Talk:Andover station (MBTA)

Merge request
I'd like to merge Third Railroad Station into this article; its history is inherently part of the history of Andover station, and it seems to make more sense to have all of it in one place. I believe that should be possible while still retaining the NRHP infobox and such; see Attleboro (MBTA station) and Swampscott (MBTA station) for previous examples of how I've done this. ,, and : you three are the only substantial contributors to the article in its eight-year history. If any of the three of you object, I'll do a formal merge request, but it you're all fine with a merge then I'll just do it with a minimum of fuss. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly take this into consideration, if nobody else has any other objections. The only reason I can think of for not merging them is that Third Railroad Station is across the Essex Street/Pearson Street grade crossings, which doesn't seem like too much of a reason for some editors. Having said that, I see two other stations that are on the same side of those railroad crossings as the current station, one is an old B&M Freight Station that's now a Japanese restaurant, and the other I'm not sure about, but it's a former station next door that's now a Chinese restaurant. Whether the two articles are merged or not, the Andover MBTA station article should be expanded to include these structures. -User:DanTD (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The freight house that's now Mootone is already mentioned in the article; the building that houses Teatone was never a railroad structure (note the modern concrete foundation). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to merging these.  Magic ♪piano 12:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I've completed the merge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Station in intro
Consensus in this RfC was to include the term “station” in the lead for articles where it’s part of the title. Please stop changing this unless consensus in another formal discussion says something different.—Cúchullain t/ c 11:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)