Talk:Newmarket railway station, Auckland

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

Merger of Newmarket South and Newmarket West Temporary Stations into this article[edit]

  • Agree with the proposal to merge Newmarket South and Newmarket West articles into this article. The stations are only temporary and will only exist for, at most, another year. It will also enable the correct spelling of Kingdon Street (not Kingdom) to be used. - Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with the proposal as there are from ATRA point of view both separate stations, spelling can be fixed - Palmeriain (talk) 09:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just saying, i was proposing as they are only temporary replacements and effectively the same station etc. The information can easily be incorporated into this article. - Simply south (talk) 11:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with merge. The inherent notability of railway stations has been questioned repeatedly on Wikipedia anyway, and the WP:NZR Manual of Style does not advise for (or against) the creation of most station articles. Temporary platforms certainly struggle to meet the notability criteria often advanced by those (including myself) who support the inclusion of stations on Wikipedia. Even more fundamentally, however, these temporary platforms are still essentially Newmarket Station. I feel that treating them to their own articles would be like making new articles for the separate suburban and regional sections of Melbourne's Spencer Street Station. I hope my phrasing of "temporary platforms" rather than "temporary stations" emphasises my point. There is no reason why they should be removed from the main article. If the article were considerably sizeable and needed to be divided into subarticles to make it more manageable for readers, then that would be one thing. But this is hardly a substantial article in the first place, and the articles on the temporary platforms are unlikely to ever progress far beyond being insignificant stubs about subjects of, at best, questionable notability. Hence I think merging them into this article makes the most sense. - Axver (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Axver, I note your points, these temporary platforms/stations from memory are within the Newmarket Station Limits on the S&I (Signalling and Interlocking) diagram for the area - Palmeriain (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with merge. I can't tell from the articles how long these stations were in existence, but it seems unlikely that there is enough information on each to make them notable separate from this main article.- gadfium 06:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided - Gadfium, the stations are about 6-12 months old, and will be there for 1-2 years more at least. As the articles are now, there is only a small benefit to having them. If they could be expanded, fine. Otherwise, merge them. - Ingolfson (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree - there IS inherent notability on Wikipedia for railway stations (as seen in many other countries) and a silly manual of style should not go trying to change it by the back door - if you want railway stations to not be inherently notable then start a proper proposal to do so. Although the stations might be temporary when they change then that is the time to change them back (and perhaps leave these as articles outlining historical stations that no longer exist - like some others that exist for the Auckland network). They serve different lines at the moment so leaving them as is is the best option for the moment. - JRG (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inherent notability of stations is still under debate and has not been firmly established. See WP:STATION for an attempt to establish some solid guidelines for notability. The "silly manual of style" isn't trying to change anything through the backdoor; your assertion is pretty hilarious given the MOS is neutral in the debate and does not advise for or against article creation.
  • Just because the platforms serve different lines is no reason to keep separate articles that likely cannot independently fulfill notability requirements. Hell, even if they can, User:Palmeriain rather crucially points out the platforms are still within the Newmarket Station Limits. Hence they are still part of Newmarket station, and despite being named for passenger informational purposes, they are just temporary platforms within an existing station rather than independent temporary stations. Thus the articles shoulod be merged into the main Newmarket article - Axver (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page you quote disputing notability of stations is someone's essay. It is not a policy page. Perhaps in New Zealand the notability of stations is under dispute, but everywhere else in the world stations are usually given their own page. I argued that we should leave the separate articles until the new station is built, then they can be merged into the new article as part of the history section. Alternatively, it could be argued that the station at present consists of two separate stations while the new station is being built. - JRG (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with merge. It's nothing to do with notability. After well over a year both articles are two-sentence stubs. Two sentences and an infobox does not make a worthwhile article. Nurg (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is surely now academic - the two temporary stations have been removed. --Lholden (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photo[edit]

Can we get a better photo than one of a train in the foreground blocking any decent image of the platform? Given the station has now been demolished a fair use image of the original station would be justified. JRG (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree. There is little pressing need for a photo of the old station, so we should instead hunt around for one that is available under an acceptable license.Ingolfson (talk) 06:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I think I actually have some, though they aren't necessarily great. I will check. Ingolfson (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded, see below. As I said, they aren't great sadly. Use if you see fit. Maybe at some later stage with an expanded article. Ingolfson (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Newmarket Railway Station, New Zealand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newmarket railway station, New Zealand. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Newmarket_railway_station,_Auckland&oldid=1204274462"