Talk:Jordanhill railway station/Archive 2

message: **See Discussion one heading up.
===Support ===
(neutral sentence saying this is the millonth article)
#--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw Poll for Millionth article ref 

message: (neutral sentence saying this is the millonth article)
#--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 22:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support 

message: (No Self Refs)
# David | Talk 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: # Deckiller 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: 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)
replies: text: See GA discussion above. ike9898 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA nom? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commons 

message: 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. --Revolución hablar ver 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  strange

message: 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)
replies: text: The 500,000th article was Involuntary settlements in the Soviet Union. This is marked on the talk page but not on the article itself. David | Talk 00:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title:  JOR 

message: "Suburban station secures its place in internet history", in The Herald (Glasgow) -- note access will only be free for a few days; they charge for access to their archives.  — Catherine\talk 06:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree, this is enough. Haukur 09:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  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. JDoorjam     Talk 16:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.
Well? Melchoir 21:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Local press

message: 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
Maybe more people can use this opportunity to look at , and find a solution like done in other wikipedia's:
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coords_on_top_as_extra_option_.3F_.28again.29
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Coords_on_top_as_extra_option_.3F
--LimoWreck 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Geo-coords 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: Small note: Shallow Grave and Trainspotting are set in Edinburgh, not Glasgow. --A bit iffy 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Were they indeed? Never knew that. Sorry, didn't play close enough attention to what you wrote! --A bit iffy 07:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearances

message: 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)
replies: text: One match there accourding to this .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)
thread_title:  [[Firhill Stadium]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Transport Scotland?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have you seen the "Local press" section above? Melchoir 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  I agree, it would be a good compromise and it's relevant, too... --Splette  Talk 15:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wikinews box a satisfactory medium? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Probably should of gone to WP:GA first under self nom. --HamedogTalk|@ 12:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why an FAC? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would agree. The other pictures are much more informative. ike9898 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Almost as bad as planespotters, really. --Jumbo 03:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Lose the ticket machine picture? 

message: Is there free WiFi at the station? I searched for "WiFi" but couldn't find anything. --James S. 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No WiFi at Jordanhill, I'm afraid:  Nach0king 13:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I should be the judge of that ; ) Pacific Coast Highway • blah 00:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And if there were such "spillover", using the network without permission would be illegal. --Happynoodleboy 19:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That ain't necessarily so - see Legality of piggybacking. Greenshed (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WiFi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: On which line?

message: 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)
replies: text: Oh, some wonderful photos of the station here. The site is a goldmine! - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: I think it's  (from 1913). TZMT (de:T) 09:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This link?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ugly footnotes 

message: 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)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Jordanhill commemoration. Daniel (‽) 18:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  commemorative (blue) plaque 

message: 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.
Pencefn 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electrification (Blue Train) Logo on Crow Road Bridge 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Arnt this crazy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.  JDoorjam     Talk 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Appearance on imagine

message: Discussion closed
This article is being refered to Wikipedia:Requested moves, for changing to Jordanhill Railway Station. BlackBear 15:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother.  "railway station" is not a proper noun.  Chris cheese whine 16:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  Chris cheese whine 16:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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.  Chris cheese whine 22:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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).  Chris cheese whine 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think with parentheses looks the best, as without the parentheses currently looks a bit odd. BlackBear 13:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've raised the issue over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Parentheses if anyone wants to join in. Bryan Derksen 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, forgive my American imprecision. Gavia immer (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: Should the other railway stations in Glasgow also be moved to be consistent? For example, Drumchapel railway station → Drumchapel (railway station). Tim w. 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other railway stations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  1,000,000th arcticle 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Jordanhill" totem graphic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Well done 

message: 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)
replies: text: 75% of the discussion on this page and the archives is about that... and the decision was to not do so. Talk:Jordanhill_railway_station/Archive002#Straw_Poll_for_Millionth_article_ref etc. --W.marsh 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Million