This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Do we include world wide publicity about this station or not?
On 2 March2006 this station received world wide publicity as being the subject of the one millionth Wikipedia article. [1]WAS 4.250 16:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
(another edit conflict) If that was actually true then Wikipedia wouldn't exist. What it means is no self-references in the format of saying something like, "This information was first posted to Wikipedia in January" or "Wikipedia has other articles on this topic ..." If something notable happens that involves Wikipedia then of course it is encyclopedic. See John Seigenthaler Sr.'s page. --Cyde Weys 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I say we do. This media attention is more notable than the actual station itself. Or at least, it appears that way to me, a Wikipedian. It might to be different for other people. We do tend to have an inflated view of how important Wikipedia is. --Cyde Weys 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It's on the talk page, which I think is sufficient. I wouldn't call the zdnet article worldwide publicity. On Google news, I find eight news stories, mainly from British tech websites. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If the story gets picked up by more broadly by the "worldwide" media, then I might change my mind. -Aude (talk | contribs) 16:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Wait until news stories on at least 4 continents, in 4 languages, all of which in print or television, or by print or television organizations. Then we should reevaluate the situation. -- user:zanimum
No. People who find this page because of the publicity already know, and others are unlikely to find this page in the first place. --Chrissi 16:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
People who find the sky page already know the sky is blue. We still tell them. -- user:zanimum
Over time it enough news articles will refer to the station in the context of this Wikipedia article that we'll really have to mention it within the article itself. Babajobu 18:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Add a single sentence about it Wikipedia has become notable itself. So when wikipedia reaches a millionth article it's okay to add a little sentence saying it's number 1 million. It won't hurt anything.--God Ω War 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
How's about this? Once there is actual plans to commemorate the edit (with a ceremony, with a plaque, whatever), then we can add ourselves in, as there will be a real world event that happened at the station. -- user:zanimum
Johntex: I think there are two questions here.
The first is what is Wikipedia policy. Some people have cited Wikipedia:Avoid self-references to say that we cannot mention Wikipedia in an article about this. I believe that view is incorrect. Part of the policy states, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important. ... If, however, you read about online communities, the article may well discuss Wikipedia as an example, in a neutral tone, without specifically implying that the article in question is being read on — or is a part of — Wikipedia." In other words, the context is key. For this article about a relatively minor train station, if/when one of the more notable things about it is the fact that it was Wikipedia's one millionth article, then we can and should put that into the article.
The second is whether it is actually notable to the article. I know some people here urge us to wait until there is a major news story published, or until there is some sort of visit by Jimbo, etc. This is worthwhile advice. We should not allow ourselves to get too full of ourselves, to think that we have had some sort of impact on the fame of this railway station. I just googled "Jordanhill railway station", and this article is not in the top 30 hits yet. On the other hand, it being our millionth article is arguably more notable than a guy getting accidentally killed at the station in 1898 - which is already in the article.
The bottom line is that policy allows and even *promotes* us to include a notable fact about Wikipedia when it makes sense. Determining that time point is up to us as an editorial decision. Johntex\talk 20:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Scotland's The Herald now has an expanded article discussing the Jordanhill station: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/57331.html -- I would suggest this demonstrates the noteworthiness of mentioning the article's connection to Wikipedia. Ironically, the WP article about The Herald (Glasgow) self-references Wikipedia in noting the purchase-based archival policy of the newspaper. --LeflymanTalk 02:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Talk page reference is sufficient. savidan(talk)(e@) 09:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
People... don't forget that the publicity has nothing to do with the station. By all means, it is notable information on articles such as Wikipedia, but to write it here would be akin to mentioning Ken Livingstone on the article on concentration camps. BigBlueFish 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
(moved from below) An additional clarification: a number of editors have cited "Avoid self reference" -- apparently failing to note that 1) it is not a strict policy, but a guideline, which "are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception"; 2) it does not say "No self reference" but "avoid"; 3) it specifically refers to those self-references which break forks or mirror versions of an article, not those which discuss notable matters connected to Wikipedia; 4) it says, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important," and goes on to explain that a neutral reference is acceptable if it "makes sense on a mirror or a fork, makes sense in print, and makes sense in a copy of Wikipedia which contains only the article space." --LeflymanTalk 05:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make the comparison with John Seigenthaler, Sr.. Seigenthaler was personally involved directly with the controversy. Jordanhill railway station just existed and therefore merited encyclopdic documentation. BigBlueFish 16:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The parallel is that an off-line subject became connected to Wikipedia by virtue of being on Wikipedia. The article for Mr. Seigenthaler and the Jordanhill station have received disproportionate attention both from within and outside the WP community, specifically because of the notice given them by the press. That in and of itself is notable, verifiable and worth a mention. Failure to write about the press coverage because of some phobia against "self-reference" is like ignoring the elephant in the room: there's only one reason 99.9% of the editors are here, and that's because this is the millionth article, not because the Jordanhill Railway Station is a fascinating world landmark. —LeflymanTalk 04:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What could have been perceived as acts of libel on quite a concerning level is a considerably more notable event on Wikipedia than the millionth article. Make a comparison of press coverage you keep referring to and I think you'll find that to the nearest word, the amount of media coverage of the two events are more or less proportional to the amount of coverage given to the article (i.e. there were hundreds of times more articles about the Seigenthaler scandal compared to those about Wikipedia's millionth article that mentioned Jordanhill railway station. As such there are a few hundred words written on the former and not a word on the latter). I would also contend that there has not been significant media coverage which focuses on the fact that Jordanhill railway station was the millionth article in question. The closest I've seen so far is this Scottish newspaper article which, if you click "next item" on the navigation, is followed by this one on the Scottish Legal Complaints Commission, which has yet to get an article at all. BigBlueFish 17:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Straw Poll for Millionth article ref
See Discussion one heading up.
Support
(neutral sentence saying this is the millonth article)
--Johntex\talk 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Absolutely - please see my reasoning one section above.
The notability of the connection that this particular article has to Wikipedia is self-evident. It's not self-referential to point out something that has been picked up by news media around the world. --LeflymanTalk 02:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia is notable. KI 03:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
- It should probably be stated like this - "The station became something of an internet phenomenon on March 1, 2006 by becoming the millionth article of wikipedia. Ewan Macdonald, a wikipedia contributor and resident of Glasgow, started the artlicle. "I must confess, along with many others I timed my contributions tonight to give me a chance at being the lucky one." Macdonald stated on his wikipedia user page. --HamedogTalk|@ 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty trivial but it's in the local news, like the other information in the article all of which is also quite trivial. Haukur 21:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Downplay but mentionPhr 23:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC) For example, make a "trivia" section in the article and mention it there. Many Wikipedia articles have trivia sections for mentioning things that are interesting but not really important. The article is somewhat anomalous because of its extreme detail compared with other articles about similarly minor topics, and some kind of explanation for the anomaly is needed.
Support per Melchoir. Clarinetplayer 23:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
TemporarySupport. I think that, for the moment and next few months, it is clearly relevant to the article. After the furor dies down, the no-self-reference argument will become much stronger, and the mention should stay on the talk page. -- stillnotelfhas a talk page 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Support per KI, Melchior, Hamedog, etc. Wikipedia is notable, and so are Slashdot, ZDNet, and other sources that made the station briefly but notably famous for being the subject of the article. Also, please make sure you correctly understand the self-reference policy (as many, but not all, of the opposers seem to), which does not apply as long as we talk only about "the Wikipedia article about the station" instead of "this article". –Sommers(Talk) 10:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's show a little class. Markyour words 23:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Or, as I heard someone else put it, let's not hump our own leg. IF someday there's a Wiki plaque and a ceremony, and a marching band.... maybe.JDoorjamTalk 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh geez, don't suggest a marching band... one more thing people are going to want! -- user:zanimum
Let's keep in mind our goal: make good articles. Celebrations are not part of any article's content:)--Angelo 01:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see it as a celebration though. I see it as part of telling the story of this train station, and therefore part of making a good article - which is, as you say, our goal. Johntex\talk 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's probably best to wait until something regarding Wikipedia happens there physically, such as a plaque. If that happens, it should definately be in the article (it would be the most notable thing to happen at the station, plus we even have a picture of the ticket machine!). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
People dying is pretty notable, so is the fact they may build a new station. -- user:zanimum
The idea of mentioning that this is the one millionth article is absurd. This article, despite its fame for being created at an arbitrary point in time, is about the railway station. Stating this article is the millionth on the article page serves no purpose but to toot our horn over something that really is irrelevant to the topic in question. joturner 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Tagging the article with a "millionth article" banner might be absurd, but mentioning as a fact that the railway station is the subject of a notable article is not absurd. It is no more absurd that noting at Samuel Youngs that he served as inspiration for Ichabod Crane. Johntex\talk 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If CNN or the Sydney Morning Herald ran a news story about the station and saying it's now famous becase of this Wikipedia article, then I'd be in favour of a millionth-article reference in the article. The story in today's Glasgow Herald isn't really enough (because that story is more about Wikipedia than the station). Having such self-references in articles could be carried to absurd extremes and I very much doubt other encyclopaedias would do similar self-references. Examples: does the last article in the current Encyclopaedia Britannica mention that it is "the last article in the current Encyclopaedia Britannica"? Does the shortest article in Encarta mention that it is "the shortest article in Encarta"? --A bit iffy 08:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
By referencing a newspaper article named "Suburban station secures its place in internet history", I really doubt we'd open up the floodgates to such absurdities. Melchoir 09:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You have a point, Melchoir. Perhaps a link that story could be included in the external links section --A bit iffy 09:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
On the talk page: fine. In the article: no. In twenty years' time, do we want "2 millionth article!" "13 millionth article!" scattered about the place like year-old confetti? Telsa(talk) 09:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree with the above arguments. Being the subject of the one millionth article in Wikipedia is not really a notable fact about Jordanhill railway station itself, but rather about Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind the fact being mentioned in the article named "Wikipedia" or any other references about the user-editable online encyclopedia. -- MSchmahl 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. I agree that such a statement is self-referential. Erath 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose: Unecessary self-ref. It's on the talk page. It doesnt need to be in the article. savidan(talk)(e@) 09:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose per comment above. PS what happened to proper ordered lists? ;) BigBlueFish 16:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Fixed numbering. JDoorjamTalk 19:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oppose No real significance. Self aggandizing. ike9898 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Phr 07:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (vote changed) Maybe the station will become a famous tourist destination now, like Penny Lane (formerly an uninteresting street in Liverpool).
Wait a week or two and ask me again. --James S. 20:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
When we have the plaque there and can put a pic of it on the article! - David Gerard 12:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Add disclaimer: maybe the note should be added in the form of a disclaimer, which is appropriate at this point given how the article has grown. E.g. "As Wikipedia's one millionth article, Jordanhill Railway Station has received unusually careful editorial attention given its subject matter." Phr 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good article status
This article now meets all the criteria for Good article status, except stability. When the flurry of edits dies down, it should be promoted to GA status. ike9898 17:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't stability only apply to vandalism or does it apply to just any time when it's being edited really fast? Homestarmy 18:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the primary thing of concern is edit wars. Not an issue with this article, but I'd still say that with ~500 edits in the less the 24 hours since it has been created, this article is not stable. But, if you want to list it as a GA, do it, I won't object.
It also applies to NPOV debates. -Aude (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, GA was one of my first thoughts when I saw the article today, but stability is a concern. I'd say give it a week to let the dust settle and we'll look at it again and then (probably) add it to the list. Slambo(Speak) 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I just added this, but someone delisted it with good reason: it not stable enough. I sort of disagree with relying TOO much on stability, since this is a popular article, and it meets all the other criteria. Deckiller 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Well now that there is an edit war over whether or not to a Wikipedia self reference in the article, the article needs to stay off the GA list. But give it three days and people will find something new to fight about! ike9898 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What does this mean?
In the last sentence of the History section "through a £ 300 million transport legacy plan". What is a trasport legacy plan? Can someone who understand either link this phase to a relevant article, or add a few words of explanation, or replace TLP with a more generic phrase that more people will recognize? ike9898 17:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
If they get the games, the government will pay extra money to its directly affected departments, in hopes of creating a "legacy" directly linkable to the games. The phrase is footnoted, with a link to the article. -- user:zanimum
FA nom?
Wow! Look at all the work done on this in less than a day!
Does anyone want to make the FA nomination? Daniel Case 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
See GA discussion above. ike9898 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
handicap accessability
This article could use more info on the handicap accessability of the station. It already mentions a ramp, but I think that not all ramps are designed to be easy to navigate in a wheelchair. In the US, we have standards for such things, (I'm no expert) and they must comply with the Americans with disabilities act. Is there a UK equivalent? Does this station conform? ike9898 17:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The Disability Discrimination Act includes many such provisions. Nonetheless, stations in Glasgow are not Tokyoite: this is just a platform on the line. --Zhengfu 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The Disability Discrimination Act deals with 'access' issues.
What is "Tokyoite"? ike9898 18:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Like a Tokyo train station, perhaps. -- user:zanimum
Is that "like a Tokyo train station" as in having lots of stairs, and hence hard to access for people with walking difficulties? Or "like a Tokyo train station" as in having elevators, stair lifts and staff assistance for people in wheelchairs? Or simple "like a Tokyo train station" as in handling thousands or millions of passengers a day? --203.222.161.178 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
IPA
How is "Jordanhill railway station" actually pronounced in the local dialect? --HappyCamper 18:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
"Jordanhill station", simply. --Zhengfu 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I do wonder: how is the h pronounced? Melchoir 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I assume that you are not having problems with the words "railway" or "station" - although I could attempt to give you the proper Glasgow PatterIPA version, it is not really that important.
"Jordanhill" is easy: "Jordan" plus "hill", but just make sure that you run them together: it is one word, and Scots pronounce it as oneword.--Mais oui! 19:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
So an approximation of the pronunciation would be "Jordunul"? —Cuiviénen(Cuivië) 22:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
JoerdunHULL in a strong West of Scotland accent, but just saying Jordan Hill (in a typical US English) accent would be understood by absolutely anyone. It's not like Milngavie (Mul-GUY) at all; it's just pronounced the way it appears. Nach0king 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Local shout outs
Shout out here if you live near this station...and tell you world how good/bad it is. I think it does the job...although platform 2 could be improved and more trains from Queen Street would be nice! Ksyme99 19:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not, unless you can prove so with factual, verifiable information. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- user:zanimum
Apologies, I was just curious as to how many other people who read this use this station. It would be rpetty interesting, since I use it everyday, and you never know, I might meet someone there who uses this. If, however, it is "not allowed" just delete it. Ksyme99
I used to go to school in the area, and used the station. I'm quite amazed that this has gotten such a high profile; it's weird to see it on wiki, let alone as the millionth article. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
What is the address of the local government authority?
For those of us who wish to petition the government to place a commemorative plaque at the station, and for those of us who might want to donate to the fund for such a plaque should the authorities agree to install it, to whom do we write? --James S. 19:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Please do not contact authorities individually. The Foundation should be the only one to contact the authorities, so that we can ensure the request is properly done, the first time around. Otherwise, it'll just come off as if we're insane people from other countries. Remember, this is a website wanting a plaque in an unmanned train stop. It's a little weird on first glance. Those who support the Foundation pursuing a plaque may express their belief on this page. -- user:zanimum
To the contrary. Suppose you are a minor official and some outfit you never heard of says the want to spam your piece of the world and not even pay you for addvertizing themself in your space? "Bug off bloke!" Now imagine you are a minor official and you gets tons of e-mail and regular mail from individuals all over the world saying your little nothing station is world wide famous and can we please put up a plaque saying so in the over-enthusiastic way typical of true-believers? Why, tell your boss for sure! This is over your pay grade. Whatever is going on is big enough you could get fired if you mishandle what could be a feather in your boss's cap. WAS 4.250 11:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Commons
Should the Commons entries be at "Jordanhill railway station" (different capitalisation). I know this should technically go at Commons, but I'm guessing I'd get a very slow response there... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
strange
It's strange and a little disturbing how much this article gets improved for being "the millionth article". I really wish the millionth article had been Culture of Mozambique, since nobody seems to care about Africa here unless it would be something like this. --Revoluciónhablarver 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should mention that; I'm currently rewriting the article on Lagos (Nigeria) and have asked the African noticeboard for help, as the only information I can find on some topics (e.g. Crime) is almost wholly from the perspective of ex-pats from Western nations that have visited/lived in Lagos. Add the Mozambique cultural article and I'll do what I can to help. I have two books - one travelogue, one anthropological - that contain sections on Mozambique. Nach0king 00:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this a good representative page?
For thousands of people over the next few days, this page is going to be their first view of Wikipedia. The question is, is this a good representation of the site as a whole? I have no objection to the subject of the article, but it is much longer than any of the other articles in the railway station series. It is obviously so developed because of the attention it has received, but when people look at other similar articles, they'll see a bunch of stubs. Granted, everyone of those stubs could be expanded like this one, but frankly that is not going to happen for a long time. I know people have a desire for the milionth article to be flashy and wonderful, but it runs the risk of looking like a false front, or perhaps a bait and switch... I'm not going to shorten the article, because I think that it'll probably be reverted, but I offer this as food for thought: what is better a long, extensively researched article that stands above a sea of stubs, or a shorter article that more honestly represents the current state of the project? Brian Schlosser42 21:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable point, but what is your suggested plan of action? Perform a coverup a day in, and say a completely different article was 1M, or strip all of the research from this article, and make it a stub like it's brothers? We simply have to live with this. It's out of our control. -- user:zanimum
2 things: A) i think this article is just a bit too long, but, for a high-publicity piece like this, its not such a bad thing. I do think at the top of the page there should be a line saying that this is wikipedia's one-millionth article. Theonlyedge 21:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree all three of the above postings. It is a non-representative view, but we can't punish this article or undo history because of it. That doesn't mean we have to live with the impression that the media might get, however, we can be pro-active. For example, we could update the press release to provide informaion about how the article has grown from a stub, and say that this is an accelerated example of what naturally happens to many articles. We could also cite rapidly developed articles such as the Indian Ocean Tsunami, the Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, the cartoon controversy, etc. Another idea: Instead of having the one-million article link from the front page point to this article, it could point to a Meta landing page, with info about the process of building this article, a link to the press release, and of course a link to the article itself. Johntex\talk 21:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think it's hilarious - but not in a bad way. Look - the article obviously overrepresents the subject - but that's the strength and weakness of Wikipedia. People write about their interests and that which is focused upon. This looks like a run of the mill small-suburban railwaystation - and people are so devoted to the subject that they post pictures and do serious research. It's great! Celcius 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It is a run of the mill small-suburban railway station. David | Talk 22:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a beautiful explanation of how Wikipedia works somewhat on the flash mob model; an article gets attention (be it AfD, copyvio, mention in a WikiProject, or becoming a Featured Article), and suddenly that article becomes the focus of brownian motion Wikipedians who land there and make helpful edits (or even not-so-helpful, sometimes). Things get worked on that people want to work on - what better way to explain how a free encyclopedia works? -- nae'blis(talk) 21:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think the article is a great example of two things: 1) How an article started as a stub can be expanded into something much better (there really is nothing unique about Jordanhill station), 2) Collaborative editing works. So many contributors have added little bits and made a very comprehensive article. David | Talk 22:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I could not agree more with David's second point. Nach0king 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree entirely - this article is like the poster child for the beautiful thing that is consensus, collaborative editing. Is there anyone who doesn't look at this article and think, "Wow, someday all the articles in the Wikipedia could be this good?" -ikkyu2 (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I have the same problem with this article. We're better putting resources where they're needed rather than trying to make something fabulous out of a minor topic as a marketing tactic. It's not like people won't notice the ruse the minute they hit random article and get something like... Prey for maria, as I just rolled. Sarge Baldy 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Pictures
Looking through this article, i realized that its really a good piece of writing. But the pictures, and their captions, are so specific its funny. "The automated ticket machine", or "the sign at the front", are really not very important issues. If possible, could someone with access to better, more representational pics put them on the article's page? We want the best millionth article possible. Nice job to everyone whose made it such a good article so quickly. Theonlyedge 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: As I said earlier, there should be one line at the top of the article saying that it is the one millionth. And, does anyone no the other landmark articles? Thanks.
If a reference is to be added, it should be added into the article about Wikipedia
That this article is the millionth article is a notable bit of information about Wikipedia—so mention it at the Wikipedia article. That Wikipedia's millionth article is about this station is not a notable facet of the history of this station. It's a notable facet of the history of the article about this station. The argument has been made that there's been significant press coverage about this station, but again, that's false. I've read eight, nine articles about the 1,000,000th article, and none of them are about the station, they're about the article, and about how much this article means for Wikipedia. That's more than just semantics. When I see stories in Scottish Rail Monthly or whatever that talk about the size of the station and its geographical/historical significance, and about how the station has been affected by the article written about it, then this article's numbering should be mentioned in the article itself. But so far, the buzz is only worth writing about in the Wikipedia article, or in a hypothetical meta-Article about Jordanhill railway station article... which no one should write. (I know, whoops, WP:BEANS.) JDoorjamTalk 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless one is to propose a "Millionth Wikipedia article to write about the meta-information, then the fact of this article being the millionth is the only thing truly notable about this particular inner-city train station. If it were not for that, there would be no interest in this subject. Its status of connection to Wikipedia, which has been noted by the press, is worth a mention in and of itself. That's not "self-referential", just as it's not self-referential for the John Seigenthaler, Sr. article to have a section on the "Wikipedia controversy".--LeflymanTalk 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can put something on Slashdot. Scottish Rail Monthly is not real. Most of the articles are based directly off the press release. Three of the articles are syndicated within a computer magazine company. Not Yet. If major real life newspapers mention it, then maybe. If Wikimedia does eventually have something to commemorate the article, yes, as it becomes part of the geography. (Otherwise, stop wasting space everyone.) -- user:zanimum
Please don't refer to arguments with which you disagree as a waste of space. Johntex\talk 01:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, second late-night (yes, 8:30 EST is late), you're actually defending its exclusion. Oy, I should stop skimming. -- user:zanimum
I'd say that, so far, there hasn't been sufficient "real-world" interest in the Wikipedia connection with this station to merit any major coverage here. This can possibly change; if and when there's actually a ceremony and a plaque installed there, as has been proposed, this would probably deserve a mention. *Dan T.* 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Woot, see "Local press" a few sections down. Melchoir 06:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Tried to start "Jordanhill station" on the Latin Wikipedia
On http://la.wikipedia.org, I tried to start "Mons Iordanus constituo", which hopefully translates correctly to Jordanhill Station, but even after creating an account, there was no way to start a new article. Since I can't seem to, can someone who is able to, create an article about this station on the Latin Wikipedia please? --Shultz III 01:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've just created it for you ab initio :) Strange that the la: software doesn't give you the option of creating a new article when you search for a non-existent article. I just created a link to it from la:Disputatio:Glasgovia, which seemed a logical place to start! -- Arwel (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I make them, I leave it to other people to build on them. I'm just a stupid American, so, yeah.~Captain Kevles
JOR
I've changed abbreviated "JOR," to (code "JOR") because JOR appears to be National Rail's code for the station, and the word "abbreviated" might imply that the station is popularly known as "JOR". --A bit iffy 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I came to the talk page just now to mention that news item, but I've been scooped! I was against mentioning Wikipedia before, but I think this is enough. Who agrees? Melchoir 06:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent. Let's keep out self-references until next Thursday, so it can go a week without them. By that time there may be many more to choose from, worth a new section. --James S. 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Puhleeze. My college newspaper has more readership and they reference wikipedia all the time. Are we going to have a selfref every time a newspaper of this caliber or higher says anything about us. People editing this page need to calm down. savidan(talk)(e@) 09:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree. It seems to me that people are loosing contact with the real world out there, the real world that is supposed to be topic of Wikipedia articles, and instead they are starting to make articles about what's happening in Wikipedia. -Samulili 10:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, this is enough. Haukur 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me propse again. Four continents mentioning the article itself in the actual press, on television or radio, then we consider. -- user:zanimum
Again, this is an article about Wikipedia and not an article about the station. Once this being the millionth article actually physically changes something about the station, whether in surges of people making pilgrimages, or a plaque, or a ceremony with a marching band (we're getting a marching band, zanimum ;) ) then it will have something to do with the station, IMO. JDoorjamTalk 16:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe it has already generated enough press to deserve a mention in the article. The fact that Wikipedia's one millionth article was written about this station is more important to history than the fact that some poor, otherwise non-notable guy got hit by a train and died over a 100 years ago, a fact which is already in the article. Johntex\talk 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me respond to some of the points given by those who disagree with adding it:
No, the website known as Wikipedia has not physically affected the station. But a truly encyclopedic article is not just about its subject! A perfect article also describes human reactions, attitudes, quotes, and references towards its subject. For example:
Today's FA, Triumph of the Will, has a section named "Influences and legacy".
The previous article, Zion National Park, has no information about references to the park, but it should.
The previous article, Paul Kane, has a section named "Legacy and influence".
Yagan: "Alas Poor Yagan", "Yagan's statue", "Literature and film", "Other cultural references"
The material I've just listed had no direct effect on the physical thing or event being described. Nonetheless, those sections enrich their articles, and the articles that do not have such sections are poorer because of it.
To the importance of the references: Glasgow's The Herald already appears twice in the References section. There is no indication that those stories garnered international attention in multiple languages. International attention would be great, of course, but it is clearly not a prerequisite to including material here.
To show class; avoiding leg-humping, horn-blowing, self-aggrandizing self-references: I have no doubt that we can mention Wikipedia in an NPOV fashion. I also have no doubt that some editors will get carried away, but they can be kept under control. Let us not give up without trying.
Against slippery slope arguments: If every millionth article mentions Wikipedia while citing published references, including at least two general-interest local newpapers and a dozen internet tech magazines, I will be okay with that.
Unnecessary because it's on the talk page?: Our goal is to write encyclopedic articles, not encyclopedic talk pages.
It's seems people can't agree about the inclusion of the geographical coords. I added them now, however, i'm not really happy with them at that place. However, the information and the links shouldn'nt be thrown away i think:
removing the coords is just throwing away VERY usefull information and very usefull links
adding the coords in the normal text paragraphs however doesn't look that good and is a bit over the top
LimoWreck, my apologies: I hadn't noticed you'd commented here before I moved the info. back to the "Notes and references" section. However, I do actually agree with you: coordinates don't seem to look right in normal prose. Also, I do like the way the German and Portuguese Wikipedias have handled this. Anybody else agree? If so, how do we go about achieving this? --A bit iffy 12:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem, they're fine in the notes section, didn't really like them in the text too. However, there are indeed other solutions ;-) --LimoWreck 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Protection
Why is this page protected and yet no notice is put on it saying that it is protected? To new users, that makes it seem as if Wikipedia is not openly editable. Or am I missing something? Ronline✉ 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyone is sick of the frequent vandalism we have. We have almost 999,000 articles for them to edit. It is protected, a tag is placed at the article. Think most people know why. --Terence Ong 12:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is still linked to the main page (DYK). It should not be protected and has been now for the last 9 hours. I have unprotected it. Lets see how it goes. NoSeptembertalk 13:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've just removed the "VANDALISM OF THIS "MILLIONTH" article is reverted within seconds." notice that was at the top of the article (though hidden). This article isn't getting much vandalism now, and anyway I think such a notice would only encourage it (as actually happened at 07:56 UTC today). --A bit iffy 10:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Errr...thinking about my remarks above, perhaps someone will say that there isn't much vandalism now because of the notice. But I still don't think the notice is necessary anyway. --A bit iffy 10:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I think such a notice would only encourage it Kinda like WP:BEANS. I agree with you. - L1AM (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Appearances
Wikipedians who are Glaswegians, has Jordanhill station been mentioned in any novels set in Glasgow, i.e. "White Rage " by Armstrong Campbell or shown in some of the movies filmed in Glasgow, i.e. "Shallow Grave" or "Trainspotting". I think only those who live there can answer this one, but should be added to the article if true. Iwalters 13:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Who keeps removing this from Nearby attractions? Its ten minutes walk away, and I inline cited. By the way, I'm going to bed after this, so don't expect a reply for atleast 9 hours... --HamedogTalk|@ 15:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
As a regular attender at Firhill living near the station - Firhill's almost 4 miles from Jordanhill Station - Anniesland, Kelvindale, Hyndland, Partick - they're all closer. The Glasgow Warriors have played at Old Anniesland this season, and that's only 10 minutes walk. Frasernm 16:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
One match there accourding to this [1].Sorry, I was reading a page about Old Anniesland, which is ten minutes walk, not Firhill! Any way, we need a page for Old Anniesland, and need to expand New Anniesland. Maybe some people from Glasgow can help? --HamedogTalk|@ 00:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Gaelic, Anglo-Saxon translations?
Anyone hear speak those languages? Love to have translations of the article for those Wikipedias. BTW, there are at least two diff. dialects of Gaelic, make sure you have the right one. -- user:zanimum
I speak a bit of Scots Gaelic(still learning), but I don't feel comfortable doing the translation. I have asked a fluent speaker over on gd if he would mind doing it. — orioneight(talk) 17:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Scots Gaelic: Steisean Cnoc Iòrdain
Great, would you be willing to translate even just a few sentences of the actual article? -- user:zanimum
let's have Wikimania there
Last year's was in Germany and this year's is in the USA, but why not Jordanhill for 2007? (OK, Wikimania is too big, but some kind of wikipedian gathering in the Jordanhill area would be pretty cool.) Phr 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You bet, I'd go. Aye! --James S. 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Glasgow itself is a pretty big city, and Wikimania could be held there, with photo ops and a gathering at the station as part of the itinerary. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not have it in Glasgow? The station does serve that metro area. As part of the event, you can have people travel to the station or something similar. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 20:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikimedia UK is heading up a UK bid or two for Wikimania 2007. I'm unsure of the locale, but I believe it wasn't in Scotland. However, if anyone from this organization was reading, they could also include Glasgow as a possible bid. Note that no matter how "cool" it may be for any one particular place, bids are judged primarily on venues, host city infrastructure, and Wikipedian proximiety. Glasgow is near equal with other possible bids, but it won't get instant bonus marks from the organizers. -- user:zanimum
That is an inherent problem with having a UK organisation: if one of the key criteria is "Wikipedian proximity" then the so-called Wikimedia "UK" will become a de facto Wikimedia "England": no venue in Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland would have a hope in hell.
Now, if we had a Wikimedia Scotland... --Mais oui! 14:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Let me put two things up, see if they help clarify... by Wikipedian proximity, I mean "not Africa, parts of South America, much of the Far East, or Greenland". (Sorry to pick of anyone, of course.) Essentially is there a major air hub near there, accessible from most areas major air hubs of Europe and North America. Glasgow International Airport fits that bill, and is very close to being equal in accessiblity as Heathrow, etc. There is nothing that would prevent the panel of judges from awarding Glasgow with the bid.
Secondly, suppose the bid Wikimedia UK manages is for in England. Wikimedia UK members interested in a Glasgow bid could still seperately participate in a Glasgow bid, Brits that aren't members of Wikimedia UK could still help with a Glasgow bid, and people who live in Toledo and have never been in Europe before could still help organize a Glasgow bid. Wikimedia UK in no way hinders Wikimania bids. -- user:zanimum
Transport Scotland?
The station (code "JOR"), which is governed by Transport Scotland and managed by First ScotRail.... what is "governed by" supposed to mean? Like all UK railway stations it is owned by Network Rail; Transport Scotland is a Scottish Government agency responsible for co-ordinating transport services, but a reading of their website (linked from their article) shows they don't claim to have any day-to-day role in running stations. -- Arwel (talk) 10:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
What about this, hidden down at the bottom? I'm not a big fan of the self-ref idea, but this is relatively hidden. -- user:zanimum
Seems like a good compromise. — orioneight(talk) 17:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. It's relevant, and it gets the message into the main article without really making a big deal about it. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 17:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a start. The arguments against openly mentioning it are misguided, but I'm not going to win 'em all. Be bold and throw it in! Melchoir 19:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
The box doesn't mention the railway station at all. If I didn't know, I'd be at a complete loss as to why this wikinews article had been mentioned. Jordanhill railway station remains to attain notability for being Wikipedia's millionth article outside of Wikipedia at any rate. BigBlueFish 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen the "Local press" section above? Melchoir 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I have; have you seen my comment above? Glasgow local press is not notability. The next article link no longer works, though you can see from my post what it linked to, and you only have to look as far as the "In this section" to get the gist of the topics with which the Station shares column inches. Lorry drops huge block of ice on driver? Why isn't this in the article on Aberdeen? There are far more consequential things than these that are not written about on Wikipedia, so let's keep well out of our own backsides lest we turn into The Guardian. All this put aside, you still can't dodge the fact that the box is meaningless on its own. At a push I might accept a link to Suburban station secures its place in internet history in the External links, but even this would appear to be against current consensus per straw poll above. According to Catherine it may not be free much longer either. BigBlueFish 16:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Straw polls do not generate consensus. As for "Lorry drops huge block of ice on driver", if for some reason we already had an article on that lorry, then yes, that detail would belong in an encyclopedic article. And to quote myself, since no one has responded to this: "Glasgow's The Herald already appears twice in the References section. There is no indication that those stories garnered international attention in multiple languages. International attention would be great, of course, but it is clearly not a prerequisite to including material here." Do you disagree with that? Melchoir 17:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
A source's purpose can be to establish verifiability as well as notability. Conversely, something's notability is not entirely dependent on how much it has been written about. A lot of things about something like a railway station are notable because they affect the untold numbers of people who physically encounter the station every day. On the other hand, the millionth article is a concept that has been but talked about. As it has been said, things would be different if it were the site of a commemoration. As it stands now, I think we would in fact do well not to give it the benefit of any doubt, for the sake of not making Wikipedia look excessively introspective. I think that's a factor other people are also rightly considering. As for consensus, nothing generates consensus except discussion. Straw polls, however, demonstrate consensus, and are the best indication of what might happen if it was put to a formal vote. It's quite clear that currently, more people oppose the self-reference it than support it, and that is consensus. I think we are beginning to see where ends meet, but you have yet to mention the newsbox this section discusses. Do you still support it as an appropriate self-reference? BigBlueFish 18:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I have already argued why physicality is irrelevant, and that mentioning Wikipedia is not excessively introspective, in "Local press" above; perhaps you want to find one of my points to disagree with? Wikipedia:Straw polls do not even demonstrate a consensus, especially during ongoing discussion, and I am not aware of a mechanism for a "formal vote". As for the newsbox: it should be included, but not alone. It needs text to back it up. Melchoir 18:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that it was necessary for this to be an argument. I both agree and disagree with various points you have made, but I'll clarify what it is that I disagree with. For a start, if there is accompanying text then I see no need for the Wikinews box. That's what I call too much emphasis. Besides, the article it links to gives so little emphasis to the station that it is barely relevant. Citing the Herald as a source would be quite sufficient. Secondly, WP:STRAW polls are "just a tool for probing opinions". wikt:consensus is a "general wikt:agreement" and therefore a sharing of opinions. It follows (and this is why we conduct them) that straw polls are useful for probing the rough consensus. I emphasise that this why it would not be in the spirit of "being bold" to slap on the box, since there is clearly not consensus to do so. Now if other people support the addition of the link to External links then I too will support this line of approach. Anything in the main article space is just too much like something that happened in the existence of the station, which bar a couple of Wikipedians going to take photos just isn't the case. I'm sorry if I'm repeating already-discussed points; I just want it to be clear what we need to be aware of before making any reference to Wikipedia in this article. BigBlueFish 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Can you at least agree with me that it is completely standard practice, and common in many of our best articles, to include information on events that never affected the subject? Melchoir 20:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I do. With this kind of information, notability is vital though. Suppose, for example, that an in-joke about a famous politician propagated in a few schools in a neighbourhood, something like the Chuck Norris phenomenon but on a smaller scale. How far would it have to spread to become notable? The deciding factor is whether it affects a significant part of society's view of that person. Jordanhill railway station's fame simply hasn't reached that level. There are thousands of articles written in the UK local press every day on the scale of the ones we're using as references. There's no evidence of their impact, nor of any other real notability outside of the Wikipedia community. This rules out any serious commentary on it in this article. If it gets mentioned in the context of trivia or additional reading matter (i.e. an external link). The station is just not notable enough for its own trivia section, but the more I think about it the more I'm in favour of adding the Herald article to the external links. I think this would be an appropriate and pertinent reference, and quite sufficient for what it is. BigBlueFish 22:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
See, this is my whole problem. The station is not notable enough for just about anything; but as long as we're going to cover it we ought to be consistent. Isn't that only reasonable? Wikipedia doesn't need its own section; the story can go at the end of the History section, comfortably buried in the middle of the page, along with the other two Herald references. Melchoir 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
This calls for some wikiperspective. The station is used by some 500 people a day, and for many of these is probably the start and end of a commuting day. It has been referred to in literature, identified as part of the potential transport infrastructure for the 2014 Commonwealth games and the site of a fairly serious train crash. On the other hand, it had a minor part in the recognition of a fairly inconsequential landmark on an online encyclopedia by a community comprising of no more than 2500 editors with more than 100 edits. I don't think it's ready to consider this piece of trivia part of its history. It then becomes a question of the whole station's notability how much we can write about it. If it was more notable, then there might merit a trivia section of which this could be one part. It's a natural control that stops obscure articles becoming unnecessarily long. I continue to maintain that an external link is the only appropriate reference we can make. BigBlueFish 14:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
To stop obscure articles from becoming unnecessarily long, isn't it enough to demand a certain level of published coverage? Melchoir 21:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The spirit of WP:IAR is not to demand a certain level of anything for anything. The facts covered in the article are all referenced, and their notability in relation to the station is obvious by common sense. Coverage of the millionth article opens up another dimension on the subject, and unlike the actual history of the station requires serious consideration of its own notability before the article can be expanded like that. BigBlueFish 21:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I am not claiming such a demand is necessary; I claim it is sufficient. And what is obvious by common sense to you is starting to sound like POV to me. Many of us seem to think that Wikipedia is not notable in relation to the station or its history, and that's fine. But is it not POV to then enforce that opinion on the article, to say that this is the one story we're not going to cover? Melchoir 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as a story among many that isn't being included. It's significantly different; a complete change of tack in the article should it appear. That may be a POV, but not a POV about the train station, which is what Wikipedia policy strives against, but a POV about how the article should be edited, which when combined with similar editing POVs from the rest of the community becomes consensus. To consider Wikipedia as a notable influence on the station's history, on the other hand, is a serious POV held almost exclusively by certain members of the Wikipedia community. If people think that the station is notable to get a trivia section then I am willing to discuss that. An external link is most certainly useful. But until there is a party or a plaque at the station, I'm not buying into this contrived notability limited to the project, talk and project talk namespaces. BigBlueFish 09:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
(rewrap) (1) Can you think of any published story relating to the station that we haven't covered except this one? (2) It is absolutely POV to claim that Wikipedia is less notable than Campbell Armstrong. The fact that we are Wikipedia does not give us a pass on the NPOV policy when we come up. (3) The editors of the Herald and the Evening Times apparently hold the view that the station has made its mark on Internet history, and there is no evidence that they are Wikipedians. (4) "Contrived"? Are you wishing now that the Foundation had never made that press release, and the station hadn't received international attention? It's a little too late to change; let's not pretend it didn't happen. Melchoir 00:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it would be a good compromise and it's relevant, too... --SpletteTalk 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I was slightly concerned about what BigBlueFish said as well, which is that the box doesn't mention the railway station, and might confuse readers. Perhaps we should change it to read: "Wikinews has news related to: "Jordanhill railway station becomes one-millionth article on English Wikipedia" " ? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It's really a symptom of the fact that the WikiNews article is written to focus on Wikipedia, and it fails to even mention the two Glasgow articles that put the station in the headline. Melchoir 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Why an FAC?
It is no where near the standard require and doesn't really have much lenght compared to most FA's. --HamedogTalk|@ 12:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably should of gone to WP:GA first under self nom. --HamedogTalk|@ 12:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Lose the ticket machine picture?
It's too everyday and not specific to this station. Lose that picture, and you could make the other two bigger. --kingboyk 21:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I would agree. The other pictures are much more informative. ike9898 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The size of pictures in a gallery is a standard. All you would achieve by losing the ticket machine is removing the only bit of the station that actually functions, as opposed to merely existing. Besides, it is one of only ten such machines, and quite possibly of major interest to those who specialise in rail tickets. --Jumbo 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be a gallery, of course. It could be two freestanding pictures. OK on the ticket machine being unusual, perhaps the caption can reflect that. I'll take your word that there are folks who "specialise in rail tickets", one learns something new every day :) --kingboyk 02:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says there's only ten of the machines. And trust me, rail fans can specialise in the most arcane trivia. Nice blokes if you have a spare five minutes, but nevernevernever buy them a drink and ask them to show you their collection. They'll have the big items at home, but ticket stubs held close to their heart and of course their digital camera has all the good stuff loaded and they'll burn you a CD if you want... --Jumbo 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Almost as bad as planespotters, really. --Jumbo 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I removed this picture in preview, and was able to resize my browser a fair bit more without scrolling. The gallery does look lonely without a third picture though; we should either get a better picture or ditch the gallery. To be honest, it's not that picturesque a subject, and we have the commons link. How about we keep the first two pictures as floated thumbnails around the article? BigBlueFish 15:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Not that there aren't already enough eyes reviewing this page, but we might as well add a few more. -- user:zanimum
Generally speaking, I can't see TOO much, although it would be nice to get another image or two. Deckiller 23:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see some comparison of its importance relative to other train stations in Scotland as well as in/around Glasgow. For example: "In SRA's 2002/3 financial year, 85,861 people boarded trains at Jordanhill station, and 94,613 alighted." Does that make it the 4th-most-frequented railway station in the country, the 104th-most-frequented, or what? Andrew Levine 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Alighted? Why haven't they closed the station yet if people burst into flames there? Maybe it's because I'm not native English speaking, but maybe another word would be useful. - 131.211.210.15 08:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's a dorky word. I forget what I had originally wrote. What could replace it? "where people got off Scotrail"? -- user:zanimum
It's not dorky, just a little dialectic. How about "disembarked?" Same syllables, more letters. --James S. 19:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd say there's a couple of unecessary images in the article. I don't see the need for a mock-up of the rail totem at the station, for example, nor a photo of a very anonymous and typical ticket machine. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Consider the lack of replacements, I believe that's why they were in there. The ticket image could just go to the general Scotrail article, I guess. However, I personally support the sign illustration, it is like a logo for the station. -- user:zanimum
The gallery should go on Commons. Johnleemk | Talk 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a copy of the gallery in Commons. I think the intent was to let people discovering Wikipedia see more graphic content than normal. -- user:zanimum
In the "Nearby attractions" section, consider adding prose that describes the station's relationship with the attraction. For example, the school was opened near the station x years after it was built, the station is used by students from communityx going to the campus which is x km from the station, this makes it busy in the morning between 8 and 9 as it is serviced by more trains and so on. --maclean25 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, fair enough, but just make sure that the sentences thus created are grammatical and written in British English. The User above requested additional info, not just changing a list to prose and subtracting info, eg a link! Scottish universities have faculties, not departments, and the universities are never, never, ever called "schools" (although occasionally faculties may be called schools).--Mais oui! 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
This article could use some kind of infobox to help organize some of the information. Tarret 14:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we start to work on some of these suggestions? -- user:zanimum
WiFi
Is there free WiFi at the station? I searched for "WiFi" but couldn't find anything. --James S. 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
This is rampant speculation as I've never been there, but I wouldn't really expect a small unmanned station to have free WiFi? (And even in the large ones, you have to pay, in my experience.) -- Mithent 01:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Rampant speculation on my part as well, I'd be amazed if such a small station had wi-fi. However, the station could be located near someplace that is blasting out free wi-fi (a school or a park or...) If it is in range of wi-fi, it would be cool to host a wiki-meetup there. Attendees could sit and edit Wikipedia from "inside" our one-millionth article. (OK, from inside the topic illustrated by our one-millionth article) Johntex\talk 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
No WiFi at Jordanhill, I'm afraid: [2]Nach0king 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that info about there being no wifi from the national rail service. However, it is still possible there is some spillover from a nearby internet cafe or office or house or something. Wifi signals generally don't understand property boundaries very well. Johntex\talk 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says "The station is five stops and eleven minutes journey time from Glasgow Central." My question is, on which line? The station is on "the Argyle Line and the North Clyde Line" - can you take either line to Glasgow Central and get there in the same time and same number of stops? Johntex\talk 01:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
The station isn't actually "served" by the North Clyde Line; it's on the line but NCL trains don't stop there. I'll clarify that sentence. Nach0king 13:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This link?
Has anyone seen this link? That and the main page have a lot of detailed information, and a good non-copyrighted pic that could be stolen. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, some wonderful photos of the station here. The site is a goldmine! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hope you enjoyed your wikibreak, Calgacus. Yes, that's a great site (sorry to say, someone else had discovered it as the site is referred to in the references section). Anyway, I've added a link to one of their photos to the external links section. Also: which pic do you reckon is non-copyrighted? --A bit iffy 11:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it's [3] (from 1913). TZMT (de:T) 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ugly footnotes
This article is a good example of why footnotes are worse than in-line parentheticals in a hypertext-enabled presentation. Skipping over parentheticals is much easier than scrolling back-and-forth, up and down several screenlengths. --James S. 06:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to scroll up and down, the footnotes have anchor links from the text down to the footnote and then back up to the text again. If you want to glance at a footnote one click will take you there and then a second click takes you back where you came from. Bryan 08:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So? That's still two more clicks than it takes to scan past a parenthetical, or about fifty times the calories, I'm estimating. Footnotes are terribly inefficient. --James S. 08:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
So if you mean "two clicks" don't say "scrolling back-and-forth, up and down several screenlengths" instead - those words describe two very dissimilar activities. Arguing against footnotes by complaining they make you scroll up and down over several screen lengths to read them is disingenuous when you're not actually having to scroll up and down to read them. Bryan 08:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
For those who want to skip any in-line parentheticals, they have to move their eyes down to find the end of the parenthesis. It's also ugly in the text as a whole. I estimate the ugliness factor contributing to a loss of 100 calories and the finding-the-end-of-parenthesis-factor to be a loss of another 100 or so calories, so it is therefore very inefficient. 50 DKP minus! FranksValli 01:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
commemorative (blue) plaque
One day there shall be a plaque at the station commemorating it being the subject of the millionth article.... – Kaihsu 22:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
First Scotrail has now installed more Scheidt & Bachmann Ticket XPress machines at Scottish stations, following the success of the initial batch of 10 (including the Jordanhill one). When I next get the chance to check my definitive list of machine locations, I will update the two references on here with the correct number. (Not to mention getting round to writing the Scheidt & Bachmann Ticket XPress article, as part of my "British railway ticket machines (computerised)" project!)
--Hassocks5489 12:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
List of S&B machines checked; there are 37 at 26 different First Scotrail stations. Will update article accordingly now.
Electrification (Blue Train) Logo on Crow Road Bridge
Up until the early 1980's, the station name sign on the Crow Road bridge had the logo that was developed when the Blue Trains - Class 303 - were introduced. A picture of this would add to the article.
Three minutes later [(11:06, 25 November 2006) User:Geni (Talk | contribs), cf. history] removed it with the edit summary "rv that isn't significant."
There is a banner near the top of this talk page proclaiming the very significance which the rv'er denied.
It is not mentioned on the article page. I think it should be. Because I do not wish to get into one of those notorious petty rv-scuffles with anyone, any time, anywhere, I dispute here that near-instantaneous removal and seek support for its inclusion, rather than restoring the section immediately. Athænara✉ 11:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
It's significant within the Wikipedia community, which is why it's prominently noted on the talk page, which is part of the community rather than directly part of the encyclopedia. However, when it comes to inclusion of such facts in the main article, this should be based on the significance of the facts to the world in general, not just to Wikipedians. Due to the recent prominence and popularity of Wikipedia, facts about it sometimes do meet such a standard of notability, meaning that a total ban on self-references wouldn't make sense; however, that doesn't mean that all trivia of interest to Wikipedians is automatically notable in articles not directly related to it. *Dan T.* 12:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Not only that, it has nothing to do with the station itself. If a notable plaque of the event manages to be placed at the station the plaque could be mentioned, but otherwise any mention of it being the million article should be at Jordanhill railway station (wikipedia article) Which would probably be deleted within minutes of creation anyway. EnsRedShirt 12:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the removal from the article text as that information is data about the article and not data about the station. Until we have meta tabs for article metadata, the talk page is the place for information about the article. Slambo(Speak) 17:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I would not have protested, even as mildly as I did, had Geni's removal not been so brusque, crude, and deliberately provocative:
Thank you, Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo, for addressing my concern so reasonably. –Æ. ✉ 23:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding inflammatory (which is not my goal), I see perfect justification for both of your points. The edit summary was factual, as it was removed due to insignifigance. Perhaps a better word would have been "relevant", as in "rv not relevant", but I think we can agree that irrelevant things are insignifigant to their topics. Secondly, time frames should not be seen as insults. Wikipedia moves very quickly. I personally do RC Patrol quite frequently, and those changes are made within seconds of the initial change. Three minutes would seem to indicate a fair deal of thought, or else someone watching over the article. Erich Blume 18:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
File:Pdnbtn.pngReply to Blume: As Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo clarified, significance is not in dispute. Three minutes indicate not thoughtfulness but reflexive retaliation. Weasel words and spin do not ameliorate insult. –Æ. ✉ 23:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Editors would be quite justified reverting the edit within seconds. There have been long discussions archived above which have already formed the consensus that the Wikipedia article should not be mentioned in the article. It is therefore a straightforward act of policy. Three minutes is enough to thoughtfully verify that there hasn't been any change to the situation. You can be excused for being unaware of this consensus (although I would have wondered why this hadn't been introduced to the article after eight months) but considering your knowledge of Wikipedia policy it would have been nice of you to have assumed good faith. BigBlueFish 09:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
As it would also have been had Geni courteously assumed the same and been factual in the edit summary (e.g., "rv, topic belongs on talk page"). I considered the matter closed after thanking Dan T, EnsRedShirt, and Slambo for their quite reasonable replies the same day, but some keep worrying at it anyway. –Æ. 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Arnt this crazy?
Do you guys think anyone in a right mind would type in "Jordanhill railway station" in search box of encyclopedia when they going to use Jordanhill station for first time or for any other reason? Very good article, but idea is sick. TestPilot 00:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You read it and even took the time to comment on it, so perhaps you're crazy along with the rest of us. :) Bryan 00:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
The appearance of Jordanhill station on Imagine seems notable enough to be included. The bloke who created the 1,000,000 article even got an interview! 172.142.252.56 00:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Per earlier discussions we've had about coverae related to the 1,000,000th article, most coverage (including this) is about Wikipedia predominantly, and the article about Jordanhill station secondarily; little of it has anything actually to do with the station itself.JDoorjamTalk 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Although, if this coverage has caused the station itself to be featured on TV, it might have enough notable relation to it to be featured. *Dan T.* 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the above point - if because of wikipedia someone is Interviewed on national tv about his views on Jordanhill railway station and the words jordanhill railway station therefore appears in The Times' TV guide then it seems notable enough for inclusion. If anyone saw the interview it was as much about the station as wikipedia! Francium12 16:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Move
Discussion closed
This article is being refered to Wikipedia:Requested moves, for changing to Jordanhill Railway Station. BlackBear 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't bother. "railway station" is not a proper noun. Chrischeesewhine 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, but the whole railway station together is a proper noun. What's the huge deal anyways? BlackBear 16:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I refer the honorable member to the answer I gave some moments ago. Either it is a proper noun, or it isn't. In the case of "railway station", it isn't. Chrischeesewhine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I realize the words railway station alone aren't proper nouns, but Jordanhill Railway Station is; it's the name of the whole place. BlackBear 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I just checked a few of the external links and the station was referred to as either "Jordanhill Station" or just "Jordanhill" (which would be disambiguated as Jordanhill (railway station), most likely). What sources call it "Jordanhill Railway Station"? Bryan Derksen 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The word "Station" there is a disambiguation tag. It is a railway station (common noun) called "Jordanhill". We add the words "railway station" to the title for context. Chrischeesewhine 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
PS - we've got a naming convention somewhere that says that in the case of UK stations, the article title is generally the station's name + "railway station" (lower case). Chrischeesewhine 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm only familiar with the global naming conventions. Changing the railway station naming convention to use parentheses as well would be better, IMO, since the MediaWiki software actually understands that the stuff in the parentheses is a disambiguation tag and allows for certain tricks to be done with it. You can use [[Jordanhill (railway station)|]] as shorthand to generate the link Jordanhill, for example. But either way, my point is that "railway station" isn't a part of Jordanhill's name according to the sources I looked at. Bryan Derksen 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Bryan, thanks for raising the point: I have long felt a bit uncomfortable with "railway station", without parentheses, as it feels inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. The naming convention Chris refers to above must be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), and in its Talk page User:JeremyA did suggest the same as you (Bryan) have just done. --A bit iffy 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think with parentheses looks the best, as without the parentheses currently looks a bit odd. BlackBear 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
(disindent) I'm surprised that Jordanhill (railway station) didn't already exist; I've redirected it here. So far as I can tell (without a trip to England), the station itself is just referred to as Jordanhill, so the parenthesized version probably should have been the title originally. Random titlecasing (capitalizing all the words) would seem to be wrong, though; I don't see any indication that "Railway Station" is part of a proper official title or name. Gavia immer(talk) 18:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
a trip to England won't do you much good, it is in Scotland. I think Jordanhill (railway station) is the best way to go. As you can see from the station signage it is called "Jordanhill", railway station is not part of its name. --cloudo 00:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgive my American imprecision. Gavia immer(talk) 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
We now have an inconsistency that I think should be resolved, as the convention that had been agreed on was to name all UK railway stations using "xxxx railway station". The discussion is on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Parentheses. --A bit iffy 06:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1,000,000th arcticle
Does anybody know that this is wikipedia's 1,000,000th acrticle besides me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inglewoodplz (talk • contribs) 21:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we all do, and this has been extensively discussed here. The archive links near the top of the page will take you to much more discussion on this topic. Slambo(Speak) 22:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Jordanhill" totem graphic
The graphic of the station totem on this article is pointless. All it says to me is "look at what I made, aren't I clever?". If it was a photograph of an actual totem in situ then fair enough, but this graphic adds nothing to the article. The style of lettering isn't even accurate. Why this article? Why that style of sign? Should all the station articles have a series of graphics illustrating different styles of name signs used through the ages? What was so special about the totem at Jordanhill station? Signalhead (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Its position in the history section could be filled with a photograph or map. The colour is way off compared to any photographs and real life examples I have seen of scottish totems. And when comparing it to photos the typeface is only a loose representation. If it was a photograph of an actual totem, even not in situe it would be ok to stay in lue of a better photo but as it currently is - a piss poor computer mock up - it adds nothing to the Jordanhill railway station article. Also the recently updated caption says it all for me "A representation of the style of rail-totem formerly displayed at Jordanhill station during the early BR years, in common with almost every other station on the network". --cloudo (talk) 21:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Well done
Just wanted to say how well this article has been written. I think it should be promoted to FA status in my opinion, and seeing as your last nomination happened last year, it is probably about time it was put forward again. ISD (talk) 20:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Million
Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? I'm going to add it with a source but feel free to revert me if you have a good point. Editorofthewiki (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There is a concensus not to include it apparently...although the number of people commenting on the talk page about it would suggest not 137.222.229.74 (talk) 10:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Ronline ✉ 12:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
![[3]](http://www.wsmclean.com/railways_files/image002.gif){kind=link}
