Talk:Dublin–Navan railway line

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains Low‑importance

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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Dublin-Navan railway line.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Drogheda-Navan railway line.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dublin–Navan railway line. 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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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) 09:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Merged

I propose to merge the limited content (not already covered here) from the Navan Central railway station and Navan North railway station and Navan East railway station articles to this title. And to redirect each of these three titles to the Dublin–Navan_railway_line#Extension_to_Navan section.

I propose this because, each of these three articles cover effectively the same content as we already have in this article. Namely, each effectively states that:

There are no existing passenger stations serving Navan (the previous having closed in the 1950s)
The second phase of the 2005 Transport 21 plan was never implmented
The second phase of the plan may never be implemented
None of the subjects exist (or may ever exist)

Each of these three articles therefore stand only as:

CFORKs of the relevant section in this article (which states the exact same thing)
Holders of consistently out-of-date, factually dubious and speculative content
A burden on editors (to keep them up-to-date and aligned with each other and this "hub")
Entirely useless time-sucks for any reader
Examples of why we have WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL and related guidelines (That each of these articles confidently claimed a decade ago that each would be built/operational by 2015, and then IMMEDIATELY made mockery by reality is testament to this).

If each subject ever does become reality (some time in the next 20 years perhaps), then they can easily be split back out again. In the meantime they are more trouble than they are worth. And near perfect fits for the WP:MERGEREASON guideline (in that none of the three can exist without the context provided in the equivalent section here, each effectively duplicates that section, and none can be expanded beyond the short text that is required to do that). As, and I cannot say this enough, there's only so much that can be written about something that doesn't exist.

Unless there are other thoughts, I'll be making this change in short order. Guliolopez (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. If there are no other thoughts on this, I'll likely move ahead with the merge/redirect in the coming days. Guliolopez (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved As there were no other thoughts offered (since I opened this thread last month), I've gone ahead with the merge/redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]