Talk:Charlton railway station

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Trains: Stations / in UK / in London Low‑importance Trains Portal London Transport 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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated projects or task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Stations. This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject London Transport (assessed as Low-importance). London Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't really see how a minor railway station in London takes dominance over closed stations in Oxfordshire, Northumberland, Somerset, Bristol and possibly other places in the UK and another closed one in Australia. If no objections i am going to move it back and create a disambiguation page. Simply south (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is the only one that is open and the only one that is important enough to even have an article. It is clearly the primary use and should be moved back. A dab header can then be added to the article pointing to Charlton railway station (disambiguation). Don't forget there are two ways to arrange a disambiguation. MRSC • Talk 09:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, adding (London) in the middle of the station name should only reflect real-world naming, i.e. if that is what National Rail call it. If it is a Wikipedia-only disambiguation the (London) should come on the end.

• St Margarets (London) railway station - National Rail naming
• Richmond station (London) - Wikipedia disambiguation

See the difference? MRSC • Talk 10:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, is it okay to move it back London at the end? I still don't see how "it is the only one that is open" is a good primary reason to move it back here. Lets settle this on a wider scope at WP:RM. Simply south (talk) 10:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of a collection of relatively small stations, being currently open is a mark of greater notability. Also, there aren't any articles to disambiguate with yet. Why the urge to add suffixes when none are needed? MRSC • Talk 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is because others will exist. Btw, it is also poor to essentially say that this is the only Charlton railway station notable enough to have an article. Please note that many disused stations also have their own articles e.g. Watlington (Norfolk) railway station (open on the Fen Line) and Watlington railway station, Oxfordshire (a closed terminus in Oxfordshire). The other stations will be eventually created. Simply south (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, this article was created first and has rightly claimed Charlton railway station first. There is no need to move it in anticipation of the others, especially as none of the others are inherently more notable. Think about it from the point of view of someone searching for "Charlton railway station" and what they are most likely to expect. MRSC • Talk 10:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see what others think. I also forgot to add Charlton railway station, Victoria. Simply south (talk) 10:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.V.J. Butt (1995) lists: Charlton (NB - opened 1861, closed 1862); Charlton (SE&C - still open); Charlton Halt (GW opened 1910, closed 1915); Charlton Halt (L&NW opened 1905, closed 1926); Charlton Kings (GW, opened 1881, closed 1962); Charlton Mackrell (GW, opened 1905, closed 1962); and Carlton Marshall Halt (S&DJR, opened 1928, closed 1956). This does seem a bit of a storm in a Tea Cup: i.e. two stations in the UK named Charlton one only opened for a year; two named Charlton Halt and three with Charlton followed by another name. The Charlton station near Woolwich is the only one I've ever used (a bit of a dump at that time), but I drive past Charlton Mackrell much more frequently.Pyrotec (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the fuss is about: an open station should always be primary usage over a bunch of closed stations (whether in the UK, Australia, or anywhere else), unless one of the closed stations was particularly notable (which none of these are). The end. --RFBailey (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with RFBailey that as this station is currently the only open station with an article it should have first call on the "vanilla" version of the name. A disambiguation page should be linked to provide access to other articles on closed stations, and should any further examples of an open Charlton be found, then these should have the geographical suffix added. Just my humble opinion though...not sure if it fits with policy, but seems like common sense to me. ColourSarge (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]