Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) should be close enough |
Ritchie333 (talk | contribs) →South eastern services: new section |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:{{ping|Turini2}} I couldn't, which is why I started [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of busiest railway stations in Europe]], which recently closed as "no consensus". [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
:{{ping|Turini2}} I couldn't, which is why I started [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of busiest railway stations in Europe]], which recently closed as "no consensus". [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC) |
||
== South eastern services == |
|||
{{ping|2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B}}, do you have a [[WP:RS|reliable source]] for your unsourced additions, or do you just like [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] without leaving any [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] so people have to guess? [[User:Ritchie333|<b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b>]] [[User talk:Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Ritchie333|<sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)</sup>]] 17:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:38, 29 August 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Passengers are people. Rides are rides.
The article currently says, "... the complex handled a total of 211 million passengers in the 2015/2016 financial year ..."
Really, it means that the complex handled 211 million departures and arrivals, I assume. I doubt that 211 million individual people passed through Waterloo. Am I misunderstanding? Living up to my user name too closely? IAmNitpicking (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
- Given the number of times I've been stuck in a queue to get through the damn gates into the concourse, it might as well be 211 million, but you're probably right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:36, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 31 July 2017
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. No such user (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
London Waterloo station → Waterloo station – Since Waterloo station already redirects to this article, and is noted as the primary topic in Waterloo station (disambiguation), there's no need to put the "London" in front. Although official announcements always refer to it as "London Waterloo", this is more as a reference for people outside London travelling in, and in practical conversation, it's simply called "Waterloo". See Marylebone station (not London Marylebone station) for previous precedent. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. DrStrauss talk 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Relisting comment: although there are more oppose !votes, the extent and depth of the support !votes are much more compelling so I think a relist is in order.
There are points both for and against what is proposed. It would be preferable that references to London railway stations should be standardised. In this case, however, we are dealing with a station named after a preexisting locality (Waterloo, Belgium) which also has a station - "along the line Charleroi-Sud - Nivelles - Brussels", according to the WP article. There needs to be a title that resolves this ambiguity, therefore. A precedent for this is the disambiguation of Kings Cross railway station, Sydney, so perhaps the article under question might be listed as Waterloo Station, London. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per WP:COMMONNAME and per the standard in Category:Railway termini in London. Waterloo station redirects here, reflecting the primary topic status so ambiguity is not an issue. Timrollpickering 11:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support per nomination, although Mzilikazi1939's proposal of Waterloo Station, London may also be acceptable to differentiate, somewhat alternatively from the currently-existing form, the world-famous station from Waterloo (B) railway station in Belgium. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 16:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Please don't capitalise "station", that goes against WP:NCUKSTATIONS. We also don't use comma disambiguation. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- I've no opinion either way on this, however it's worth referring to this in depth discussion where the same was proposed for London Paddington station. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I note the comment "I personally tend to dislike multiple movereq's, because I've noticed that they invariably tend to turn into quagmires like this" I endorse this view, and should point out, notwithstanding my comments below, that I'm not too bothered if consensus decides the status quo of "London Waterloo" is okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Disagree with stated precedent - as per the discussions renaming other major London terminis at London Victoria and at London Paddington, London Waterloo should remain the name for consistency. Most importantly, London Waterloo is the official name of the station.Turini2 (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, we have Liverpool Street station, Marylebone station and Fenchurch Street railway station, with no mention of the word "London" between them, although I suppose those are slightly different being well-known on the Monopoly board as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Very true, but as per the Victoria + Paddington discussions "the prefixing of London X Y Z has turned out to be a very effective way of solving the disambiguation issue that exists between ... London railway stations and the latter ones in other countries". By my count, there are eleven other Waterloo stations - London Waterloo is the most notable, and IMO the current naming conveys this. Turini2 (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- On the other hand, we have Liverpool Street station, Marylebone station and Fenchurch Street railway station, with no mention of the word "London" between them, although I suppose those are slightly different being well-known on the Monopoly board as well. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The correct name is London Waterloo as on all station name boards and on train announcements. This an encyclopedia dealing in facts and not someones personal view. David J Johnson (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not my personal view, it's the view of reliable sources [1] - see WP:COMMONNAME. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It may be WP:COMMONNAME, but all signage, timetables etc; refer to the correct name, "London Waterloo" let's keep the article title correct. David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's violating policy! (I know, policy sucks, but you've got to have a good reason to ignore it) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how a google search of news of Waterloo can be viewed as a reliable source. The search results also include Waterloos in Belgium, Sydney, Huddersfield, California, Merseyside, etc, and last but not least "London Waterloo"...
- For what it's worth, having lived in London, near London, and some distance from London, there is probably a tendency to use the fuller "London Waterloo" the further away from London you are living... Robevans123 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's violating policy! (I know, policy sucks, but you've got to have a good reason to ignore it) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It may be WP:COMMONNAME, but all signage, timetables etc; refer to the correct name, "London Waterloo" let's keep the article title correct. David J Johnson (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- It's not my personal view, it's the view of reliable sources [1] - see WP:COMMONNAME. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
- Support – From what I've seen the name isn't "London Waterloo", it's simply referred to as "Waterloo" when I go there. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:901C:81B9:CD7A:CD2A (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The official name of the station is London Waterloo (see http://m.nationalrail.co.uk/pj/ldbboard/dep/WAT and others). Wikipedia policy dictates that we reflect the official name, not dictate what it should be. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose move is potentially London-centric (see my note geolinguistics(!) above). The current name fits the five main criteria for naming (Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, Consistency). I've not yet seen any convincing evidence that "Waterloo" is more of a common name than "London Waterloo". Robevans123 (talk) 12:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, for reasons arising from earlier discussion and the point made about London-centrecism. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, There is already a Waterloo station up near manchester, this may confuse wikipedia members. SageWater (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose, to change would be taking a London centric view. Ruttnpark (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - the official name is fine, no need to muck about with it. Mjroots (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose - I was previously undecided, but now I don't see the validity of relisting this against general consensus. The "extent and depth of the support !votes" are not "much more compelling". The nomination refers to a precedence that is easily countered by the precedence of London Paddington station. There are three "supports". One refers to a 'standard' in Category:Railway termini in London that a cursory glance shows doesn't exist. Two 'supports' reference WP:COMMONNAME, when this very much depends on whether you are in London or not. There are far more people outside London than in it. And the third 'support' is a anecdotal personal observation. I see nothing compelling in any of them. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose London Waterloo is the correct name, per National Rail. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose London Waterloo is the official name. WP:COMMONNAME getting out of hand. There are two Waterloo stations in the NR network. Waterloo (Merseyside) and London Waterloo. Just like London Victoria, there needs to be a clear difference in name. Furthermore, I think you find many passengers inside and outside of London do indeed say "London Waterloo, London Victoria, London Euston", etc. Just like most people in London say "Glasgow Central, Manchester Piccadilly, Edinburgh Waverley", most of the locals will shorten it. Even Gatwick Airport is often shortened to "Gatwick". Railway stations and any other geographical location should have its official name. Likelife (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose London Waterloo is the official name, and what most people refer to it as- see London Paddington etc. jcc (tea and biscuits) 12:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- While I'm pretty sure this is going to close as "not moved", the above statement to "what most people refer to it" just isn't true from my experience. Nobody says "I'm just coming into London Waterloo, I'll see you at Canary Wharf in about half an hour or so." See Marylebone station etc Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose The train describer on my local station. (Actually visible from my window) carries trains to three of London's terminal stations. 'Victoria', 'London Bridge' and 'London Waterloo'. Also, as noted above, this differentiates it from 'Waterloo' station (in Belgium) to which it would theoretically be possible to run a train without having to change anywhere. 86.174.155.8 (talk) 08:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose after relist I would like to repeat my stance from before the relisting. As has been pointed out already, the official name of this station is 'London Waterloo'. That name is accepted by all sources directly associated with the station and all credible sources relied upon by Wikipedia and Wikitravel. Any altered title would be creating disambiguation where none needs to exist, and could be seen as Wiki inventing a name for an existing building without clear reasoning. Using "it's not that in my experience" as a counter argument, as happens above, is not a valid argument doktorb wordsdeeds 22:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
"nth busiest station in Europe"
"I can't find a reliable source for it being the nth busiest in Europe, full stop - throw it out" an edit by Ritchie333 Quite rightly, a statement on Waterloo being the nth busiest station in Europe has been removed.
Can anyone find a reasonable source for this?Turini2 (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Turini2: I couldn't, which is why I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of busiest railway stations in Europe, which recently closed as "no consensus". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
South eastern services
@2A00:23C5:CF01:501:253D:E9D3:E034:210B:, do you have a reliable source for your unsourced additions, or do you just like edit-warring without leaving any edit summaries so people have to guess? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)