Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There does not seem to be any consensus whether these stops are/not notable by themselves. There are a number of arguments reflecting the need for consistency (and hence, the ideal would be that all the individual pages are kept to a reasonable standard), but equally there is clearly a need for the articles to be worked on with a better number of sources if that is possible. Note the different situtations for other light rail networks - the Blackpool system does not have individual pages, whereas the Metrolink and T&W Metro have all individual stops like the current Tramlink system. In any case, AfD'ing each individual page will not be a good spend of time for editors. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 11:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Should all Tramlink stop articles be presumed notable? — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are 39 tramlink stops, which all have articles. Some are notable, some are maybe, and some unambiguously don't meet WP:GNG. However, community consensus in an AfD found that broader consensus is required on whether to review on a case-by-case basis or presume these tramlink stops notable.

Possible options include:

  • 1) Review notability on a case-by-case basis, only adhering to WP:GNG or any other WP:SNGs
  • 2) Presume all tramlink stops notable for consistency

— MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 19:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

note: pinging members of AfD: @Ritchie333, Thryduulf, Pi.1415926535, Necrothesp, and Garuda3: — MATRIX! (a good person!)[citation unneeded] 19:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rapid transit, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport. Thryduulf (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regardless of whether stops are notable enough for an individual article, every single one needs to be a blue link - when some members of a clearly defined finite set are notable, all members are plausible search terms. This means that if any are not individually notable (or really, regardless of that) we need an article equivalent to List of London Underground stations. Until that is in place, discussing the notability of individual stops isn't really a good use of time as there is nowhere to merge/redirect to if deemed not notable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No we shouldn't make up a WP:SNG to define them all as notable when some of them clearly aren't. Any that aren't should be redirected to appropriate alternative venues e.g. Tramlink#Routes or create a List of Tramlink stations article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - This is a clearly defined set, like London Underground stations. It is advantageous to keep them as articles for consistency and so the "adjacent stations" templates make sense. Going through 39 stops individually at AfD isn't a good use of editor time. Garuda3 (talk) 08:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Garuda3. For consistency and because all are likely to have sufficient coverage per WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 per Joseph2302. These seem appropriately consolidated into a list article. Consider an article like Wandle Park tram stop, a stub which cites two primary sources from 2012, one of which is a spreadsheet and the other of which is a broken link. WP:SIGCOV issues with numerous articles. Notable tramlink stops warrant articles, non-notable articles do not. In my view, consistency shouldn't trump notability, even if the result is some administrative inconvenience. WillowCity(talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC) Pinged for this RfC by FRS[reply]
    I'd also refer to WP:NTRAINSTATION, which is not directly applicable but seems to parallel the issue at hand. WillowCity(talk) 16:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Garuda3. If they all exist already, why bother with deletion discussions? The worst that can happen is a short article about a not-so-well covered stop. But over time, coverage and such articles will hopefully improve, and it won't hurt to keep them around in the meantime. Gawaon (talk) 11:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC) (summoned by bot)[reply]
  • Option 1: we should very rarely flat-out presume notability. I don't think an LRT founded in 2000 is going to confer automatic notability. We should consider these on a case-by-case basis, like we do for all other train stations. Cremastra (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 - all articles must adhere to Wikipedia's P&G. Notability is not presumed. It's like asking should we presume all musicians [insert your own example here] are notable for consistency. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)✦•┈๑⋅⋯𝓁𝑒𝓉 𝒾𝓉 𝓈𝓃𝑜𝓌⋯⋅๑┈•✦[reply]
    The case is a bit different, since here we're talking only about a closed set of 39 musicians tram stops. Gawaon (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: after looking into it, I don't think there's a case for the majority of the stops passing GNG or for making a specific notability guideline. Out of the 39 stops, 7 are current National Rail stops that are definite GNG passes. 8 are former National Rail stations and are very likely GNG passes (if the separate tram and railway station articles are combined, as I think they should be.) The remaining 24 stops don't seem to have any significant individual coverage, even during the planning and construction phases, which tends to be when the most coverage is available (and tends to be why many lesser-known stops still pass GNG). It's not a case where the vast majority are clearly notable and having articles on the remaining few makes sense. Given that, I think redirecting those 24 to a new List of Tramlink stops would be reasonable. Any AfD should include all 24 of them for consistency, lest we have multiple single AfDs with different results. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: I've looked through some of these articles, and while some have decent notability, many are tiny stubs, with the only references being to a few primary sources. I'd say we keep the current list that exists in the main article, simply redirecting any non-notable links to a separate list of stops. 296cherry (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What determines notability is the existence of sources, not the sources currently cited in an article. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, you’re right! But after digging through the web for citations, my opinion hasn’t changed. Most of these stations simply don’t have any independent coverage. Being included on a list of stations by Transport for London is not enough for a main-space article. 296cherry (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timonium Fairgrounds station (Light RailLink) listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Timonium Fairgrounds station (Light RailLink) to be moved to Fairgrounds station. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sydney R-Class Tram#Requested move 4 May 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 13:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SEPTA Routes 101 and 102 listed at Requested moves

[edit]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for SEPTA Routes 101 and 102 to be moved to Media–Sharon Hill Line. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:16, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Requested move at Talk:Alvarado station#Requested move 13 September 2024

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alvarado station#Requested move 13 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 04:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London Transport#Notability of Croydon Tramlink stops that may be of interest to participants here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Streetcars&oldid=1249768104"