Talk:Newcastle railway station/Archive 1

message: I had to subst the  template in order to include an additional disclaimer that the usage statistics don't include the Tyne and Wear Metro.  I know this will make it a bit of a pain to edit, but it wasn't as bad as creating a completely new template!  (The same will only possibly be needed at Sunderland station and Heworth railway station.)  --RFBailey 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not be necessary as Central Station Metro station has its own article and is clearly indicated as such.DrFrench 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substituting {{tl|UK stations PTE}} 

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.
*Oppose but would support a move to Newcastle Central railway station. DrFrench 19:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I removed the sentence "Within the city it is commonly referred to as Central Station" from the opening paragraph, as I thought this was too obvious to be worth saying.  You wouldn't expect to see in the Manchester Piccadilly station article "Within the city it is commonly referred to as Piccadilly Station", as this would be fairly obvious.  If the station had a local name that wasn't obvious (e.g. if it was known as Dobson's station or the Grainger Town station) then that would be noteworthy.  DrFrench 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original edit was actually just "(commonly known as Central Station)" as I had in mind your previous comment about the local name being obvious, but RFBailey changed it to the sentence you removed.  What I meant was that Central Station is the common name for the station, whether it be used locally by itself or whether it be used elsewhere with the place name added (eg. Newcastle Central Station or Central Station, Newcastle), my meaning probably wasn't very clear though, hence the subsequent change.  Anyway, is obviousness really good grounds to remove something?  The Newcastle upon Tyne article states in its opening sentence "most usually shortened to Newcastle", isn't that rather obvious?  Or even the Leeds City railway station example given by yourself as a possible solution for this article - "frequently just called Leeds station" seems pretty obvious to me, why not remove that?  I just think that the article name is only Newcastle Central railway station so that it fits in with the proposed naming convention, otherwise it would almost certainly be called Newcastle Central Station - by far its most common name.  Even though its locally or commonly known name may seem obvious, stating it, just as a little clarifier, may help to avoid further disputes over the article's title in future. Dbam 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Leeds is both a good and a bad example.  As the Leeds City railway station article goes on to explain, in the past there were a number of main stations in the centre of Leeds (Wellington, Central, New and City) - with Leeds City being the only one remaining in use, the suffix has become somewhat redundant.  As for the main Newcastle upon Tyne page, just because something is not done in the best way in another article is no reason to copy it here - and even then (bearing in mind the number of places in the UK called Newcastle), the fact that most people would assume 'Newcastle upon Tyne' is being referred to when they hear 'Newcastle',  rather than any other place, is perhaps noteworthy.  However, despite all that (even though I feel it is redundant), I think the text that you orginally added "(commonly known as Central Station)" (without any bolding) is probably a reasonable compromise.  DrFrench 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since "(commonly known as Central Station)" has already been altered once for lack of clarity, it probably isn't much good at all.  I also agree that a "locally known as..." type edit is a bit pointless too.  So bearing in mind that this type of additional text isn't massively important to the article and isn't really worth elaborating on, we might as well just leave it out. Dbam 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph