Jump to content

Talk:Camerton railway station (Cumberland)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closure date[edit]

I have amended the closure date for passengers to 3 March 1952 as per "Passengers No More" by G.Daniels and L.Dench. The line through the station remained open until 1966.[[Steamybrian2 (talk) 11:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)]][reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camerton (LNWR) railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 February 2018[edit]

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: moved. There is a clear consensus that this title should be discarded and a fair consensus to move this article to Camerton railway station (Cumberland). ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  21:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camerton (LNWR) railway station → ? – The article was recently moved by Amakuru to Camerton railway station (Cumbria) to avoid the deprecated mid-phrase parentheses as per WP:UKSTATION. It was reverted by Mjroots, presumably on the basis that the station predated the modern county of Cumbria and was in Cumberland during its existence; by that argument the article should be at Camerton railway station (Cumberland). Unlike\ many other defunct stations that have been preserved as historic buildings, it's unclear from the article whether this station still exists. At any rate, it needs to move away from the deprecated title. Please weigh in on whether the title should be Camerton railway station (Cumbria) or Camerton railway station (Cumberland). This'll be a test case; I'll add a note to WP:UKSTATION whichever way it goes. Cúchullain t/c 15:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Camerton railway station (Cumbria), especially if the building still exists, as for better or worse it's now in Cumbria and that'll be more recognizable to present-day readers. Otherwise I have no strong opinion so long as it moves to the standard parenthetical format per WP:UKSTATION.--Cúchullain t/c 15:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Camerton railway station (Cumbria) per Cuchullain. As noted, I originally moved the article there as part of my work of gradually moving over all stations to conform to the new guidelines following the RFC in the autumn. There are a few competing issues at play here, namely:
    1. In general, we should only be disambiguating a station by line name if there are two or more stations named identically in the same locality. Typically this only happens for disused stations, as the current National Rail set of stations doesn't have any duplicate names in a single town AFAIK. This is not the case here. The station is competing with one in Somerset, not with another in Cumbria.
    2. Where it has been necessary to disambiguate by line name, I have generally been moving to a disambiguator which spells out the name in full. I think this is better for WP:RECOGNIZE reasons, as the abbreviations are generally a bit meaningless, unless they're very well known ones like GWR. Furthermore, I have been moving them to have parentheses at the end instead of in the middle, because that was the preference expressed in the RFC. Thus *if* we were going to keep this as disambiguated by line (and I don't think we need to), it would be better IMHO to move it to either Camerton railway station (Cockermouth and Workington Railway) or Camerton railway station (London and North Western Railway). The RFC didn't expressly decide what to do about these cases, so if there's controversy about this, then perhaps a fresh RFC may be needed for this.
    3. On the historical county vs modern county question I personally agree with Cuchullain. We should stick to modern counties throughout. Counties have always been a fluid thing, as boundaries move and things are created and abolished. A station which survived for 100 years could have been in several different counties in its lifetime. Using the modern ceremonial county where the geographical location of the station is now situated is unambiguous, and again the most likely to be recognizable. Certainly referring to it as Cumbria can leave no doubt as to which station is meant, given that the other one was in Somerset, and that's the point of a disambiguator. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PS - just to be clear, although the "Cumbria" version is my preferred target, to give us a consistent rule as to how we apply the county logic across all stations (i.e. use current boundaries throughout, to avoid arguments about which county the thing was in at which time), if there is no consensus specifically for my preferred target, I would still favour moving away from the current target. In decreasing order of preference I would probably say any of the following are better than the current title:
Further information: WT:UKT § Another problematic station move

STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE to moving the article to a "Cumbria" disambiguator. We DO NOT REWRITE HISTORY. The station was never in Cumbria. No objection to using "Cumberland" as a disambiguator. Mjroots (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per Mjroots. @Amakuru: I don't want to single you out particularly, but this thing about "Counties have always been a fluid thing, as boundaries move and things are created and abolished" is just not true. Local government and political areas change, sure (otherwise we'd still have rotten boroughs like Old Sarum) but the geographical parts of Britain do not change unless you're talking about things like the The Fens being drained in the 17th century. What constitutes a "county" has got incredibly complicated and tainted with personal and political views - ask someone from Wolverhampton which county they live in and you'll get two different answers, because, incredibly, large amounts of Wulfrunians absolutely detest being even suggested they're part of some Birmingham suburb! The historic county of Cumberland still exists for geographical purposes. The ceremonial county of Cumberland, used for local government purposes, existed from 1889 to 1974, so it covers the principal time period of Camerton railway station. The ceremonial county of Cumbria post-dates the station, so to say there was ever a Camerton railway station in Cumbria is factually incorrect. "We should stick to modern counties throughout" - yes, for contemporary entries (and partly because the ceremonial counties that the locals all stuck two fingers up at, such as Avon and Humberside have long since been scrapped). If the station re-opens, then at least the move would have a title reflected in reality. Keeping it on the original railway line avoids this entire argument and hence the most uncontroversial thing you could do. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333: is that a !vote for Camerton railway station (Cumberland)?--Cúchullain t/c 19:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: what do you mean it's false? You've pretty much said the same thing as I have. The physical nature of the country hasn't changed much, and we can still pinpoint exactly on the map where a historic station used to be, with coordinates, but exactly which county that location was or is in is certainly fluid. See Historic_counties_of_England. Dudley, for example, has been in Worcestershire, Staffordshire at different points in time, and is now in the West Midlands. I just think if we open historic stations up to being assocaited with historic counties, that creates more ambiguiuty than using the modern equivalents. And to be clear, the modern Ceremonial counties of England, which is the definition used by most sources, are not ambiguous at all, even if some people who live in those counties would rather be associated with their historic county. I have no objection to being singled out, by the way, it's all a good debate and I'm happy to hear opinions other than my own... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Amakuru. And far from reducing confusion, (LNWR) is much more confusing than using either county name.--Cúchullain t/c 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP disambiguation with mid-name LNWR presumably reflects the former real-life disambiguation of Workington LNWR (on the same line) from Workington Central, but otherwise would seem indefensible, even with LNWR moved to the end. Disambiguation with the founding company is stable and unambiguous provided the railway name is not abbreviated or otherwise made obscure, but was never required historically and general policy would therefore surely point to geographcal disambiguation. The stationmaster's house is still standing, and today undoubtedly stands in Cumbria: if the station is to be thought of as a place, then the current county might be the more appropriate disambiguator, but would it not then be hard to resist the argument for comma disambiguation (Camerton railway station, Cumbria)as a 'small place'? If it is to be thought of as a branch of a business, then all records (maps etc.) relating to activities at the station will have been generated whilst it was in Cumberland (the OS County Series of maps don't have any designated 'Cumbria'). There would also seem to be some logical inconsistency if disambiguation by company uses the company at the time of a station opening, but disambiguation by county does not use the county at the time of a station opening (which is actually more stable than its current county).
As regards readers being confused by 'Cumberland' how much evidence is there of that? Cumbrians are used to the equivalence from an early age; many are brought into the world at the Cumberland Infirmary at Carlisle or the West Cumberland Hospital at Whitehaven. Using the modern county name definitely has its problems - there is continuing evidence of non-locals failing to grasp that Cumbria/Cumbrian are not the same as Cambria/Cambrian. Rjccumbria (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I imagine more readers will be recognize the name that's presently used in signs, news reports, etc. I'd heard of "Cumbria" long before I'd ever heard of "Cumberland".--Cúchullain t/c 17:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have massive objections to 'Cumbria' (my only strong objections are to disambiguation by the initials of minor companies lost in the mists of time), but there are no current signs, news reports etc relating to Camerton railway station; when there were, if they had mentioned a county, it would have been 'Cumberland'. I would therefore expect railway buffs to have no real problem; as noted above I don't think locals would find the leap from Cumbria to Cumberland that daunting. I am not sure who else would be interested (you don't go to or past the station site by accident, and Camerton is not a tourist hotspot). Rjccumbria (talk) 14:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your points are fair but I do want to point out that there will be some people not from the area reading this. For instance, I'm the one who proposed the move, and I'm from Florida, and have never been closer to Camerton than Glasgow. As a geographical signifier "Cumbria" would be a lot more recognizable to someone like me as the name currently in use.--Cúchullain t/c 16:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Camerton railway station (Cumberland). I was going to close this discussion in favor of such a move as the least objected option, but I thought it might be more useful to enunciate the reasoning for that as a !vote, to help the next potential closer along. It has been pointed out that this railway station was literally never in Cumbria, and it seems more encyclopedic to have an accurate title over a popular title. In any case, redirects are cheap, so as long as the "Cumbria" title points to a "Cumberland" title, and the situation is explained in the article, there should be no confusion. bd2412 T 02:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @BD2412: but the purpose of the disambiguator is to identify the location of the station; where it is in the world. That is Cumbria, not Cumberland, since there is no such county as Cumberland. The category is Category:Disused railway stations in Cumbria. Disambiguating by counties that don't exist any more creates a needless ambiguity in my opinion, as you have to identify a particular year to use, rather than the present one, and the station also ends up with a different county name than extant stations on the same line. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if that were the case, Anshan (Persia) would be at Anshan (Iran). The purpose of a disambiguator is to distinguish subjects from otherwise identically named subjects. Since the redirect from the "(Cumbria)" title will remain, anyone searching that way will find what they are looking for. bd2412 T 01:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed out several times now, the station and Cumbria never existed at the same time. Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to either Camerton railway station (Cumberland) or Camerton railway station (Cumbria), with a redirect from the other of course. Both are acceptable IMO, they each disambiguate perfectly from the other entries at Camerton railway station and I cannot see what the fuss is about. It seems to be philosophy rather than reader benefit. Let us flip a coin and get back to more useful pursuits. Andrewa (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Camerton_railway_station_(Cumberland)&oldid=1200566073"