Talk:Balham station/Archive 1

Merger

I propose that the articles on Balham tube station and Balham railway station be merged into a single article. Although they have separate buildings and gatelines, they are immediately next door to each other with well-patronised indoor interchange stairs leading between them, very similar to the situation at Vauxhall station, for example. On the tube map it is marked as a direct interchange, with no walking distance noted. I propose that the complex is best discussed in a single article, like Vauxhall and many other stations already are. --Mr Thant (talk) 16:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

See also previous discussion here and here --Mr Thant (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to keep them separate, if only because Balham tube is one of Charles Holden's beautiful designs and the railway station (while having an understated mid-Victorian prettiness of its own) is quite distinct in architecture as well as function. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Thant, the crowd dynamics study you have cited does not actually tell us anything significant about interchange traffic. Figure 139 shows the sub-surface tube station ticket hall only, the two entrances top and bottom right in the diagram leading directly via stairs to the two surface tube station buildings on the east and west side of Balham High Road respectively (as visible in the new photo). Both entrances have two doorways leading directly onto the street, while the eastern building (i.e. top right entrance in the ticket hall plan) also has the covered walkway leading to the railway station. It is therefore misleading for the study to describe this - and for you, it seems, to interpret it - only as "the commuter main line station entrance" or "the British Rail entrance," because it is also served by the two doorways from the street. The study does not quantify the difference in traffic between the two ticket hall entrances, beyond one being "the majority," but this is meaningless in assessing interchange traffic. It may well be that 90% of passengers come in on foot from the surrounding area, split evenly between the two surface entrances, with one also having the remaining 10% from the railway station. This would give that combined entrance "the majority," but actual interchange traffic would still be overwhelmingly in the minority. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've just seen this on RFP, and I'm up Yorkshire, so I've got no POV, but I think there is a good point to merge from common practise - an example I can think of is Bradford Interchange - combined transport, but not combined subway/railway, but still, I think practice would be to have it as "Balham station". Will ^(talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bradford Interchange isn't a particularly helpful comparison, since that's a case of a railway station/surroundings that was redesigned/rebuilt specifically as an interchange, and is jointly managed (which the Balham stations weren't and aren't). Nick Cooper (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge two stubby articles and break out again only if article size warrants it.Regan123 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Merge The railway station article is stubby, but the tube one isn't. Bolstering the one with the other doesn't necessarily make an improved combined article and adding the two together will have the effect of overwhelming the railway station with the history of the tube station. There is nothing wrong with retaining a link in each article to the other.--DavidCane (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge As has been noted elsewhere, the two stations buildings, although in close proximity, are distinctly different and not functionally integrated in any meaningful way. We cannot take the fact that it is "direct interchange, with no walking distance" on maps as conclusive in itself, given the arbitrary nature of such indications and the obvious existing anomalies. For many years Canary Wharf was so marked, despite the substantial distance between the DLR & Jubilee stations, or indeed that Heron Quays is actually closer to the latter; Bowes Park and Bounds Green are virtually as close to each other as Clapham North and Clapham High Street, but unlike them are not marked as a "walking distance interchange"; and so on. It may very well be that the two Balham stations are as close as can be without being regarded as a single unit, but the dividing line has to be drawn somewhere. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal opinion on the merge is neutral [opinion changed: see below], but the editors who shouted at Mr Thant claiming that it's Wikipedia policy that articles should not be merged without discussion are clearly misinformed. In fact, the policy states that:

Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed. If you think merging something improves the encyclopedia, you can be bold and perform the merge, as described below. Because of this, it makes little sense to object to a merge purely on procedural grounds, e.g. "you cannot do that without discussion" is not a good argument.

If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted, and as with all other edits, edit wars should be avoided. If you are uncertain of the merger's appropriateness, or believe it might be controversial, or your merge ends up reverted, you can propose it on either or both of the affected pages.

I fail to see how this merger is controversial: after all, as has been pointed out there are several other co-located tube and railway stations covered in single articles, so bringing this one in line with that practice should not pose a problem, and there is nothing in policy which requires an editor not to carry out a merger without discussion, if they think it improves the encyclopaedia. On the other hand, petty squabbling and selectively quoting bits of policy and taking them out of context to suit one's own ends most certainly does not improve the encyclopaedia. --RFBailey (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge because if you don't have to go outside to move from the National Rail to Underground sections of a station, then it is the same complex. Kings Cross St Pancras isn't a useful rebuttal, because the Tube station serves 2 (or 3, maybe 4 depending on how you count) National Rail stations. JonoP (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

No merge because two different entrances to two different transportation systems, eventhough they are connected together underground. If this had one entrance, like London Bridge station and Wimbledon station, both with both transportation logos on the front of the facility, then merge the two. Bradford interchange has both logos on the entrance sign post for both rail and bus, thus should be a combined article. Compare the two again: Balham tube station and Balham railway station... thus separate articles. Balham station article should be a disambig page stating the connection and directing the wiki-reader to each one. LanceBarber (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I went down there today and took this picture. The three buildings shown are hollowed out inside and if you walk through the entrance nearest us, you can turn left to catch a train or turn right down some stairs to get the tube. The stations simply are not separate, despite external appearances. --Mr Thant (talk) 00:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear oh dear. Some of the arguments here are descending into farce (e.g. which logos are on the front of which building; how many metres apart the entrances are, etc.). Both situations (single articles and split articles) exist to describe co-located stations. In some situations, there are good reasons for a single article (e.g. Richmond, Kentish Town); in other situations (e.g. King's Cross St. Pancras) there are valid reasons for splitting. In this instance, I can't see that it matters one way or the other: as Mr Thant's photo shows, the two are clearly as co-located as possible without actually being the same station, but as others point out, they're separately owned and operated (as demonstrated in the photo by the separate signs on the buildings).

Consequently, this whole, sorry incident should never have happened. True, there wasn't a pressing need for Mr Thant to perform the merger, but it certainly wasn't "nonsensical". Conversely there wasn't any pressing need for the merge to be reverted, and certainly not after only 37 minutes [1]. Either situation should have been OK. As far as I can tell, Mr Thant was acting in good faith and did not violate any policies (see the paragraphs I posted above): as I stated earlier, this shouldn't have been a controversial issue. This incident emphasises all that is bad about editing Wikipedia. --RFBailey (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I also decided to actually edit the article and expand it, rather than just argue about it! (If some of the Balham locals in this debate would like to see what I've done and comment on it, that would be more welcome than more silly "to split or not to split" arguments.) --RFBailey (talk) 02:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr Thant, the tube station consists of two building on either side of Balham High Road, your picture omitting the one on the west side. Each has two entrances directly onto the street, and only one has a connection to the rail station, but this is as far as "integration" goes. Presumably you also looked into rail station, with its prominent poster about the lack of Oyster issue there, which is a more apt reflection of the latter. Nick Cooper (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Whereas your photos (this and especially this) could be said to be deliberately obscuring the fact that there is a station of the other type anywhere nearby! Sounds like kettle calling pot black to me. Also, the posters you describe are present at all stations where Oyster is unavailable, even those without an underground interchange, such as Hornsey, so that's yet another red herring. --RFBailey (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the photos I added were composed so that they would be fit for their intended purpose, i.e. illustrating what the subjects of the two pages look like. After all, the photos on most station pages - whether rail or Underground - only show the subject in question, not conspicuously what happens to be either side of it. It would, of course, be difficult - if not impossible - to produce a picture that includes both of tube station entrances, plus the rail station, though perhaps an editor with a particularly wide-angle lens for their camera can manage it.

As regards the "no-Oyster" poster in the railway station ticket hall, it is never a good thing to be so admanat in an opinion based on thinking you know what somebody else saw. It is not the standard type to which you refer, but rather an ad hoc one, presumably produced by the railway station staff fed up with pointing out one particular aspect of the obvious lack of integration between the two stations, which, incidentally, the Land Registry certainly regards as separate properties. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the poster: I can see why the station staff would have to resort to such a thing. However, as regards being adamant about things which turn out to be false (e.g. policy interpretations), kettle appears to be calling pot black again. Besides, if you're not going to be specific, what are readers supposed to think you meant? I think my conclusion was reasonable.

Regarding the Land Registry, no-one in this discussion has ever doubted that: in fact, if you read my recent edits [2][3], you'll see that the article describes this very fact. But that's not the point. They're still next to each other. Just because they're legally separate entities doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to have a single article describing both in context. Why have two short, stubby articles which have to link to each other and duplicate information (that the station is on Balham High Road, in Balham, in Wandsworth, in London, in Zone 3, and there is another station next door) and a duplicate image (the "adjacent stations" photo).

Taking all these factors into account, and having actually done some work on editing the article, I'm now firmly of the opinion that a Merge is the right thing to do here. With some work, I believe that a this merged article can be made into something of a decent standard (e.g. by adding a bit more on the history of the LB&SCR station, a bit more on current operations, and some more photos), whereas two separate articles will, once the duplicate information has been accounted for, always be rather short. If some people with more local knowledge than me (I'm afraid I'm unable to visit Balham any time soon) want to help by adding detail to the article rather than arguing, that would be beneficial. --RFBailey (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but as regards the comment of mine you are so keen to highlight, I would draw your attention to the second paragraph of your own above quoting of merger practice recommendations, namely that which urges a disputed or reverted merge should be properly proposed/discussed. Mr Thant chose to revert again, rather than do this, which ultimately led us to where we are here. Not to put too fine a point, which what you quoted does offer justification for unproposed merges, it also acknowledges that any subsequent dispute should be handled in a way that Mr Thant chose not to. So what exactly are you saying? That rules only apply to the editors you - it seems now - disagree with?

Not at all. The revert war was unfortunate, but there are always two sides to every revert war, and both are culpable. Don't forget, you reverted first, and reverted what was a good-faith edit. While you did then start this discussion, you didn't need to revert to do that. --RFBailey (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the poster, I was specific, in that I said it was about, "the lack of Oyster issue there" (re-emphasis), not "usage" as per the posters you seem to be referring to. Just to avoid any further confusion, it's here. I would also suggest that your claim about "duplicate amterial" is a bit of a red herring, since each page separately contains far more than be be described as such. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the photo; I'm afraid I misinterpreted your use of the word "issue", taking it to mean "situation"/"matter"/"problem" rather than "sale" (if you'd have said "issuing" I'd have known what you meant). Regardless, at other stations with separate ticket offices, such as Finsbury Park, there are often similar (if less striking) signs up, for instance on display in the ticket windows. That such a poster is necessary is presumably a consequence of the stations being adjacent and interconnected. --RFBailey (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, but broader in scope, is this discussion which I have started at WT:RAIL. --RFBailey (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any consensus? Simply south (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick headcount above shows a 4-4 draw, which would suggest maintaining the status quo, i.e. separate articles. Nick Cooper (talk) 00:50, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's clear consensus on this page for interchange stations to havea single article, so that's what I've gone with. Another pointless edit war coming up, I imagine. --Mr Thant (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you look at exactly who said what more carefully. On this page, those who opposed the merge were:

Myself

Tony Sidaway

DavidCane

LanceBarber

Those who supported it:

Yourself

Regan123

RFBailey

JonoP

On the RAIL Talk Page, opposers were:

Ed Jogg

Tkynerd

Supporters were:

RFBailey (again)

iridescent

Unisouth

Regan123 (again)

In other words, six unique opposers and six unique supporters. That's a clear non-consensus. Nick Cooper (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

To borrow an appropriate phrase, that's six of one and half a dozen of the other. There does not appear to be a consensus either way (although WP:VOTE is relevant here). So, now that the merge has happened, there is no consensus for undoing it either. The duplication of content is also now resolved: we no longer have information about the tube station in both Balham tube station and Balham station, and likewise for the railway station. (And yes, I know that could also have been resolved by making Balham station into a disambiguation page.)

But will the two of you stop edit-warring! --RFBailey (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that Mr Thant has now reinstated his spuriously-argued (i.e. claiming a consensus where clealry none exists) redirects of both separate pages to this one. Clearly there is one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us. Nick Cooper (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no consensus either way: that is, there is not a clear consensus in favour of his preferred version, but by the same argument there is not a clear consensus in favour of your preferred version either. Therefore, as I said before, there is no consensus for undoing the merge. It's not about "one rule for him and one rule for the rest of us". The rule is that no user should engage in edit wars, whether that be you, me, him or anybody else. And while there is a single article covering both stations, there is nothing spurious about having the redirects. --RFBailey (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I said "supiuously-'argued", i.e. claiming a consensus as justification, and then - when it was clearly pointed out that there was no such consensus, flippantly saying, "argue what you like mate". The very fact that he didn'ty have the common decency to properly respond to my post above clearly showning that the consensus he claims simply does not exist speaks volumes. Time and time again Mr Thant has ignored requests - from various quarters - to wait to see where opinion lies, and time and time again he has gone ahead anyway. One can only presume that he hopes that blind persitence will eventually wear objectors down, or else that he hoped to sneak his changes through once attention has drifted away. Are these the sort of unethical and underhand practices Wikipedia should be condoning?

As it is, this joint page is far from ideal. The infobox is a mess, with details misleadingly jumbled up, while the NR station section has been superfluously padded with detail to compete with the LU station part, while the latter hasn't. There are two paragraphs effectively saying little more than "this is where the station is on the line". The worst example is, "Although on a north-south route, the tracks pass through Balham on an approximately east-west axis, with Victoria towards the west." This is about as useful as waffling on about how many stops the LU station is from Morden, or that despite it being on the "Northern" line it is actually in South London, and other such pointless waffle. The simple fact is that the distinctions between the two stations are clear, and that worthwhile detail on the LU station dwarfs the NR one. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So what you mean really is that the merge was spurious, not the redirects, I think. I do not for a second condone Mr Thant's edit-warring, and in fact my first thought when I saw he'd merged them was "oh no". What I'd rather do is try and get the merged article, now that the merge has happened, up to a decent standard, and I think you should put your prejudices aside and do the same, for the sake of the encyclopaedia, rather than throwing around accusations (whether justified or not) of "unethical and underhand practices". Regardless of that, his original merge several weeks ago was intended as a good faith edit, and everyone needs to recognise that.

I don't think it's a case of "superfluously [padding] with detail" either. If you don't like it, why not rewrite it in a manner you find more acceptable, without removing any descriptive information. (I'm no vain enough to believe that every paragraph I write is perfect!) "Where the station is on the line" seems a perfectly reasonable and encyclopaedic piece of information to me. I originally wrote that paragraph, not to compete with the tube station, but to add relevant material that was previously missing.

If there is "more worthwhile detail" about the LU station, then write about it! Finally, if it's your opinion that the tube station is more interesting, then fine, but remember the neutral point of view policy. --RFBailey (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that at almost every step Mr Thant has shifted the goal posts continuously, and seems to be assuming that doggedly pushing his viewpoint will prevail because everyone else will demonstrate the restraint and manners that he has singularly failed to. His initial rationale for the merge was erroneous, being based on a self-evident unfamiliarity with the station itself, but when this was pointed out, he simply changed his reasoning. Most recently he claimed a consensus that didn't exist as justification, and responding - when this was explained to him - with a flippant "argue what you like mate". Is this the sort of pig-headed and ignorant behave we should tolerate on Wikipedia?

As to the page as it stands now, yes "where the (railway) station is on the line" is valid information, but that's what the line boxes are for, and the current text does stand out as padding, especially when you compare it to the (admittedly wildly differently formatted) pages for the stations either side of it. The main info box is also misleading, as I have pointed out above. I'll leave someone more interested in the former to deal with that, but I'll address the latter, as well as some other mis-leading formatting. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Underground station platforms

I have again removed the graphic that claims the Underground station has an "island platform," which is demonstrably false. There are two separately-bored platform tunnels, with cross-passageways and the lower escalator landing - not to mention the escalators/starir themselves - inbetween. The definition at Island platform states it is "a single platform" between the lines, which is obvious what we see at Clapham North and Clapham Common (and formerly Stockwell & Angel), but not at Balham. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spurious account of 1940 bombing

A claim was added at the end of July that (in the edit summary) the "main cause" of the mass casualties in the 1940 bombing was (in the article text) "in a stampede to try and get out of the underground station." This is simply false. Having researched this incident extensively, all contemporary official documentation confirms that the vast majority of casualties were due to suffocation from the earth/slurry that entered the platform tunnel or drowning from the ingress of water. It was also the case that buried bodies were still being recovered in early December, some two months after the bombing.

The cited source for these spurious claims is here, and while published by a generally reliable source (i.e. the BBC), it is clearly the personal testimony of someone who lived in Balham at the time, but was not actually a direct witness to the station bombing. I can only assume that the story of a stampede is a localised rumour/myth, and so have deleted it from the article. Nick Cooper (talk) 13:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Billy's Blitz

Do we really need a citation for Mitchelhill's book featuring the bombing of the station? It clearly does, given that reviews mention it, and in fact she was giving reading at the station for local schoolchildren during the commemoration events on Wednesday. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

We need something, otherwise it's just a random mention; preferably a reliable third-party source and not a blog. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)