Talk:Newcastle Central railway station

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
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Railways.
Mid Importance: mid within UK Railways WikiProject.
This article is supported by WikiProject North East England, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to North East England on Wikipedia. For further information or to participate, you can visit the Project page.
North East England Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Archive
Archives


Can anyone add any info about the train crash in the 80s I don't know anything about that or find anything on the internet about it

Contents

[edit] Platforms

I have a question: does the 12 platforms include the metro platforms? Also, it would be useful if someone could supply information on how each platforms are used, as with York and Leeds? Anywikiuser (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I found out. They don't include the metro platforms. I found information on the platforms which I intend to add to the page. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metro station and railway station are seperate stations in their own right, being managed by Nexus and NXEC respectively Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fair enough, but most London stations have their national rail station (managed by the TOC) and their underground station (managed by TfL) in the same article. Do they need merging? Anyway, I have added a platform guide, but it would be great if someone could help find out more about them. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I know this has been talked about but don't know if a decision was reached. I think the articles should be moved to Newcastle railway station. It's the official name used by Network Rail, NXEC, on platform signs and in on-train announcements. It's called Central locally but there's not really any disamiguation required as the only other station in the city is Manors railway station and it would be very rare to need to disambiguate from that. Any thoughts? Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should stay at Newcastle Central. As has been mentioned in previous discussions, the rail companies likely call it Newcastle purely for operational purposes—they haven't actually "rebranded" the station like, for example, a football stadium might be; it's formal name is still Newcastle Central. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
But I was thinking maybe it was never branded Newcastle Central, just Newcastle. Then after the Metro started operations the locals needed to disambiguate and started calling it Central. We need to find a source stating the name when it was first opened Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Newcastle railway station appears to be taken, so unless that is moved, there still needs to ba a unique name for the article. While I agree that Newcastle Central appears to be made up, as a wierd accommodation of the local common name Central Station and the UK usage Newcastle Station, without conflicting with the global Newcastle uses. Although, if the current name is wrong, the other options look much worse, and while strictly all correct, would never pass the 'what a user would type in first' test:

  • Newcastle Central Station railway station
  • Newcastle, Central Station (railway station)
  • Central Station (Newcastle railway station)
  • Central Station, Newcastle (railway station)
  • Central Station, Newcastle, UK
  • Central Station (Newcastle, United Kingdom)
  • Central Station railway station (Newcastle, United Kingdom)

Incidentally, this source [1] has an old map with Central Station on it from 1905?, and although it has references to Newcastle Central Station, I believe this is of the form, Newcastle's Central Station, rather than Newcastle Central railway station. And I believe that the Central Station TW metro stop was so named because it served Central Station. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Newcastle railway station redirects to a disamiguation page giving two other uses. I suggest this article be renamed Newcastle railway station and at the top of the page, a note saying not to be confused with... Ifnot, what about Newcastle railway station, Tyne and Wear? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well why not leave it at Newcastle Central? That way it won't be confused with anything. Making such a move would go entirely against Wikipedia:Naming conventions which state: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Dbam Talk/Contributions 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The issue I have is that it is completely made up in my opinon, as I said above to satisfy local, national and international issues. It is not Newcstle Central, the current title should be read Newcastle's Central Station, but you can't show this distinction in a title, and it appears attempts to clarify in the lead have been opposed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not completely made up, though, is it? It's simply a variation of the name that just so happens not to have been adopted by the rail companies. As a formal name it is entirely acceptable; it is used on all the heritage plaques in the station, including this one and this one. Dbam Talk/Contributions 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
At least one of those plaques supports the name Newcastle Central Station then, and this would satisfy the portion of naming policy you quoted above. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous discussions

/archive 1#Name of article and /archive 1#Requested move. Simply south (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

On a quick read, there seems to be support for Newcastle Central Station, so what now? How about a simple vote? MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly by my first choice, but the stumbling point in the previous discussions was the use of the word "station" and whether it should be capitalised or not. The proposed naming convention for UK stations at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) shows that the words "railway" and "station" should be uncapitalised; although this is only a proposed guideline, it does seem to have been applied across the board. While I would be quite happy to see this article back at "Newcastle Central Station", I think others would strongly oppose it. Dbam Talk/Contributions 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think evidence of a proper name should override any guidelines, per WP:IAR, as the current guideline clearly introduces a confusion by causing the name to imply the station is called Newcastle Central. MickMacNee (talk)
  • The issue of what is the correct name for this article just will not go away. I think people really need to think long and hard before we end up moving it again, will it really benefit the reader if this is moved? I'm not convinced it will, the current title seems acceptable. I suggest that people accept that it is likely to be impossible to satisfy everyone so rather than causing a load more disruption by moving this it should just be left as it is. Adambro (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The mish mash of opinions in the previous discussions, and the continuing requests do not suggest to me it is acceptable in its current form, hence the idea of a poll. Acceptable to some people means it fits a template, or is a good compromise, to others it means it reflects the actual name of the station. At the end of the day, if WP names something wrongly, that can actually disseminate into the real world, and thus the lie becomes truth, so a clearer statement of consensus is needed I think, before we start telling the world incorrectly that this station is called Newcastle Central. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
      • According to Network Rail, which would in this case be the only opinion that matters, the name of the station is simply "Newcastle". Given more than one station in an area, people will invariably use local tags to identify them, e.g. you'll rarely hear a native of Swansea refer to anything other than "High Street station", and natives of Colchester will talk about "Colchester North" - hence people will refer to the big station in the middle of town as "Central" in the absence of another name (hence the name of "Central Station" station on the Metro). There seems to be little to suggest whether "Newcastle Central" is a legitimate name or whether it is a local ploy to grandify the station's name to match its already-impressive proportions and architecture. We already have a de facto convention here, so we should at least make very compelling reasons for ignoring them. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
        • TL-DR? The point being made is it is the convention that is making it appear wrongly that this station is called Newcastle Central, hence why the case is made to ignore the convention of adding railway where it isn't needed, and correctly refer to it as Newcaslte Central Station, as in Central Station of Newcastle, not Newcastle Central station (lowercase). There is no other Newcastle Central Station on Wikipedia, or on Earth, however there are other Newcastle railway stations. And look what comes out top result in a google search (.co.uk) for newcastle station [2] - the www.livedepartureboards.co.uk page for newcastle central station. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I think you'll find it says "NEWCASTLE (NCL)", not "NEWCASTLE CENTRAL (NCL)". Title should be Newcastle station, since there's a Metro station on the same site or in the vicinity. There's no question that this particular marvel takes precedence over any other station called "Newcastle". 81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Read the title of the search result. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
            • And why Newcastle station, and not Newcastle railway station? Or was that just a mistake? I have no objections to Newcastle railway station, but I think some Australians might. And there are some odd people who insist on then, based on the title, removing the local name Central Station (capitalised) from the text, on their incorrect idea that this is just a local pride thing, ignoring the mountain of evidence that this is its formal and historical name. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
          • (ec)PS. Reading this page Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), Newcastle is clearly one of the most disputed cases for applying the 'de facto' convention, so it should be the last article anyone attempts to claim use of a standard form. At one point it appears that the presence of the Metro station on the same site was justification to break this convention and for wikipedia to call the station by the name it had 70 years before the Metro was even built. MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think some people put far too much stock in the names of stations used by the rail companies. As I have already mentioned, it's likely they name stations for the benefit of their operations; using the briefest variation of the name possible without being ambiguous. The two examples given by the IP above are actually good examples of this: Swansea is just Swansea within the rail network, but what's the full postal address of the station? Let's ask National Rail...[3] The same goes for Colchester.[4] Admittedly, for whatever reason, they don't give the full name of Newcastle's station but I think there are enough reliable sources for that elsewhere. The rail companies have their naming conventions, designed for their own needs, and we have ours. By all means we should use the rail network names as a guideline, but where there is clear evidence of a full formal name (especially one that is used commonly), then we must reflect that in the title of the article. Dbam Talk/Contributions 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The way in which you refer to a "full formal name" is utter nonsense. You seem to be defining it in terms of "what I call it", without providing any backup. The only authority with the ability to determine the name of a station is (collectively) the railway. Street addresses are in part determined by the Royal Mail, so should be set aside for the moment. A station will have an official name (in this case, Newcastle), and may have other names by which the locals refer to it (in this case, Central station, amongst others). Usually, we use the former, though the latter are useful redirects. From what I can see elsewhere, it would seem that the use of an archaic name should be avoided unless it is useful in identifying the subject in question. For instance, Swansea railway station can stay where it is, since as things stand we don't have articles on any of the other former stations in the city (such as Swansea Victoria railway station, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone local over the age of 40 (perhaps even 30?) that refers to the station there as anything other than "High Street". 81.110.106.169 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
This is rubbish frankly. This is not merely a local name and if you bothered to do your research you would know it, but frankly, I am beginning to think you are a POV editor as regards your continual references to Swansea, which have nothing to do with this article at all. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You [the IP] have completely missed, or chosen to ignore, the main point that I was making. I'm not denying that the name given to the station by the rail companies is just "Newcastle"; what I am questioning is whether a name that has apparently been given purely for the operational benefit of a particular industry, is appropriate to use in a general encyclopaedia. When people are travelling to Newcastle by train, they want to know which train goes to Newcastle; they don't care, or need to know, what the station's called, so it isn't important to the rail operator. However, when John Dobson built the station, he (I presume it was him) chose to name it Central Station, I don't know why, he just did. Whether you like it or not, that is the actual name of the station, and to omit it from the title could be misleading. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) states: "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, with Recent Changes or accidentally, or in some other way that robs him of the context, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely." In this situation, the title "Newcastle Central" tells the reader exactly which station the article is about; "Newcastle", on the other hand, doesn't.
As for backing up the full formal name and the commonness of its use, I really didn't think it was necessary as there are plenty of examples in this and the archived discussions. If you haven't already done so, take a look at the plaques I linked to above, or the many examples given by User:ProhibitOnions in the Archive (about halfway down the page). Alternatively you could do a Google search for Newcastle Central Station. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So...let's clarify, why is a Wikipedia article on a railway station named so? Is it the local usage, Network Rail usage, operator usage, platform signage...?? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to the IP, the reference to Swansea is irrelevant, especially because no-one calls it High Street station, just Swansea station so please stop pushing your pro-Swansea POV. Newcastle, unlike Swansea, is a large city which has more than one station as well as the metro stations, hence the need for disambiguation Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to say i would support "station" instead of "railway station" if the T&WM article on Central Metro station is merged in here. Simply south (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia policy is to have railway station in the name rather station Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be station as it combines National Rail with the metro. This is how it works in London (e.g. London Waterloo station) and Newcastle shouldn't be any different. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed — I'm not sure why the metro platforms were moved to a separate article in the first place. The metro, of course, is also part of the reason for keeping 'Central' in the title of this article; the station isn't exclusively a National Rail one, so the name on the National Rail signs is not the final authority. David Arthur (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, I'm for "Newcastle Central Station", which is not only well sourced, but it also satisfies WP:COMMON; that's what people call it (and that's how it's described on the various plaques on the wall, except for one that calls it "Newcastle Central Railway Station"). It's an iconic 160-year-old building that would seem a fair exception to any naming scheme, and grammatically "Central" is a modifier that shouldn't be left dangling. "Newcastle" by itself is just the short form, but there are plenty of other "Newcastle station"s. ProhibitOnions (T) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a lot of passionate discussion of this topic about a year ago (see the page archive). The consensus reached then was quite difficult to achieve. I see no reason for changing the status quo at this time. DrFrench (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any overwhelming consensus when reviewing that for the above machinations, and plenty of recognition of the proper name. It rests between support for an unadopted guideline, and the actual name and common local usage. It's a definite case of users forcing an un-needed standard, for what reasons nobody knows. Newcastle is a special case with the other newcastle pages on wikipedia. The nearest proper unambiguous name is Newcastle Central Station, which satisfies the actual naming policies by not conflicting with any other wiki article and being a recognised common usage. People just seem to not want to accept that and make up a name instead. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Standards are useful in that they help people to find stuff and give a sense of things being a coherent whole. Remember this isn't our article and for it to be a useful article, other people have got to be able to find it and trust the information they read - having standards helps that. So what we may call it in collquial everyday usage is, to a certain extent, irrelevant. The standard appears to be railway station for articles relating to a National Rail station and station where multiple mixed-mode co-located stations are combined in the same article. Being as we have separate articles for the two separate stations, railway station seems to be the appropriate suffix. Then you merely have to decide if you want to call it Newcastle or Newcastle Central (which I personally don't have a very strong opinion about, but prefer Newcastle Central). Adding comments like officially called, locally known as, etc. don't really add to the quality of the article - and IMHO simply make the article look a bit amateurish. If the 'official' name was completely different (e.g. if it was 'officially' called Newcastle Exchange), then yes it would be relevant to mention it. And I guess people in many cities will colloquially refer to their main station as Central Station, so adding it here is somewhet redundant. For what it's worth, I live within spitting distance of the station and in everyday speech I simply call it Central Station, but do I think that's appropriate for an encyclopaedic article? No. DrFrench (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I think you've completely missed the point, the current version [5] with 2 references to Newcastle Central is completely wrong, and stems directly from the use of an inappropriate standard. There are enough sources to put Newcastle Central Station as the official name, and this complies with the wikipedia naming policies described above, without needing disambiguation from Newcastle railway station. I will re-iterate, the 'railway station' guideline has not been adopted, and appears only to exist to help navigation. Well, I think no-one is ever going to choose 'Newcastle Central railway station' as their first choice when either trying to get to the article as a reader, or link to it as an editor. Newcastle Central rs is plain wrong, and Newcastle rs is ambiguous. And I think the station/railway station argument for whether it includes metro or not is complete bunkum, and an even worse case of editors trying to hamfist a guideline without considering the reader at all, who can tell full well what is a railwqay station and metro station from the first paragraph and infoboxes/pictures, it is irrelevant to any practical concern. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Calm down! Rather than setting up a renegade base here, if there is a problem with whether we should use 'railway station' or 'station', it would be better to discuss it on the page for discussing naming systems for British railway stations (where is it?). I could simply say that Newcastle Central station is appropriate because it has a metro and main line station in one complex, despite being seperately owned. It is argued that the article only shows the main line station, but really it should include more information about the metro station like with London Waterloo station which has a link to the tube station. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with anything. Newcastle Central Station was the name before the Metro was even built. No-one gives a crap about whether the article includes the Metro or not, it's an insignificance, only made an issue by artificial wikipedia (unadopted) guidelines. You have singularly missed the point, it is not Newcastle Central station (lower case S), it is Newcastle Central Station, capital name, proper name, acceptable first unambiguous name per wikipedia name official policies; the only people resisting this fact are the people who blindly insist every article has to have railway station on the end, as if readers are all thick, and ignoring the fact Newcaslte railway station is already taken, and Newcaslte Central railway station is completely made up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I'd have to take issue with User:Welshleprechaun about the "official" name of the station. Just because a timetable describes the destination as "Newcastle" doesn't make that "official"; it's just the short version for concision, and the name of the destination city. After all, he created the article Eldon Square Bus Station (note the capitalization); yet, looking at a bus timetable, I note that it describes the stop only as "Eldon Square". That's not the "official" name, whatever that means; it's just the shortest recognizable variant of it. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
But it's not just timetables. Both Network Rail and the train companies call it Newcastle, as do the platform signs. Other stations which officially do have Central attached to the name such as Cardiff Central or Glasgow Central are referred to as such by timetables, platform signs and Network Rail and the train companies. WL (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a pretty obvious reason why that is the case, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the official or local name of the station. As said before, Newcastle railway station is an ambiguous name for this article, whether it includes the Metro or not, which is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
An ambiguous name is better than an incorrect one. It can easily be disamiguated by adding, for example, (Tyne and Wear) or (United Kingdom).WL (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not, the naming policies are quite clear, you use the next nearest official/common usage that is unambiguous. Your edits here [6] are pure crap, there is no other way to say it. Newcastle Central is not an name/entity/station that exists anywhere but in the minds of wikipedians. This issue is seriously not that complicated if you drop the idea the every single station in the universe can fit into a wikipedia standard. The point about Cardiff Central is just plain wrong, per the entire discussions above, there is no Newcastle Queen Street station. The name is Central Station, there is a source above that pins that down for the last hundred years. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Leprechaun, I wasn't "criticizing" your capitalization, simply pointing out that you, too, accept "Station" in uppercase when it is clearly part of the title of the institution, in the case of the article you created, "Eldon Square Bus Station". As for Newcastle Central Station, instead of inferring the "official" name via a single document that mankes no reference to anything being "official" (and thus violates WP:SYNTH), may I point you to the following paragraph from the archives, which I wrote in response to another user:
For a few other reliable examples of "Newcastle Central Station", try the Royal Station Hotel (in the station) [7], the famous Centurion Bar in the station [8], GNER and Virgin Trains, the main railways serving it [9] [10], Newcastle City Government [11], the Ministry of Transport (1960 accident report [12], the BBC [13], NewcastleGateshead Convention Bureau [14], Newcastle International Airport [15], Port of Tyne Authority [16], Gateshead City Government [17], Northumbria University [18], Gateshead College [19], North East Councils [20], the BALTIC Centre [21], the Newcastle Arts Centre [22], Eldon Square [23], The Sage Gateshead [24], Tyne and Wear Museums [25], the UK Tourist Information Centres [26], Nexus (in this document, "Central Station" refers to mainline services) [27], Go-Ahead bus lines [28], Stagecoach buses [29], Acas Newcastle [30], the Bowes Railway [31], the FA [32], the Royal Victoria Infirmary [33], the CBI [34], London 2012 [35], and Structurae [36]. There have been several books about the station, such as [37].
There's also this plaque in Central Station itself, posted by Dbam, if you're still somehow not convinced. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Purely a personal observation, but I lived in and around Newcastle for four years, and in all that time never heard the station referred to once as "Newcastle Central"; it was always "Central" or "Central station"; which suggests that the current title is precisely what it shouldn't be. The fact that this format appears to be a standard is somewhat problematic. Black Kite 11:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been on Newcastle as long as Black Kite, but I agree. It seems a local thing, just like all the sources Prohibit Onions provided - except the London 2012 one which "can't be found". Perhaps you could provide some more unbias sources, ie. not in the North East. If it was Newcastle Central, it would appear on platform signs, like Glasgow Central and Cardiff Central. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm a little teapot short and stout

Just doing a change to the usual "arbitrition break1\2\3\etc" Simply south (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metro station

The metro station is part of the same complex but the articles seem to be separate even though they are part of the same complex. Really, either they should be together or there should be a section on the metro station with a link to the main article. This means the article name should be Newcastle Central Station. Both stations are managed separately by NXEC and Nexus, but this is the same system used for the London terminals (e.g. London Waterloo station) and Newcastle should not be different. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles are separate because the stations are separate. London is a poor example to use, there are plenty of instances where co-located National Rail and London Underground stations have separate articles. In fact the example you used actually proves it; Waterloo, Waterloo East Waterloo tube and Southwark tube stations all have separate articles. King's Cross, St Pancras, King's Cross Thameslink and the tube station that links them all each have their own articles. Charing Cross, Charing Cross tube and Embankment stations have individual articles. Euston and Euston tube stations have separate articles. And if you look at the Liverpool Street station article, you'll see there is a proposal to split the article into separate ones fot NR and the tube. So, on the basis of WP:IFITAINTBROKE - I say leave it well alone. DrFrench (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Or be WP:BOLD. If someone merges them and does a good job, we may well be happy with the fait accompli. It doesn't bother me either way. ProhibitOnions (T) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the recent discussion at Talk:Balham railway station, Talk:Balham tube station, Talk:Balham station and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 9#Balham station merge. Simply south (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Liverpool Street station has nothing in the discussion regarding splitting! Moreover Kings Cross St Pancras Underground station destination boxes appear on both Kings Cross station and St Pancras station articles. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Which just goes to show there's no one right way or wrong way of doing it. I've always thought a good rule of thumb is how the platforms are numbered. If there's one consistent numbering scheme then maybe one article suffices (e.g. I think at Finsbury Park station the tube platforms are 1-4 and the NR platforms are 5 upwards). Or where there is a common 'ticketed area' (again Finsbury Park is an example of this). I still see little reason to merge the mainline and metro station articles here. DrFrench (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
How about maybe one or two lines of text at most, the T+W destination box, and a link to the T+W station article? As for KXSP mentioned above? Sunil060902 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)