Talk:Stations in West Hampstead

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
====Survey - Support votes====
====Survey - Oppose votes====
# Oppose - the 'railway station' suffix is as near-universal as makes no difference, and even if the stations are to be knocked together, there will still be separate entries for the three former stations. Maybe turn 'West Hampstead railway station' into a disambig page with redirects to four separate pages (the two BR stations, the LUL station and the proposed union station)?  Iridescent 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Oppose - the 'railway station' suffix is as near-universal as makes no difference, and even if the stations are to be knocked together, there will still be separate entries for the three former stations. Maybe turn 'West Hampstead railway station' into a disambig page with redirects to four separate pages (the two BR stations, the LUL station and the proposed union station)?  Iridescent 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - Oppose votes

message: Understanding this article would be helped with a map, plan or diagram of the station(s), and a  link to allow readers to find maps and satellite images of it/them. --Scott Davis Talk 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a go at drawing one today.  Unfortunately, my drawing skills are somewhat lacking, so it might look a bit amateurish!  Hassocks5489 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Finally remembered to upload it and add it today.  Hassocks5489 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map or plan

message: I find the current arrangement of this article describing three stations in one as pretty confusing and I'd suspect that our readers might feel the same. Therefore,  I am going to split these with an article remaining at this title providing an introduction with links to the appropriate articles. Adambro (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split 

message: Each of the three (not the "many" used somewhere in this talk) stations has its own article, refering as fit to the others, so there seems little point in retaining this article. A careful transfer of information from this to the others would render it quite redundant.--SilasW (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article acts as summary of the stations in the area as well as the proposal for the interchange. It just needs expanding. Other examples of article covering other stations include Stations around Shepherd's Bush and Wootton Bassett railway stations. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not see justification for "area" station articles just because the stations' names have a common element. Here changing names to "West Hampstead" seems to have been an attempt at emphasising the convenient proximity, in contrast to the original owners' trying to brand each station distinctively. Why not allow stations articles for every LBoro or county or ......? Each of the three WHampstead sta articles refers to the others and mentions the interchange proposal, since yesterday not in the same words, but maybe that uniformity will be attained by tomorrow. Of the two examples mentioned, Stations around Shepherd's Bush deals more justifiably with an areal and temporal mish-mash of stations and re-namings, while Wootton Bassett railway stations has the common theme of extinction.--SilasW (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO the article stands well on its own as a focus for the description of the stations for the following reasons: they have the common theme of similar names with geographical proximity but they still have operational and geographical distinctions (disambiguation purpose); the names have changed over the years with similar variants based on the name West End (disambiguation purpose again); and there is a common theme of the WH Interchange development proposals which would otherwise have to be described in triplicate in each of the separate station articles. It's better to have this detailed in one place. So I do not support deleting this article as it has its own merits. I have given the article a bit of work to bring it up to a more informative standard comparable to the  Shepherd's Bush article, and I hope everyone likes the updates.Cnbrb (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that this proposal is dead and the amount of new homes in this area now prohibits this development to occur (there are things in the way now!) - I was thinking of recommending this page to be consolidated/deleted - or at the very least, cut down substantially. However, I then read this talk page - where these peeps above point out the "Stations around Shepherd's Bush" article - which deals with a complicated geographic spread of various different stations very well - and provides excellent context. Given then the substantial upgrade to the London Overground station and the new Thameslink station building - I therefore propose a rewrite of this article in that regard - with a section on the former Chiltern Railways proposal, of course. Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   with that.Keep for historical context - this is an article about an abandoned proposal. There are, after all, quite a lot of them and they make interesting reading.  Cnbrb (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay - so I rewrote the page to be similar to the Stations around Shepherd's Bush article - discussing all three stations, while keeping info regarding the historic proposal. Name change time? Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Moved article. Turini2 (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article now not needed?