# Talk:Richmond station (California)

This article was previously under Richmond Station, somebody moved it, apparently without consultation, I say that because I am the first one editing the discussion page, to Richmond (BART station). This article was previously moved to Richmond Station from Richmond(BART), as this is a multimodal station serving both Amtrak and BART it seems fair to say that Richmond Station is a better term, if there is no more discussion on the issue I will move it to Richmond Station on December 20. -- User:JVittes Dec. 17, 2005 17:17 (PST)

It looks like Richmond Station was turned into a disambiguation page. However, I still think this article should still be renamed because "BART station" still is not a good specific term. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
What about Richmond Station(California) or Richmond Station(Bay Area), we should try to get a few ideas for names, but that is all I can come up with aside from Richmond Station(BART and Amtrak). User:JVittes Dec. 17, 2005 18:13 (PST)
Richmond Station (California) is the shortest, most descriptive one I see for now. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
That is, until another "Richmond Station" is built or named in California... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any of the bus routes listed will ever have an article for it, I propose removing the wikilinks to them as they may be detracting from the page. --JVittes 05:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree they should be included.Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs 07:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal to merge Metro Walk to here is on the talk page for Metro Walk. See Talk:Metro Walk#Merge to Richmond Station  Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 20:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I changed the platform formatting to reflect the same formatting as all other BART stations, which show where the platform is located. 71.198.231.208 (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Zzyzx11: I removed the station layout for two reasons. First, it's simply redundant to three lines of prose (plus the s-rail templates in the infobox), yet takes up an entire screen. That's poor article design, and is an issue with the majority of these diagrams. Second, it's rather misleading. The UP tracks are not northbound/southbound/passing track; trains may be in either direction on either main. Notably, any train stopping at Berkeley will usually be on the eastern track (main 2) to avoid the 10mph crossover at CP Stege. The non-platform track is a low-speed siding and is not generally used by any passenger train. The passageway also goes the whole way under the tracks, perpendicular to the platforms, which is not what the diagram shows. If you want to improve the diagram I might not oppose re-adding it, but in its current form it is a net negative to the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. Maybe it could possibly be redone and split in the future, like you did on Oakland Coliseum station#Station layout ... but I now agree: only if there was more cited prose. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Mjdestroyerofworlds: What are you trying to do with the lede? It is already a summary of the cited information presented in the prose. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)