Talk:Birmingham New Street Station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Trains Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
	See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is maintained by WikiProject UK Railways.

Contents 1 Naming 2 Logo 3 Proposed page move 3.1 Discussion 4 Dissent 5 Cut and paste move 6 May 2006 7 Case solved 8 Revamp 9 Another one 10 Am i making a big deal out of this?

[edit] Naming

Discussion moved from User talk: G-Man

Under naming policy, this should be at its most common name, i.e. Birmingham New Street. This also applies to London Euston, Manchester Picadilly etc. Also, if a station's name is duplicated by something else, it should be capitalised because it refers to a specific station, e.g. Derby Station, not Derby station. I appreciate the work you've done on the list of British railway stations, it still needs tidying. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:47, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street is also the name of a major street in Birmingham. So removing the "station" may well be a recipe for confusion, especially amongst Brummies. Likewise Manchester Piccadilly may be confused with the Piccadilly area of central Manchester, so I dont think removing the "station" is very wise their either. G-Man 19:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

er, no. The name of the street in Birmingham is "New Street", and an article on it would be entitled New Street, Birmingham to distinguish it from other New Streets. Likewise Picadilly deserves its own article, but not as. Anyway, now you've really screwed it up by turning Birmingham New Street into an article on New Street, Birmingham. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:54, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You claim that "Birmingham New Street" is the common name: Do you have any proof of this?, I would say that "New Street Station" is just as common, that is certainly how brummies refer to it. Besides Birmingham New Street station is a station so leaving the "station" off the end is quite patently daft. I dont know why you have suddenly decided to move this page, it has been sitting quite happily at 'Birmingham New Street station' for well over a year and no-one has complained about it. Unless you can provide proof that "Birmingham New Street" is the common name. I will move it back and turn the latter into a disambig. G-Man 19:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A google search excluding several railway related terms still only generates links about the station http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Birmingham+New+Street%22+-station+-rail+-train+-trains+-railway+-railways+-%22Network+Rail%22+-Virgin+-+%22Central+Trains%22 Conversely, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Birmingham+New+Street+station%22&spell=1 brings up Wikipedia mirrors, whereas "Birmingham New Street" has 17,200 hits, less the 3,930 for "Birmingham New Street station" still gives 13270 hits for Birmingham New Street against 3,930 for "Birmingham New Street station". There is no problem with New Street, Birmingham being confused with Birmingham New Street. Dunc_Harris|☺ 19:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes practically all of those are train timetables which are abbreviated, so that doesn't prove anything. G-Man 19:57, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But that's the point; there is *nothing* about New Street, Birmingham that could ever confuse it with Birmingham New Street. Similarly, London Paddington isn't going to be confused with Paddington. or Leicester City with Leicester, or for that why don't we start naming things Empire State Building Skyscraper, or Burton-on-Trent Town? No. Because it violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Dunc_Harris|☺ 20:25, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have you actually seen where the examples you've just given actually link to. Leicester City re-directs to Leicester City F.C and London Paddington re-directs to Paddington Station.

The example you've given of the Empire-State Building invalidates your own argument, have you not noticed the "Building" at the end of the name. It would be rather silly if it was called the Empire State now wouldn't it. G-Man 20:34, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One problem is that local usage and international usage probably differ here. In London, Victoria Station (London) is commonly simply called [[Victoria]], but please don't move that article there! Andrewa 11:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

As you will have no doubt noticed, all 17 stations controlled by Network Rail have been given their own little logo. I have uploaded all the thumbnail images, but none of the articles for non-London stations have a suitable template with which to incorporate them. Thus I have just left it right at the beginning as this is exactly how the station board reads:

Birmingham New Street

The same format has been followed for every such station in the country, so if an alternative means of incorporating the logos is established, please change it for all. Or let me know! Deano 22:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dissent

Er excuse me but I dont think that this move has been properly discussed. This move appears to violate the principle of using common names. And I can find no evidence that "railway" is included in the title of the station. Looking up google hits we find that:

• "Birmingham New Street Station" gets 46,200 hits
• "Birmingham New Street railway station" gets only 536 hits
• "Birmingham New Street" gets 156,000 hits however many of these are false positives.

Therefore I contend that this move is in violation of the common naming principle. "Birmingham New Street railway station" appears to be a wikipedia neologism. Somebody above stated that this was the correct name, I can find no evidence of this. It appears to be incorrect, Network Rail's website calls it Birmingham New Street Station [1]. G-Man * 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Similarly: Glasgow Central Station - 48,000 Google hits Central Station, Glasgow - 875 Glasgow Central Railway Station - 501 86.144.36.159 11:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The rather large sign stuck on the main entrance of the station says Birmingham New Street Station, NOT railway station.

As seen here: Birmingham New Street Station image. I'm thinking of moving the article back, i do think in view of facts that it will be named Birmingham New Street Station.

Please do not move this article again until there is consensus at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). In the mean time I oppose any proposed moves of this article. Thryduulf 14:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason there is no concensus is that every time there's a station article you're always there with your railway this and railway that. This isn;t used in the real world, this wasn't used by British Rail, it isn't used by TOCs and it isn't used in the stations themselves ! There is a concensus just that you are not part of it. Captain scarlet 15:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus either way. The debate needs more input and I'm trying to think of ways to get that. Thryduulf 16:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

~You're clearly stuck in a a totally inappropriate naming scheme, what more do you need than the official British Rail station naming scheme ? Captain scarlet 00:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence there is a consensus that Wikipedia should use it. Thryduulf 01:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This talk page is the evidence, if you are not part of a majority of editors that agree on a different naming scheme to your own, so be it. You beeing part or not of any kind of consensus does not mean there isn't one. I am in talks with members who do not directly participate in the stations articles but in local history of which these articles are part of and I have had agreement and already changed articles, removed railway and used official naming including capitalised S on Station as these stations were named like so. Regards, Captain scarlet 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I think the long-standing consensus practice that this convention was to formalise was one of the rare examples of consistency across a large-scale section of Wikipedia. David Arthur 14:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

That's great I have no problem with a Wikipedia wide scheme, just so as long as it involves using proper, correct and appropriate names! Captain scarlet 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem of simply using "Birmingham New Street" is that to the general public, this could mean "New Street in Birmingham" or the station. There are several reasons for adding the "railway station" to the end:

• Avoid any ambiguity what-so-ever
• Consistency of naming of all station articles. If say "Cheltenham Spa railway station" was renamed to just "Cheltenham Spa", would this mean the town or the station?
• By having a naming convention it is supposed to prevent arguments like this one!

Our Phellap 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, Birmingham New Street Station as its said at the station entrance; Leeds Station, Coventry Station, Chesterfield Station, Waterloo Station, the list goes on of how adding both railway and not capitalising S of stations is wrong. See at the photos, links that myself and G-Man have added to this conversation and you cannot support this scheme unless you live not in the UK and not go outside. Captain scarlet 16:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My point is that it is not wrong. If I said "Chestefield railway station" you would know exactly what I meant, without any possible ambiguity. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to make navigation easy without having lots of articles that use the same name. Taking things to the extreme, "Chesterfield Station" could mean the bus station, the railway station, the fire station, etc... The other advantage of adding "railway" to the article name is it easily allows the identification of different forms of transport, e.g. tram, railway, metro. At the end of the day, I personally don't mind which system is used, so long as just one system is used. Should you choose the "X Station" convention, there will be an awful lot of articles that need changing (since most were created under the present convention). Our Phellap 17:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I see your point but, well when one mentions station it is by default a train station. A particular station such as a fire staiton is always mentionned with the extension. As an encyclopedia the articles must have an appropriate name, the body of the article is there to explain what it is, almost all the articles have this intro "blah blah is a railway station in blah blah town". Then in almost most articles need a link name as well as the link to X Station, by simplifying naming it will make all our lives easier when editing articles. Regards, Captain scarlet 17:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment illustrates why "station" is ambiguous. What the introduction says is largely irrelevant to what the article title is, as it is the title that gets linked to not the introduction. The defacto standard is "x railway station" so that is what the links point to, removing ambiguity in the article and removing the need to hunt for what the article is called. Capitalising the S goes against the Wikipedia principle of unnecessary capitalisaion (i.e. using sentence case), as I've mentioned before. Thryduulf 02:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever man, you're just fighting losing battle trying to hang on to your project that is unlikely to see the light. wikipedia principle of unnecessary capitalisation is irrelevant here as the capitalised S is part of the stations' names as I've mentioned before. just like Tower of London/ Railway station is not and has never been the (defacto?) standard, it is only in your mind. Just let it go. Removing 'railway' from the stations' articles removes the need to hunt for the article. How funny would it be to have station articles named (example) Nottingham Victoria Station railway station...Captain scarlet 06:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As Thryduulf has already suggested, the names on the signs outside the stations should be used. If anyone, then the owners should decide what their stations are called. I regularly use Queen Street station in Glasgow, where the signs say "Welcome to Queen Street Station" and the equivilent in Gaelic (which I can't remember). Similarly, the signs all over Central Station carry the same naming convention, e.g. see photo on Central Station. 86.142.209.78 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[2] lists the stations as X station, not X railway station. This has clearly been suggested just as another argument on wiki. It seems that people are always requesting to change naming conventions although things are fine the way they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.209.78 (talk • contribs) .

But then, Network Rail only deal with railway stations, so there’s no possibility of confusion or overlap, whereas there are all sorts of stations which might be suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Personally, I don’t see what the problem with the widespread descriptive convention currently in use is. David Arthur 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

FAO 86.142.209.78, you seem confused when you say As Thryduulf has already suggested, the names on the signs outside the stations should be used since this whole convention is precisely not that and I've saying it ever Thryduulft came up with it. Use the names used on location not Thryduulf's scheme ! Plus if anyone wants to log off and post comments the user could at least using an IP that has not got his/her only contributions in this very talk page! It is an accepted convention in the real world where actual people speak to each that a Station is where trains go, Firestation is were firemen work, Bus station is where buses go to. People looking for information expect normal languaged used, not some random convention totally estranged from everyday life, n'est-ce-pas ? Captain scarlet 16:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled by this idea of removing -station or -railway station endings from things. Surely the article title should make it absolutely clear, especially to someone with no knowledge of the subject, what the article is about. Birmingham New Street sounds like it means an article about a street. Oh no, thats New Street, Birmingham. What clear article naming! Mrsteviec 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your changes following discussions on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) to last version by Duncharris. Regards, Captain scarlet 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy and pasting is not the way to complete a page move. It destroys the history. I have repaired your copy and paste move. Mrsteviec 20:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Captain scarlet, you really should consider what it is you hope to achieve by posting messages claiming to be me and secondly by persisting in using copy and paste moves. You need to take some time to think about if your contribution has any value. Mrsteviec 07:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your comments rather cheekt since your changes go against the sedit summary you have added. You are not repairing anything just vandalising an edit that was agreed (for once) on both this talk page and UK station naming convention. Please refrain from vandalising a page that has (again, for once) reached concensus regarding its naming. Captain scarlet 07:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cut and paste move

This article keep getting cut and pasted with Birmingham New Street by an editor. If you want to move the article, please do not resort to cut and paste again as it loses the edit history. Mrsteviec 07:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Will you just stop pasting it back! You claimn it's destroying history when the article's history is clearly labelled by yourstruly with explaination. You on the other hand are not curing this fantasy loss of history, just reverting it back. Your edits have been revert ! Discussion on conventions and this page have come to the conclusion that BNS is to be called BNS. If you have any further queries, ask here. Captain scarlet 07:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok fine. I've tried my best with you. Another editor will be along shortly to fix the cut and paste mess move you have re-created for the third time. Mrsteviec 07:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no mess whatsoever, the article is where it should be, as I've told you and I started repairing redirect links. The history is how it should be with a clear description of all the changes tha thave occured as it should be. Do what you feel needs to be so as long as you don't move it back to an erronous name since no changes are needed at this time. Regards, Captain scarlet 07:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The article has been cut and paste moved, meaning the edit history was split between Birmingham New Street and Birmingham New Street railway station. I have now fixed this. It was VERY BAD FORM to move the article in the middle of an ogoing discussion where there was no consensus for any move and especially not to Birmingham New Street. Thryduulf 07:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why i reverted the article to user Duncharris' version since there was no justification to the move as the dscussion if you want to call it is ongoing. I am not endorsing this BNS article naming either since it is against what I have been saying for god knows how long but I felt that the move was unjustified and unappropriate. I find that correctness has slipt of late and a bit of a greeting fashion would be nice now and again. Regards, Captain scarlet 08:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Birmingham New Street is a bad name, as i argued at the top of this page it is too likely to get confused with New Street, Birmingham. Birmingham New Street station/Station (whatever) would be best. G-Man * 19:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article still located here? I can't see any agreement anywhere that station articles should have names that omit the word station. Mrsteviec 05:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That was original thought, my moves wer eonly done to not continue moving the article all over the place. station articles need the word station or Station at their end. Captain scarlet 19:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] May 2006

This has all gone quiet but the article is still here instead of at Birmingham New Street station or Birmingham New Street railway station. Comments? Mrsteviec 19:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. [3] [4] Would everyone please move on. AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No. I think the article should be at Birmingham New Street railway station to match the naming of other stations. This was also the outcome of a recent move request. Thryduulf 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone actually call it "Birmingham New Street railway station"? AlistairMcMillan 21:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And not all of the stations are at "X railway station" anymore. Just so you know. AlistairMcMillan 21:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is how and where it should be. No discussions continued as there was no concensus reached and there is isn't. Captain scarlet 22:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

If you look above you will find that there was consenus as recently ago as 16 March that this page should be moved to Birmingham New Street railway station (along with some others). In the absence of consensus for a naming scheme, consensus must be reached on all the individual articles, and this was reached and then unilaterally breached (by a cut and paste move which I had to repair). Thryduulf 23:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought everyone agreed it should end with -station at the very least. Even Captain Scarlet (look at his comments above). Or are some people arguing for the sake of it? I'm not fussed if it gains a -station or -railway station suffix. But it definitely needs to end with one or the other as the current naming is absurd; it is a station, not a street! Railway seems to cause some offence so maybe it should move to Birmingham New Street station? Mrsteviec 05:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

There are only two reasons to move this page. (1) Its current name is causing confusion. I don't buy that argument. I think even before I added the disambig notices to the top of both pages that it was very unlikely that people would seriously be confused for any length of time. Now that we have a disambig notice at the top of both pages the chance of any confusion is even more unlikely. (2) People actually refer to the station as something else. I don't know how we determine this accurately, but a Google Search backs up the name "Birmingham New Street station" (more than 45 THOUSAND results) as opposed to "Birmingham New Street railway station" (less than 5 HUNDRED). Doing a search for "birmingham new street" -"birmingham new street station" brings up over 100 THOUSAND results and from a quick glance the results on the first few pages most (if not all) seem to be about the station and not the street. AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Case solved

I think this should solve the argument about the station name:

As you can clearly see the sign on the main entrance reads Birmingham New Street Station. Case closed. I'm moving it back to the correct title (where incidentally it was in the first place before this nonsense started). G-Man * 22:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

http://tom.acrewoods.net/files/images/IMG_0739.preview.JPG AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. It defies logic for the article about Birmingham New Street Station to be called anything other than that. Mrsteviec 11:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

I hear they're going to be revamping this dingy shithole soon. Thank goodness for that! It gives visitors a terrible first impression of the city. Martyn Smith 23:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC) (Birmingham born and bred)

I've removed the reference to the station being renovated in 2006. It hasn't been, and probably won't be until it falls down. 195.92.43.117 11:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created the article Birmingham Gateway which is the project to rebuild New Street Station. It still needs expanding and some rewording but when more info comes in, it will prove valuable and not take up considerable space on the New Street article. - Erebus555 11:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another one

I know this page has been moved twice or more. Shouldn't it be moved again as articles around the UK generally have a small s instead of a large one. Or is this trivial? Simply south 16:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This has been talked about again and agian, look at the photo above and enjoy. Captain scarlet 17:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed the earlier naming discussions (above) – or not sorry, perhaps, given the intemperant language of one or two of the contributions! – but would just like to add the following thoughts:

While a case can be made for treating such examples as Birmingham New Street Station (a proper name in its own right) differently – and I am not necessarily opposed to that case – the evidence of signage ought not to dictate the naming of Wikipedia articles about railway stations in general.

The vast majority of British railway stations, in any case, simply display a locality name:

I believe that it is entirely reasonable and in line with Wikipedia guidelines to entitle, for example, an article about the railway station at Mallaig "Mallaig railway station" – and one about the lifeboat station there "Mallaig lifeboat station", etc. This is, and has been, the practice for nearly all British railway station articles in Wp, and I think, a few exceptions apart, it should remain so. -- Picapica 10:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Am i making a big deal out of this?

I have put Nottingham sta up for WP:RM. This may relate back to earlier page move here but i am not sure. Simply south 12:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)