As I've mentioned at the other editor's talk, the gallery is pointless as one of the images isn't relevant to the article anyway, and the other one could easily be used inline.Black Kite (talk)12:32, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this article has existed for a few years, but I don't think it's particularly a great idea. It says "This article lists the stations that end/start lines or routes in Great Britain." Now, how do you define that? Obviously terminus stations are included, but the bit about "routes" is a nightmare. Does a "route" exist if even a single service starts or ends at that station? If not, what is the definition? X number of trains per day? A "regular service" (whatever that may mean)? I don't know. And, of course, it's completely unsourced because its "sources" are simply the rail maps of every TOC, which doesn't source most of the actual list at all. Also, it's (unsurprisingly) wrong/out of date; it took me not very long at all to think of more than half a dozen entries missing from the list, including some thatdo have a regular service starting or terminating there. (Leven, Ashington, Bathgate, Cumbernauld, Headbolt Lane, Wakefield Kirkgate, Gillingham (Kent), Faversham, and I'm sure loads more). Thoughts?Black Kite (talk)22:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the point. The references are not formatted properly, and there is no date on any of them. I am not surprised it's an orphan. How is it notable or useful to list (eg) Clapham Junction as a terminal? Why is it helpful to list London Victoria? (Reminds me of "Guard, does this train stop at Euston?" "If it doesn't, madam, there'll be an almighty big bang!"[citation needed])-- Verbarson talkedits08:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket I agree with your prod and was considering adding a{{prod2}} but is it really necessary to state that "Wikipedia would be much better off without content like this" in a rationale that will be quoted in the deletion log if the prod is not contested? We can determine that an entry isn't a helpful addition to the encyclopaedia without being unnecessarily pejorative.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?12:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that "London terminals" is a thing it's not unreasonable for people to look up what other terminal stations there are in the country. However, that doesn'tnecessarily equate to it being an actual thing (especially as what counts as a London terminal station isn't intuitively objective).
Train station#Terminus provides a definitionA "terminus" or "terminal" is a station at the end of a railway line. Trains arriving there have to end their journeys (terminate) or reverse out of the station. it goes on to say that there may also be new, low-level through tracks, giving St. Pancras Thameslink as an example. Which together makes it mostly objective. However the existing list is not -Bristol Temple Meads is on the list but not a terminus station by that definition (it does have bay platforms but they are not the main tracks) but as a city centre station and final destination for multiple long distance routes I subjectively feel that inclusion can be justified. I'm not sure I can say the same forBristol Parkway which is a through station that just happens to be the end-point for some local services, and I certainly can't see any justification forOckendon to be included.Gospel Oak is also on the list, and while yes that is the terminus for Suffragette line, I'm struggling to think of the utility for a category that makes it equivalent to sayLondon Waterloo.Thryduulf (talk)20:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that this is a useful list. What happens where a through station becomes a terminus, or where a station that was a terminus becomes a through station? What timespan does this cover? Is this list only for stations on the National Rail networK? What about defunct companies and heritage railways? Importantly, where are the references? If it is to be kept, scope needs to be defined and referencing vastly improved. Best to nuke it IMvHO.Mjroots (talk)09:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the entries on it, the de facto current scope appears to be stations currently on the National Rail network - there are no London Underground stations on the list nor are any of the heritage stations I looked for. That's a reasonable and objective part of the scope, but given that appears to be the only objective part of it, that doesn't undermine your (mjroots) or my other points.Thryduulf (talk)10:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the point is that itappears to be attempting to be a list ofany NR station whereany service starts or terminates. Quite apart from the obvious problem with maintaining (or indeed sourcing) that list, the main problem is in my original post - should a station with one train a day starting or terminating there be included, and if not, what's the limit of the definition?Black Kite (talk)18:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's nowhere close to being an A3 candidate - a list of stuff other than things explicitly listed in the criterion (noticeboard questions, templates or images being the most likely) is still content. There is no requirement for the content to be useful and/or encyclopaedic.Thryduulf (talk)18:57, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is excellently done, but still doesn't address the major definition problem with this article - unless you did this to demonstrate that problem, in which case ignore this comment!Black Kite (talk)18:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I might make a suggestion for defining the scope of the article:
Railway stations where the majority of platforms are terminal platforms, or a significant part of the station is a terminus (eg. a station with two distinct “sections” where one of those sections is terminal).Danners430tweaks made18:22, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are stations likeOrmskirk included? What about stations likeBlackfriars with an equal number of through and terminal platforms? What aboutShenfield where all the platforms are through but some are effectively only used as bays? Is a "significant part" ofMoorgate a terminus? What aboutReading,Romford andLiskeard?
Does this definition result in a list that is useful? Multiple major stations that function as long-distance terminals (e.g. Bristol Temple Meads and Cardiff Central) won't be on such a list, but more minor stations likeRichmond would be.Thryduulf (talk)18:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's non-useful. The only one that might be is of stations that are purely termini, but again that would probably be better off as a category. And even then I can think of edge cases like Ashington where the single passenger line is a terminus but there are other freight-only tracks that continue further.Black Kite (talk)14:58, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some types of station that could be regarded as terminii:
Liverpool Lime Street, simple enough as a mainline terminus, but it also has a metro running through beneath it
Newcastle Central, obviously a through station, yet also the starting point for innumerable services as a service terminus. EquallyBristol Temple Meads.
Ormskirk, built as a through station, now a service terminus in two directions, and the tracks are physically separated to make two back-to-back terminii.
Ashington, (above) which is a passenger terminus with freight operating beyond it.
Of these, I would base a useful definition on the limits of the station layout, but not the services: So Lime Street, Ormskirk and Ashington are in, but Newcastle Central, Temple Meads and STJ are out, despite their number of bay platforms.Andy Dingley (talk)12:35, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guess it'll have to be that route. It could almost be an A7, as it doesn't at all state why it's significant, but I guess it's controversial enough that a full AFD may be necessary. I'd support a deletion. — Amakuru (talk)11:16, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill PROD is designed to be completely uncontroversial. By design, anyone can object for any reason and if there's a difference of opinion we go to AfD and settle it by consensus. Considering PRODs can be contested even after deletion, there's no benefit to trying to keep it quiet.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?14:24, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, deleted. Meanwhile, I'm unconvinced thatTrain_station#Terminus is particularly good at defining an actual terminus for us (plus it's mostly unsourced, and wanders off on loads of tangents) so I'm going to try and rewrite it as a stand alone article.Black Kite (talk)07:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be for a mix of the two. Starting from the top:
The simple version of Stalybridge is better as the added detail doesn't add anything useful to this diagram
I have no strong preference regarding the Glossop line, and can see arguments for both detail and simplicity here
Showing both used and disused lines south of Denton Junction with the dual spur to the WCML is useful as it gives an indication of the relative importance of the routes.
The added detail of the motorways adds nothing and actually detracts from the purpose of the diagram
The angle of the WCML diverge isn't important, but subjectively I prefer the 45° version over the 90° version
The alignment of the icons at the Stockport, Timperley and Altrincham Junction Railway crossing needs fixing if the two-line version is retained
Including the M60 south of Heaton Norris is consistent with showing the motorways further north
The link toEdgeley Viaduct is also likely useful to readers, but it should be included asStockport Viaduct to match the article title (I'll create a redirect in a moment, but there is no reason to not match the article title here).
This is arail diagram, not a road diagram, so the motorway interchange and curve can certainly go, leaving only three bridges - one over the railway, two under. The road signs should also go - we've had discussions on that in the past. We don't need to indicate the number of tracks, that's unnecessary detail - it's also misleading, since the WCML is shown with two tracks whereas it has four all along the depicted stretch, and the Huddersfield line is double-track not single. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)05:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a big fan of including notable bridges/viaducts and I can see arguments for including major geographical features like rivers and motorways but only if they don't add excessive clutter. Otherwise, I agree with Redrose.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?09:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a volunteer ticket inspector at a heritage railway. Does that represent a COI in terms of me editing articles relating to that railway? If so, does it stop me editing those - or what actions should I take? Thank you.Mwsmith20 (talk)07:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it does (see my talk page as I too have COI). What I personally do is severely restrict my editing on those pages, and what content I do add is referenced to sources - which of course is something that should be done anyway. However I don’t really add significant content, only update what’s already there, again with sourcing.Danners430tweaks made08:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Danners430, @Mwsmith20, it is a potential conflict of interest (ask yourself if you could bring yourself to add negative publicity, even if you feel it's unfair or even inaccurate) but not at the same level as someone promoting their startup. But equally you're probably in a better position than most people to find information and sources. My suggestion would be to declare your connection on the talk page and bring anything disputed or potentially controversial to a venue like this for review by impartial editors.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?10:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for the helpful advice. I must confess I've already done quite a lot of editing of the rolling stock page for the railway, but always sourced (the previous lack of sources was my main driver for doing it). The railway's main article is a bit of a dog's dinner, but I'll probably steer clear of editing that, in the light of the above. I'll also amend my talk page as suggested.Mwsmith20 (talk)15:14, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My employer has a Wikipedia article. I have it on my watchlist; but my only edits there are reverts of malicious unsourced opinions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A family member works forEurostar, and I've tagged myself as a "connected contributor" because I potentially know "inside gossip" about the company not documented in reliable sources. I still took the article to GA reassessment as I didn't think it met the criteria, and would have done that regardless.
