User talk:Mangoe/Wikipedia is not a timetable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Agree but...

Mangoe and SilkTork, you are to be commended. This essay sums up exactly what I've been thinking about the wild proliferation of tram stop and minor station articles quite nicely. One thing to add to the criteria for inclusion should be:

For US structures, any structure on the National Register of Historic Places (such as the California Southern Railroad's station and office building in National City, California) would qualify. Similar historic significance lists exist for other countries as well, which could be an easy indicator of notability (such as the signal box at Frankfurt (Main) Hauptbahnhof).

Otherwise, I fully agree with the content of the essay so far. Slambo (Speak) 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of listed building. I've added that to the list. Mangoe 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, now it enumerates a comprehensive set of specific tests for my own "culturally or historically significant" check when I create articles. Oh, and one other note, we should let the other rail-related WikiProjects (NYC Subway, streetcars, trains in Japan, UK railways, Washington Metro, Thomas (fictional stations too) and especially stations) know about this discussion too. Slambo (Speak) 19:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added references to all of the above except for Thomas-- they seem to have pretty well decided not to do station articles. Mangoe 20:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jordanhill railway station

Under this proposed notability criteria, it sounds like Jordanhill railway station would be deleted? I would hope not. Rather, as a good article, railway/subway station articles should strive for (and exceed) what's been done the Jordanhill railway station article. A Wikipedia article can give the history of the station, when was it built (costs?), renovations, etc., what railway/subway lines serve the station, notable places in the area/neighborhood, etc. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would bring that up. Essentially the station is notable because of the Wikipedia article about it. However, an argument could be made that it is also notable because of criteria number 3, specifically the accident that occurred there in 1980. Slambo (Speak) 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
It's a nice article - I enjoyed reading it. But what happens - any well written article on any subject that manages to accumulate enough trivia should stay? I feel the main points of the article should be merged into the Jordanhill article. Content such as this: "Jordanhill being an area of artisans and miners until the close of the 19th century.[6] The railway station arrived just as much of the local industry was declining, giving residents, who previously had to walk to Hillhead or Partick to find transport into Glasgow, proper access to the city centre.[7]" fits nicely into a general article on Jordanhill. SilkTork 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oyama Station

I don't understand a word of Japanese, but Japanese Wikipedia has a fair amount to say about Oyama Station. (ja:小山駅) At some point, maybe someone will translate more from jawiki to enwiki and expand the stub. --Aude (talk contribs) 20:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Piping the text through Babelfish (which does leave a bit to be desired), I don't see much more than "this train stops here" and "the catenary is of this type" statements. Slambo (Speak) 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
My Japanese isn't the greatest, and it could take me over an hour to translate it (read it) word for word. But a cursory examination indicates that the majority of the content is, as you say, describing where one can get on and off, which lines it serves, which exits there are - nothing of any real significance in an academic sense. I'd say useful only to those researching a tourist trip or something like that. Not that I'm criticizing this article in particular, or its author, but I agree with you, Mangoe, that the majority of train station articles are meaningless. LordAmeth 22:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The Route 128 station article is quite long too, but there's nothing substantial in it. It would barely qualify under the "subway stop" notability policy, but even then I think it should be cut back considerably. Mangoe 20:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Route 128 station was "completely rebuilt and opened in 2000". Surely, there is much more to say about this project. How much did it cost? any controversy surrounding the project (as can occur with big, expensive projects)? When was the station originally built? When did it first get MBTA service? When did Amtrak service begin there? Have there been any accidents or incidents at the station? On the Washington Metro, I think at most of the stations there has been some derailment - like mentioned in Jordanhill railway station, or fatal accident (someone fallen on the tracks, a maintenance worker, suicide?) at some point. Subway/rail stations are also often catalyst for transit-oriented development and other projects. [1] I think there is enough verifiable information available to expand Route 128 (MBTA station), and bring it up to or exceed the quality of the Jordanhill article. --Aude (talk contribs) 21:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
You speak of potential notability; I think we should prefer actual notability. A lot of the things you list as potential notabilities to me are better listed as attributes of the line as a whole, or are best presented in a list/table on an article on the line rather than on each station, especially opening/closing dates. Construction controversies are also far more likely to hew to the line as a whole. Likewise (sad to say) accidents are not all notable, else we should list every traffic accident in the world. Mangoe 23:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Potential notabilities" apply to all stub articles. I just did some quick search about Route 128 (MBTA station) and found notable controversy about new construction and renovation projects at the station. These are specific to the station and not the line. And, there are sufficient verifiable, reliable sources such as newspapers that discuss the station, so it's not destined to remain a stub. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so. Everything is potentially worth an encyclopedia article someday, but that doesn't in the least imply that such an article should be started now. Mangoe 16:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping stations

I know it says that only notable stations should be added basically, but many of the "minor" stations are just at the beginning of their cycle and may eventually become very notable. This is sort of like the Balleymoney railway station incident. What i am basically saying is that maybe minor stations should be kept for chance of expansion and notability. btw see link. Simply south 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the kind of situation that we're seeing now that led WikiProject Music to develop the accepted Wikipedia:Notability (music) guideline; a great many of the station articles we've got now have the same notability as a garage band down the street that played in the local school talent show. Ballymoney's notability hasn't been shown since the article was created in March. Slambo (Speak) 20:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that the minor stations also help to link the major stations. Simply south 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Balleymoney case is a good enough justification. After all I personally might become notable too.
The impression I get is that a lot of the information about these stations is entered because it's sort of easy to take a timetable and make a bunch of articles about it. The thing is that as a source of information the timetable is (a) probably accessible on the internet already, and (b) a better source of information. I don't see the point of carrying it all over here; we're actually degrading the information by putting it here. Mangoe 20:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, a lot of information in articles are not taken from timetables. The services section is just a minor part. You know where i'm going. Simply south 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

No, actually I don't. Mangoe 23:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You say, "there is a consensus that subway stations are notable", "The primary issue seems to be with passenger train stops, which seem to fall into a grey area between subway stations (generally notable) and bus stops (not notable)".

The definiton of "subway station" is grey area too, many New York City Subway stations and DC Metro stations are not even "underground". Passenger train stations say on the Yamanote Line of Tokyo serve 3.5 million passengers per day compared to 4.8 million passengers per day serving 468 stations of the New York City Subway. Yamanote is a regular railway with "regular" passenger stations, why is it ok for subways stations to have pages, but not ok for passenger rail stations of a non subway network to be listed? My opinion is have all railway-tram-subway-elevated-masstransit whatever done with pages if possible here on wikipedia. One argument is that someone can find better more reliable information and its not a replacement for the worldwideweb (that could be said for virtualy all articles on wikipeida), well its easy if the information is provided in English, but a lot of the time when it comes to foreign trains and sources it is certainly much much harder, such as wikitrains project in Japan, when English information is much much harder if not impossible at times to come by unless one knew how to read Japanese. I think its important that have that type of information here on Wikipedia. Limitedexpresstrain 23:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are 5,000 rail/metro stations on Wikipedia, then nearly 10% of them are on the New York City Subway, because every current NYCS station has a Wikipedia article, as well as several of the abandoned/defunct ones. A lot of those subway station articles, frankly, would be non-notable if they remained in their current form. But who's to say they will? Lots of worthwhile articles start out as stubs. I do agree that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a pure timetable. Marc Shepherd 00:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A quick check shows that the NYC subway station articles do not tend to reference either train station or railway station. London underground stations also do not seem to link to it either; neither do Moscow metro, nor the Paris metro. If these systems were added, they would account for about a fifth of the resulting total.
The issue here isn't stubbiness anyway. A lot of these articles are reasonably long, but a lot of the content seems to be borrowed from their parent line or is beneath trivial. And I have to say again that the possibility of becoming notable isn't a good reason for inclusion. Mangoe 02:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right; those articles usually link to metro station, subway station, or no kind of station at all. And I do not dispute that, as presently constituted, many of them present information that the average reader would consider trivial. And many of them largely duplicate information that could be (but isn't always) presented once for the line as a whole. Marc Shepherd 03:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the major points of your argument was that trains can stop anywhere at any time. In the case of New York City Subways, it is impossible to stop to unload passengers at all but a few spots on the route. Although I agree that Wikipedia is not a timetable, I think that there is a strong difference between painstakingly creating articles for individual train stations and posting the schedules of those stations on Wikipedia. Obviously, schedules can change at any time, but a train station (or at least a subway station) has a far greater degree of permanance. I would be alarmed to see all of the NYCS articles deleted. Alphachimp talk 06:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think railway stations should have their own wiki to avoid cluttering Wikipedia (like Pokémon stuff); however, I should like to note that the Japanese railway stations buildings tend to be of the most notable buildings in their immediate area; due to the lack of street names, they're significant landmarks for meetings. However, the idea that they're used as meeting places may not be nearly enough significance for individual stations. -William McDuff 12:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something simple

How about a reason for keeping minor stations is that you want to find a location of a place and are also curious as to what line that station is on? Simply south 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Searching? You don't need an article on the Garrett Park station to find up that it is on the MARC Brunswick line. Mangoe 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
But you might need something to indicate say that Olfield Park station is in Bath. Actually, i'm wondering now. I was against this earler but in order to save minor stations if this goes ahead, couldn't they be merged into town articles. That would answer to location part and it could also show the frequency etc related to that area. (What does MARC mean? I'm not from the US). Simply south 11:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
If the focus is on ease of use for the reader, this seems like a backwards approach. For one thing, it clutters up the line article with details which are not important to the line, but to the station. (For examples, a bit of trivia at Nakanosakae_Station#Name_Origin or a list of previous station names at Mamurogawa_Station#History).
By the same token, towns and cities have many train stations, and again, you have to choose to clutter up an article with details about each station, split them out into independent articles. Neier 11:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Relying on searching through line articles to find info on a station also breaks down any time that there is more than one station with the same name. When giving each station an article, the infrastructure of wikipedia (disambiguation, etc) is well suited for finding the correct station. Say I'm searching for Fukushima Station. I know it's in northern Japan somewhere, but when I search for it, I may see it come up in these two line articles Ōu Main Line and Hanshin Main Line. For long lines which span a large area, it may not be easy to see which one is which just by looking at the line info – and, for two non-notable train stations in the same area with the same name (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_for_Japan-related_articles/misc4#Subway_Station_Names and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains in Japan/Style for two nightmarish discussions about article naming conventions, including stations with the same name in the same city that are miles apart!), it would be downright impossible without an article about the station itself. Neier 11:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, for two non-notable stations I could see leaving each mention on its on line page, and then use a disambig page to distinguish between the two, referring to the corresponding line articles. And for single station renames, a footnote probably would do as well. Systematic renamings ought to be dealt with under the appropriate level of the system (the line, or the whole service). Mangoe 14:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? Simply south 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I was meaning the backward approach as a last resort, i suppose. Anyway, i am in favour of keeping all station articles, including minor ones. Simply south 12:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed criteria for notability

It would be inappropriate for us railway enthusiasts to argue that we are different to other subject areas on Wiki and we should be allowed to keep non-notable articles. Painful though it is, we need to keep our own house in order, and decide among ourselves what we feel are the criteria for notability. It is noted and understood that some editors wish to have articles on every train stop, even when such stops are clearly non-notable. However, it is Wikipedia policy that articles should be notable. What we are doing here is looking at criteria for notability that the majority of us agree with. Wiki is expanding and developing all the time. And, for railway stations and stops, the period of development has arrived in which we need to draw up some policies. SilkTork 10:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike regular encyclopedias, Wikipedia is a wiki, meaning that wikilinks (to each other) are important. If an entire train line can be shown to be notable, we can systematically create its train station articles following an agreed upon format, and interlink them together. Those trains stations should then be considered notable as well. The "agreed upon format" may (obviously) vary according to the different country wikiprojects (such as "Wikiproject Trains in Japan").--Endroit 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
An article on the history of the Welsh people would be notable. But that doesn't mean that we can then go write an article on every single Welsh person. A Jaguar E-type car is notable, but the nuts and bolts that go to make up the car is not notable - nor are the individual E-types. Just because a railweay line is notable it doesn't follow that the railway stations, stops, signal boxes and sidings that make up the line are notable in themselves. SilkTork 23:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Totally bad analogies, SilkTork. Try linking Welsh people in one long line. That's impossible. Do the nuts and bolts have names? Seems like you are purposely picking non-notable stuff which can't possibly be connected in one line. A better analogy would be List of popes or Heisman Trophy.--Endroit 16:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subway Stations

I have to say that while the subway jargon level is a little high for me (for instance, "fare control area" is used but never wikied, and frankly I'd prefer "turnstyles" or some more precise description), as subway articles go I tend to prefer the NYC examples. I particularly like the use of the right-hand infobox summary.

But maybe NYC isn't the model for everyone. It's a very old system, very complex, very historic. Looking at the WMATA website, they have this very nice interactive map, and virtually everything that you could ever want to know about the stations, in terms of services, you can find out from that map. Whoever created the various Baltimore transit maps made no station articles at all, except for Penn Station, which is a historic building.

At this point I probably wouldn't propose deletion of any existing subway station article. I am suggesting, though, that it might be a good idea to reconsider how some of them are written, and that a lot of new ones ought never get written. Looking at the DC articles, they mostly contain information that can be gotten directly from the WMATA website, or are tourist guides to surrounding attractions. The Chicago 'L' station articles, as yet mostly unwritten, are tending in the same direction.

That's where the precedent arguments hit home with me. If the Chicago articles all get written-- and frankly, it doesn't seem to me that there's overwhelming reason to write them, but then, I'm not from Chcago-- it seems to me that they ought to follow the NYC model. I think the DC Metro station articles are mostly unnecessary-- and I am from the DC area. Mangoe 12:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Countering Systemic Bias

Trains and train stations are more notable in some cultures than in others. Eradicating all trains in the English Wikipedia seems to be a slippery slope towards WP:BIAS, as trains in England and Japan are important to a significant number of people (see WP:IMP#Importance criteria). An added complexity for Japan (but, not England) is that the source articles already exist for each station in the Japanese wikipedia. In many cases, the stub articles in English are quick transwiki copies of the Japanese article; in order to give someone the opportunity to improve the article (the barrier to entry of improving an article is much lower than creating a new article – especially when second or third languages are involved). I don't think that any argument to remove the minor train stations from the Japanese wikipedia would be well-received...

But, that is not to say that only Japanese trains are important. As I said above, England (and other countries) have a much larger reliance on their train systems than the US. I agree with the "not a timetable" premise; but, there is more to articles about stations than just a timetable. I would probably delete a timetable from any article on my watchlist, because of the arguments put forth on this page. But, using the timetables as a strawman for the eradication of most train station articles strikes me as a very bad idea. Neier 13:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here here. Simply south 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Neier, although I would point out that systemic bias can also arise in the other direction (someone from Japan or the UK might look at a railroad station and shrug, wondering what the big deal is, while in the United States, so (relatively) few railroad stations have survived that the temptation exists to declare them all notable. I any event, I see no problem with current standards for railroad stations, although I would like to have a guideline heavily discouraging bot creation of parking-spots-and-succession-box stubs, as happened with SEPTA stations recently (such articles are hardly easier to expand than a blank page.) I would like to re-emphasize that a not-a-timetable guideline should not be used as an excuse to slash and burn many good articles, especially those beyond stub status already. --CComMack 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, actually I don't think there's any systemic bias in this, because the principle that I think should apply is ever more relevant the more the train system is relied upon. It boils down to this: if I were looking at the rail system as a user, which source should I pick: an encyclopedia, or the train system itself? And I say, "the train system, because I would expect them to have the most accurate and up-to-date information." I fact, I would tend to think that in a place where every village and town has a train station, those stations would therefore be less notable as a rule, because it can be taken for granted that they are there.
Let me try it from a different angle: if there is little or nothing we can say about stations that the official website cannot say as well or better, then why should we copy it? I sense this in a lot of station articles, because they do often seem to strain to add information beyond what the timetable and accompanying maps already provide. My supposition is that most of these articles are not written for railway passengers, but for and by rail fans. And as such, they tend to evince the kind of stamp-coolecting ethos that is commonplace among fans (and I'm one too). But insofar as this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I just don't think that the way these articles are constructed, in many or perhaps most cases, contributes to understanding.
And I seem to have to keep reiterating this: This isn't necessarily a call for deleting most station articles. It's obvious that a lot of people feel threatened by that prospect. It's more that I feel we have fallen into a default style of writing about train service that is cluttered and unenlightening, and which is pushing people to include a lot of, well, not trivia exactly, but material which is of questionable worth.
What particularly surprises me about the discussion here is the allergy towards presenting a lot of this information in tables about rail lines. Particularly with respect to passenger rail, this seems to me to be a superior solution in most cases. It seems to me that a lot of the station articles strive to acheive non-stubbiness by repeating information about the line or the corresponding place; to me they rather too often seem padded. Mangoe 14:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"which source should I pick: an encyclopedia, or the train system itself?" Its great if a user can find information in english, not so true with many of the foreign train related projects. Limitedexpresstrain 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a step forward would be to articulate what good coverage of a rail system and its stations should be, instead of stating what it is not. I haven't seen anyone dispute your core premise — that Wikipedia is not a timetable. The issue, however, is clearly a lot more nuanced than that.
At the same time, while Wikipedia is not a timetable, it is not a paper encyclopedia either. It does not have the space limitations of a paper encyclopedia. It is therefore possible to offer "encyclopedic" articles on arcane subjects that a paper encyclopedia would never touch, so long as they are verifiable, and presented from a NPOV.
Everyone should read Jimbo Wales's famous "no" vote on the "Fame and importance" proposal, which was not approved. As noted at Wikipedia:Notability, "there is no official policy on notability." Many editors believe that verifiability, NPOV, and no original research are sufficient. Marc Shepherd 15:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
My problem is that the information that is being used to pad out these articles isn't arcana. It's mostly information about line structure and the surrounding area. The problem isn't fame and importance; it's that there's not much to say, and therefore people are organizing the information so as to present the appearance of there being more content.
There are already suggestions as to how material might be presented in the proposed policy. It would be nice if people would address them, and would update the article while they are at it. There are notability criteria for other subjects; they are guidelines (as this obviously would be), but nobody should pretend that notability is irrelevant. My impression of the discussion thus far is that the reaction against deletion is dominating the discussion to the point where nobody is willing to consider the possibility that subsuming information about stations into other articles might be a better presentation. I don't view this entirely as a deletionist versus inclusionist discussion, because I'm not arguing that stations shouldn't be mentioned at all. But it seems to me that the information could be presented a lot more succinctly and in a better context, in many and perhaps most cases, by presenting it in the context of an article on the line or the service rather than splitting each stop out. Mangoe 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
"Wikipedia vs. official train system website"... I now find when I'm travelling somewhere unfamiliar, Wikipedia is a good place, first stop on the internet to find background information about a place, to find out what the official train system is, and an external link is usually there if I want specific timetable details. That's one use for this articles to the reader. At another level, it would be interesting to read about the history of the station, when it was built, controversies, design/architecture of the station, and something about the area around the station. These are details that can be found by going through newspaper archive databases, as well as print sources. Of course, the vast majority of rail station articles are merely stubs at this point and don't have that level of detail yet. But, I think we should set some standard of quality to strive for, with emphasis away from basic trivial details such as the cost of parking. --Aude (talk contribs) 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The proposed policy already implies that if there is something to be said about the station building, then writing a separate article may be justified. But again, this can often be subsumed into an article about the place. For example, there's no separate article about the station at Point of Rocks, Maryland, because there's not much more to say than is already included in the article about the town.
Most articles on stations will remain stubs forever, because there's nothing more to say. But the pressure to expand the articles remain, and that's how they get padded. As an extreme example, everything that could possibly be said about "Garrett Park (station)" could be put in three sentences:
Garrett Park is a station stop on the MARC train "Brunswick Line" in Garrett Park, Maryland. It lies between the Kensington, Maryland and Rockville, Maryland stations. Service began in 19xx.
But put in the form of many of the station articles (complete with a picture of a train at the platforms) and it would look more impressive, especially after people noted when service was available, and what the parking was like, and other such miscellany. And we mustn't forget the infoboxes. So instead of three sentences (or better still, a single line in a table or list) we get this exercise in redundancy; after all, every item except the date service began would already appear in the article on the line (or in this case, the section on the line). Mangoe 16:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
There was a full-fledged rail station at Garrett Park from 1895-1960, which was served by the B&O Railroad. The railroad station has major historical significance to Garrett Park, Maryland, which is on on the National Register of Historic Places. I think many of the other MARC stations are also on the register. [2] [3] However, at this point in Wikipedia history, articles like Montgomery County, Maryland are still full of stubby sections, as are many of the town articles. Given time to work on them, these articles will move towards good and featured status. As such, Wikipedia has potential to be a good source for local history information. Railroad and subway stations are integral to the history of a place, with major impact on how it develops (e.g. streetcar suburbs, transit-oriented development, ...). I think such arguments can be made for most railroad/subway stations, as local landmarks that have enough verifiable, interesting things to say about to merit articles. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • While I understand Neier's commment that England has a reliance on the train system, that is not to say every station in England is notable. On the 18th of June this year I attended a special ceremony to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Medway Valley Line. We travelled on a special train which was later named "The Medway Valley Line". However, most of the stations on the line were not deemed notable enough for the train to stop. We simply travelled from Strood to Maidstone, where we were treated to a slap up meal and given a free ticket for the rest of the day. Fond as I am of the line, this stop: New Hythe railway station, is simply a halt in the middle of a large paper mill. It's only significance is that the train sometimes stops there. It doesn't matter which country we are talking about - if a stop is notable, lets have an article; if a stop is trivial let's not have an article. SilkTork 23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Marc Shepherd's comment on verifiability and no original research is relevant. If there is no reliable source out there (and the train company's own timetable is not a reliable source) then most of the trivial railway stops article are in fact not verifiable by a reliable authority (that the station exists is not counted as verifiable), and therefore count as original research. By that criteria over half the station stops on Wiki are eligible for deletion. SilkTork 23:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding reliance or that many people might use a train station: The same can be said for any road intersection or grocery store. We could, but do not and ought not, give all sorts of information about their construction cost and renovations, the disposition of signage or where we find the peanut butter, or how many thousands of people cross the intersection or buy groceries there every day. No. This is an encyclopedia, and there are already articles for the roads themselves, and for the supermarket company or chain in general, just as there are already articles for the rail lines or the whole subway system. —Centrx→talk • 03:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It seems I didn't do a good job at communicating my main concern, probably as a result of trying not to come across as too biased towards the Japanese stations. At any rate, I suspect that I have "created" more new station articles in the past couple of months than most anyone else. But, I do not see these as new articles. I consider them to be translated articles. As one goal of Wikipedia is to have source articles from one language translated to others -- whether the article starts in German and is translated to Esperanto, or from Japanese to English, etc. I also believe the facts about the stations as very easy to prove, since there are various Japanese books that list every station in the country (with pictures), etc.
  • So, my point in all of this is whether the notability card trumps the translation card. Are we forbidden from translating an article from Japanese to English because of a controversial guideline such as notability?
  • Extending my point further is that just as the Japanese community has (internally) decided which stations are worthy of articles in Japan, it should be the local community in each country (English-speaking, or otherwise) that makes the decision for their own stations. The English community as a whole seems hardly fit to determine what stations in England (a small subset of the English-speaking world) are notable, or the rules on which to base such a decision. If anything, the wiki projects devoted to the railways of various countries would be a better place to hash out those types of standards.
  • Finally (whew), above all that, I'm still puzzled about the main reason for wanting to delete these articles. Deleting timetables, I understand. And, I agree that notability is important in some cases -- in the case of vanity pages for people and corporations, it is obvious that Wikipedia has to adopt restraints to prevent it from turning into a hyper version of MySpace. But, train stations don't seek out publicity; there are a finite number of them; and their existence is easily verifiable in the first-person, and oft-times by any number of sources (both related to the rail company, and otherwise). Excuse the ranting... Neier 08:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I won't excuse the ranting, I'll applaud it! Good natured debate is the whole point of this exercise. Through exchange of views we get an idea of how to proceed. Anyway. That something exists is not a reason for an article by itself. The point of this essay is to look at the possibility of putting these trivial stations into an article on the train line. We are not saying that the "information" should be deleted, only that we are looking at how the information should be handled. I have just added a new section [4] which I hope clarifies this point. SilkTork 09:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedias of different languages are essentially independent; article standards and practices on one do not necessarily apply to the others. Also note that the problem is not so much including the information at all, but making separate articles for each one when they belong in one article, and also about including ever-changing and unencyclopedic information like rate fares. When merged with main articles, whether this minor stuff is notable is then dependent on what belongs in the whole article. Each article must be independently important enough for an encyclopedia, and then within each article there is a hierarchy of how much space less important things take up or whether they should be included at all. The United States article may not mention Dunkin' Donuts because it is not important enough for the United States article, but Dunkin' Donuts is important enough to have its own article, containing, say, individual employee information which is itself not important enough for its own article. Also, aside from the (ir)relevance of Japenese Wikipedia standards to the English Wikipedia, people being close to something does not indicate its notability. There are many things in individual towns that are important to town residents, but do not warrant their own articles, if even a mention in the town article, when no one else in the world cares about it. It is instead the distance from a thing that might indicate it is more generally important. —Centrx→talk • 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Re: the addition of info to line and/or city articles, I just wrote about that in another section.
  • I haven't seen many (any?) arguments to keeping rate fares and timetables; so I am not sure why that point is continuously brought up. If that is the main thesis for this page (and based on the name, maybe that is an accurate statement), then it is more suited for a Manual of Style entry, and not a notability criteria.
  • I agree, that Each article must be independently important enough for an encyclopedia. And, for translated articles, they obviously ARE important enough for an encyclopedia. Just because the source encyclopedia was not English should be no reason to discount the subjects' importance. That is why I linked to WP:BIAS in the section heading. I wish the similar argument could be made for English stations, so I would come across as less pushy of Japanese. Neier 11:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Why are they obviously important? Inclusion in the Japanese Wikipedia does not necessarily entail that it ought to be included in the English Wikipedia. The different language Wikipedias sometimes have different article standards. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Train stations are a part of train lines (which are sequential lists). And train lines must be treated the same as any other sequential lists in Wikipedia, such as Heisman Trophy or List of popes. If the list is notable, so are the individual articles in them, even if they are stubs. Don't create any double-standard just for trains! (i.e.: Don't single out train stations). If you do, I'll request RfM.--Endroit 16:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garrett Park, Maryland

Let's confront the notability of Garrett Park head on. Googling does produce references to the "Garrett Park Historic District" and to several small pages on town history. And I emphasize "small"; none of them is longer than the current Garrett Park, Maryland article. Image searches (once you get past all the elementary school refrigerator front artwork) produce lots of pictures of the azaleas in town (suburban DC on the Maryland side is an azalea paradise) and a number of pictures of the same building, which houses the town offices. The station might be slightly remarkable if it survived (though it's one of a number of essentially standardized stations designed by E. Francis Baldwin and could be summarized in the town article with a sentence and a picture.

Presumably the station would have been included in the historic district, had it survived. But in the end, there still would have been little to say about it; there's not that much one can say even about the stations in Laurel, Maryland and Point of Rocks, Maryland, and both of them are individually registered. Well, except that they are cool buildings to look at. Mangoe 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, last Saturday, an article about Garrett Park and the railroad was in the Washington Post. An important source on Garrett Park is the 105-page report on this historic district that accompanies the registry listing. [5] It includes information about the railroad station, as well as other historic buildings in the town. There is also a bibliography in the report, which leads to offline, print sources. More references to print sources can be found though searching databases [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and on websites [11]. So, please keep in mind that not all sources are not online and can be found using google. I think Wikipedia benefits alot from referencing print sources. Wikipedia is just not at the stages where that level of referencing for local history topics is done much. At some point, I'd like to see us get there. Stubs are just a beginning... --Aude (talk contribs) 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
PS, there are reports that accompany the listing of the Laurel and Point of Rocks Railroad Stations, each with bibliographic references for more information. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, I don't think in this case that "stubs" are just the beginning. Again, clearly there's room for expansion of the Garrett Park article. But there's not much room for much expansion if the article is going to do much more than repeat, exhaustively, the information in the filings. I don't have access to the one listing, but I've looked at similar filings for other properties (in fact in some cases to glean info for Wikipedia articles). 105 pages of filing is not 105 pages densely packed with information; if it's like the others I've looked at, a very large part of it is going to be devoted to unusable (for our purposes) photography and boilerplate forms. And other platform-only stations on the MARC lines do not have the benefit of being located next to historic districts.
I'm going to update the Garrett Park article; surely it should mention some of this other material. But somewhere along the line it seems to me that we ought to concede that there are plenty of subjects about which not much needs to be written in Wikipedia, even if there are hundreds of pages of material available to work from. Mangoe 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is disk space a problem requiring censorship due to volume?

If yes then some culling of articles is needed with a template of items to be included.

If no then if someone can be bothered to write the article let it stand. To someone searching for history or other information about a street, village or town then even one seemingly trivial bit of information can be relevant. One must not forget that it is always the first bit of information gained, however small, when researching which is the key that opens the door to lots more.

I am now fairly knowledgable about England's earliest railways to the extent I have become a published author and also a Wikipedian on this specific subject. It was one sentence I didn't believe in a badly written printed history book that started me on my quest for knowledge and to verify the statement made. These so called trivial articles may well be the first lead in someone else's study quest.

--Johnrnew 18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC).

Another function of station articles is to help build the web, through use of the next/previous station links. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
This is the aspect I object to most strongly. This isn't really sequential information; it's geographic information, and is best depicted in a map or maybe a list. Even in the subway articles (where I think this is maybe more meaningful anyway) there is a tendency to elevate this into a big cluttery mess. On the the train articles it obscures relationships, not elucidates them. You could represent a train line entirely in hypertext, but it's a bad idea to do so. Mangoe 19:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia is not trying to discourage the creation of new articles because of a disk space problem. What Wikipedia does want is the creation of high-quality encyclopedia articles. Mangoe is fearful that we are encouraging the creation of a large number of rail station articles that present no useful information in an eycyclopedia context — articles that are there primarily because of a rail-buff's desire for completeness, not because they actually say anything that a general reader would find useful. I see that danger, as well. But as I stated upthread, I think the distinction between notable and non-notable stations needs to be broader than the statement that "Wikipedia is not a timetable." Marc Shepherd 21:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The sequential list issue

Popes and Heisman Trophy winners are the wrong model for station stops as sequences. Why don't we go to the most obvious analogue: highway exits?

Many interstate highway articles (e.g., Interstate 95) don't even list exits; others list exits (e.g. Interstate 68) but don't say anything about those exits except road/town names. Sure, you could construct a huge set of articles on I-95 exits, and some of them are definitely notable (e.g. Springfield Interchange). The fact remains that the number of named interchange articles is small.

I expect someone to say, "well, sure, but that doesn't mean that more could be said about them in the future." OK then: why can't we just wait for that future? Mangoe 17:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The future is here already. There are no articles on idividual freeway exits. On the other hand there are articles on individual train stations and Heisman trophy winners already. It's just a matter of applying the right standards which apply to both.--Endroit 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
No, the future isn't here yet. Some groups have created lots of station articles, and some have not. The discussion here is a bit strange because (it seems to me) that some people are particularly interested in protecting their investment in having created these articles, but also because to justify the existing articles arguments are being proffered to imply that articles should be created for every station stop that happens now or even that ever did happen. I don't think anyone is really serious about this implication, because in practice a lot of these articles didn't get created.
I'm losing hope for any attempts to clean up existing station articles (with one exception which I'll address in a moment). I wish there weren't so much resistance to efforts to clean up articles even if they aren't deleted. I personally like the look of the NYC subway articles and wish that the other systems had followed their model, because it is less cluttered and better organized.
I will propose, however, that all articles on Amtrak station stops be deleted. These are entirely timetable information. Note that I do not mean to delete articles that are about the station buildings at which Amtrak trains stop. But the station stop articles, from what I can tell, do nothing more than duplicate information from the articles about various Amtrak services. We aren't ganing anything from the clutter. Mangoe 19:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
There are separate articles for a stop and the station that they stop at? Even I would agree that that is strange. At the very least the stops should be merged to the station (except for timetable info, which should be deleted). Can you point to an example or two? Neier 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
These three were cited in the original discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains that led to the proposal:
At the time it was suggested that these articles could simply be subsumed into the Pennsylvanian (Amtrak) article. Mangoe 02:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This depite the fact that, at least in the case of Coatesville, most trais that stop there are part of the Keystone Service, and it was a SEPTA station during the era when the R5 went to Parkesburg. The argument for listification breaks down when you consider that multiple services run on these and many other lines, and which ones run change over time, and sometimes the physical lines themselves are subject to mutation (the annexation of the Culver line into the IND, for example). The more I hear, the more I'm dubious of the need to delete and listify station articles. --CComMack 07:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Having earlier today read an excellent, and definitive, published magazine article on the former West London Railway & West London Extension Railway I looked up the Wikipedia references. If you do you will see exactly why the issue here has been raised but there is a dichotomy. The Wikipedia item is a general one covering the line as it is today not an in depth history article. If the aim is for Wikipedia to be a resource for generalists as Marc Shepherd suggests then as such surely it does need the included station references Mangoe is suggesting banning. I concur that in this item most of the content on the modern railway is undoubtedly covered elsewhere, for example on the websites of the relevant train operating companies serving the route. However despite that, the author of the piece has not added any bibliography references which, although I am only a newbie to Wikipedia editing, I thought was contrary to the guidelines on citing sources when creating new pages. For the general reader looking up the West London Line as the former WLR & WLER is known today the format of the existing Wiki item I suggest is what they will want. The specialist magazine article would be too meaty for most readers if it could be copied over verbatim, but it is the magazine version level of detailed, definitive, information which I require as a railway historian. If I, or anyone else change edits the existing feature then the risk is it becomes too heavy for generalists so you get the dichotomy mentioned above. I have now added the magazine article as a resource reference.

updated--Johnrnew 21:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems as though I need to start over again, because people are getting the wrong idea to a great extent. I'm not at all saying that station stops ought not to be mentioned at all. What I am saying is that it is more appropriate to document them in line/service/town articles except in cases where the station building is sufficiently notable to justify its own article even if there weren't an article about the line/service/town where it resides. I think there is also reason to exclude certain types of information about station stops, but that doesn't seem to be a controversial point. Mangoe 21:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this principle could be adopted: create a station article if by doing so information can be given which is not readily available elsewhere. Sometimes the train operators themselves provide little or no information - and wikipedia could provide a service by filling in the gaps. Timetable information should not be included in general, it's too volatile, but information about car parking, interchange with bus lines or airports, station facilities, historical information, architecture - why not?
Basically, I should certainly be able to do the following. I want to go to Skunksville in the American mid west. Does it have a station? If so which train operator runs trains there (with a link)? How do I get from the station into the downtown area? Can I park my car there?
Of course this could be included in the Skunksville town article. But what if there is an article on the Skunksville and Illinois Railroad with a list of stations? Should this link point at the town or to a station article which is linked to the town?
Exile 13:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Point the link at a station article, and if the information is included in the town article, make a redirect. Then if the station is notable enough and a new article is made, there is no need to change links. --NE2 16:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I would expand building to building or other nearby transit-related infrastructure - a station stop can not even have a building but still be notable as a transfer point (Manhattan Transfer) or junction. --NE2 16:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second Try

I've written a rather different version which can be viewed at User:Mangoe/Railroad line and station articles. Please discuss and above all, make changes! Mangoe 21:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Station as Transportation Hub?

There are alot of stations that might not fit in any of the currently the proposed Stations guidelines, but are transportation centers. Here, not only trains come and go, but it could be a local/county/municipal hub of mass transit bus lines, Park and rides, shuttle stops for places like airports and hotels (see FlyAway Bus as an example), ferries and even a business district centered around the station. I recently created the stub Fullerton (Amtrak station). While I'm sure it passes mustard as notable since there are two listed historical landmarks there, I wonder if there wasn't listed buildings, would this station be considered nn even though it's a transport hub? There are some obvious hubs, like Penn Station, but some not like Tacoma Dome Station[12](no article yet). Adapting a "hub" as criteria seems like a good idea. --Marriedtofilm 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where to merge?

If this is adopted - I'm not sure if I'd support it - I'd favor merging to the location rather than the line. Thus categories like Category:Stations along New York Central Railroad lines and Category:Metro-North Railroad stations continue to list all stations, just with the article about the location listed. It also makes succession boxes possible. --NE2 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Union stations

I propose another criterion: if the station (or an earlier one on the same spot) ever served as a union station it's notable enough for its own article. This would not include a station along a jointly-owned line, but would include any other station served by multiple companies. --NE2 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreement

I agree with the fundamental point of this essay. Some form of notability criterion is needed to exclude patently non-notable train stations. Walton Vivat Regina! 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're so bothered. Have articles on lines and stations. You make the ones on lines perfect and just don't worry about the stations ones. This is something I do not understand about contributors here. Why even care that someone writes about something you don't want to write about? Grace Note 11:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

There are various reasons that wikipedia has notability guidelines, that in principle should apply universally. One major reason I see to excluding non-notable stuff is to maintain the respectability of the site as an encyclopedia. I'm not a rail enthusiast, but neither am I hostile to those that are. I just don't see the point of having pages that say nothing other than "this station exists at this location", whether it's a railway station or anything else, and in many cases there's no prospect (barring new events) of the pages developing further. SamBC 22:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree

Articles on individual stations can always be expanded with properly sourced local history material. Subway stations and railway stations are in neighborhoods, and the relationship is generally discussed in newspaper sources, especially at the time of construction. It's just a matter of doing the work, often requiring the bugaboo of printed sources. The merely director-type articles should simply be considered stubs.

As a special case, in NYC at least the relationship of stops to individual subway lines frequently changes--the stations are much more permanent than the routes--just see the article on any of the routes.

There is also a practical reason--if some only are notable, every last one of them suggested as non-notable will surely be defended at AfD. We have enough problems with overload there. Thus, removing them will cause the diversion of work to process that could be much better spent in improving these and other articles. DGG (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)