BlackBear 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bother. "railway station" is not a proper noun. Chris cheese whine 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, but the whole railway station together is a proper noun. What's the huge deal anyways? BlackBear 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave some moments ago. Either it is a proper noun, or it isn't. In the case of "railway station", it isn't. Chris cheese whine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize the words railway station alone aren't proper nouns, but Jordanhill Railway Station is; it's the name of the whole place. BlackBear 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I just checked a few of the external links and the station was referred to as either "Jordanhill Station" or just "Jordanhill" (which would be disambiguated as Jordanhill (railway station), most likely). What sources call it "Jordanhill Railway Station"? Bryan Derksen 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The word "Station" there is a disambiguation tag. It is a railway station (common noun) called "Jordanhill". We add the words "railway station" to the title for context. Chris cheese whine 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - we've got a naming convention somewhere that says that in the case of UK stations, the article title is generally the station's name + "railway station" (lower case). Chris cheese whine 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the global naming conventions. Changing the railway station naming convention to use parentheses as well would be better, IMO, since the MediaWiki software actually understands that the stuff in the parentheses is a disambiguation tag and allows for certain tricks to be done with it. You can use [[Jordanhill (railway station)|]] as shorthand to generate the link Jordanhill, for example. But either way, my point is that "railway station" isn't a part of Jordanhill's name according to the sources I looked at. Bryan Derksen 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, thanks for raising the point: I have long felt a bit uncomfortable with "railway station", without parentheses, as it feels inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The naming convention Chris refers to above must be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), and in its Talk page User:JeremyA did suggest the same as you (Bryan) have just done. --A bit iffy 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think with parentheses looks the best, as without the parentheses currently looks a bit odd. BlackBear 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I've raised the issue over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Parentheses if anyone wants to join in. Bryan Derksen 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(disindent) I'm surprised that Jordanhill (railway station) didn't already exist; I've redirected it here. So far as I can tell (without a trip to England), the station itself is just referred to as Jordanhill, so the parenthesized version probably should have been the title originally. Random titlecasing (capitalizing all the words) would seem to be wrong, though; I don't see any indication that "Railway Station" is part of a proper official title or name. Gavia immer (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

a trip to England won't do you much good, it is in Scotland. I think Jordanhill (railway station) is the best way to go. As you can see from the station signage it is called "Jordanhill", railway station is not part of its name. --cloudo 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgive my American imprecision. Gavia immer (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion closed

[edit] Other railway stations

Should the other railway stations in Glasgow also be moved to be consistent? For example, Drumchapel railway station → Drumchapel (railway station). Tim w. 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We now have an inconsistency that I think should be resolved, as the convention that had been agreed on was to name all UK railway stations using "xxxx railway station". The discussion is on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Parentheses. --A bit iffy 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/r/Talk%7EJordanhill_%28railway_station%29_56cc.html"