Template talk:Railway stations in Merseyside

message: so what happened to the controversial template i created? Simply south 16:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it with this one, after User:EP111 had pasting the source code for it into an article, defeating the point of a template.  Besides, it avoids arguments about what a "major" station is.  Also, I have created similar templates for the West Midlands and for West Yorkshire, and have ones for the other metropolitan counties in the pipeline.  --RFBailey 19:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work with the template, big improvement.  Just one thing - why are the Birkenhead stations separated out from the body?  I can fully understand highlighting central Liverpool's stations, but why Birkenhead and not the stations around St Helens or Southport, say?  I just want to check I'm not missing something obvious here! Aquilina 22:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. They are the town centre stations. I am not really sure if there are any other towns or cities which qualify. Simply south 11:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I separated out the Birkenhead stations was because there are a lot of them, that's all.  Incidentally, Birkenhead North is not in the town centre.  --RFBailey 21:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see - I was just mildly curious that's all!  Southport would probably have enough too (Southport, Birkdale, Hillside, Ainsdale, Meols Cop), but I'm entirely ambivalent as to whether we separate these out.  Another alternative might be to split them by boroughs of Merseyside - Liverpool, Knowsley, Sefton, Wirral and St Helens, and/or perhaps emboldening the town centre ones.  Any thoughts? Aquilina 23:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old template 

message: I'm not sure I agree with the 'town centre' extension to Birkenhead's stations. North and Park stations are not in the town centre by any means: they're in areas of inner city housing - not quite what one would regard as a 'town centre'. I'd like to see this overextension changed, just to keep things accurate! L1v3rp00l 19:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Birkenhead Town Centre"

message: Errr... Is this a good idea? I am going with the flow right now but i thought i would attempt the big one and created a sub-page (see i am not leaping in) for attempting to create a template on ALL the stations in London. I was also wondering if i could borrow the London Termini part of 
Obviously the template is far from completion. Mine that is, not the above.
User:Simply south/Template:London railway stations.
When i get the chance i will continue this. Perhaps even tomorrow\today.
I was hoping i would eventually get it looking like:
Or similar.
Simply south 23:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  London................. 

message: User:Djm1279 just changed the heading for this table from "Railway stations in Merseyside" to "...on Merseyside", claiming that this is "more gramatically correct".  I'm sorry but I disagree.Merseyside has two meanings: firstly it is the name of a metropolitan county; secondly it could mean the area by the River Mersey.  These two are not the same thing - parts of Merseyside county are not near the river, e.g. Hoylake, Southport, St Helens; and there are places on the river that are not in the county, e.g. Widnes, Warrington, Stockport.The preposition in is more appropriate for a county name, e.g. "in Kent", whereas on would be more appropriate for locations by a river.  Since this template clearly refers to the administrative definition I feel that the table should be retitled "Railway stations in Merseyside". Bazonka (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  On or In Merseyside? 

message: Why are proposed stations that are not actually even on the drawing board still kept on the template - they do not exist and are not likely in the near future?Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. They should be removed, or perhaps moved into a separate "proposed" section (and only if there is a credible chance that they will be built in the near future).  asserted that inclusion is per WP:CON. But of course, WP:CCC applies now, especially since two editors have opposed their inclusion. This has not been discussed previously, so the consensus only existed because they hadn't been opposed before - it's not a high-profile template so that's not too surprising. Also, the fact that proposed stations are listed in Template:Cheshire railway stations is not in itself a reason to keep them in this template too. I think that they should be removed from the Cheshire template also (again, their inclusion there has not been discussed). Bazonka (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the statement that WP:CCC. I was working with WP:CON, and more particularly WP:SILENT, as the basis for inclusion up until now. Further investigation suggests that at least some of those in :Category:Proposed railway stations in England aren't included in any similar county-related railway station template. However, former stations, which are due to be reopened, do seem to be included in such templates. This doesn't apply in the two instances of Beechwood railway station and Woodchurch railway station, as they'd both be brand new stations. They're not ready for any prospective inclusion in :Template:Current rail infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom, either, as no construction work has either begun or been timetabled. I do, however, trust that the station pages, themselves, have a valid enough reason to exist, as they are under proposal for the long-term and are referenced as being so. However, please also consider that Redrose64 marked Lache railway station as proposed in this edit dated December 2010, and has stood up until now, without question. This falls into the scope of WP:SILENT#Rationale. Regards, EP111 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed stations