Talk:List of fictional rapid transit stations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Low This article has been rated as low-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Stations.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within WikiProject Rapid Transit.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Low Importance: low within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the London Transport WikiProject.

[edit] Article scope

Is this about London Underground stations or fictional metro stations in general? Simply south 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean general. But the name implies otherwise. Pacific Coast Highway {Kiss me! • I'm irish!} 21:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the edit history to see if the page had been renamed – it hadn't. When created, the article contained only London Underground stations, and the lede paragraph was written as now. I would prefer a separate article for London Underground stations, but removing them would leave 'Fictional underground stations' as a stub.
Part of the problem is terminology. Those of us who have grown up with The Underground will use the term generically for any underground rail system: Paris has an 'underground' called The Metro, New York has an 'underground' called The Subway, etc. I suspect this was the case with the article creator.
EdJogg 00:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The way the article's written suggests it was meant for the Underground, as 95% of the entries are London-based and the topic sentence has a wiki link to the London Underground instead of rapid transit. I don't care either way, but we should probably decide explicitly so the article can be cleaned up to better suit its scope. If we lean towards general, I'd like to see
  • the article renamed...Fictional rapid transit stations is about as clear as it gets.
  • red links removed...face it, most of these wiki page wannabes will never exist. Drop wikilinking every fictional station, and if an appropriate article is added, link it.
  • non-UK stations added. Not that I can think of any. :)
Spamguy (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Done. EdJogg (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done, sir. Spamguy (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)