Talk:Ealing Broadway station

Development
Just about everything in this section other than the first sentence is high speculative with virtual no official status. I think this is wholly incompatible with Wikipedia and should go. If of any relevance (which I doubt) then it is not particulary related to Ealing Broadway station and should be have its own topic and the briefest of comments with a wikilink to it.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted because valid Discussion is subverted if deletion is immediately carried out. There is also an ability to finesse a section without completely removing it.

There are many people who think the distinction you are making between "official" and "non-official" sources is questionable, in this post "Duck House" and "Silted-up Moat" age. Your distinction belongs to a more deferential age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment about maybe jumping the gun. In my defence, your honour, I would point out that a large "crystal ballgazing" comment has been at the head of the article since 16th September but since then the speculation has been added to rather than cut out. I still hold that if you have this speculation at all it is not really about Ealing Broadway station and so I also challenge for deviation.--Pedantic of Purley (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be down to what Wikipedia is about, although you have not quoted any actual established policy (and "established policy" can be challenged!). The section you wish to remove DOES seem to be about the station, but you could try suggesting edits to shorten it, rather than demolish it, perhaps. Maybe we need more editors to comment. And that doesn't always happen very quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.151.102 (talk) 12:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apart from the crystal ball and off-topic guidelines, the development section is contrary to other wikipedia guidelines. It seems like soap boxing by editors who are involved with a pressure group. The section contains weasel and peacock terms. The image is an advert. The section lacks reliable sources, the first is broken, the second is a self published source and the third is an opinion piece. The final paragraph is original research. BTW to sign and date your posts type four tildes like this (~) Grim23 ★ 20:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New speculation
Articles should not include speculative opinions or analysis. To be notable and verifiable a topic should have reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, like a news report. The sources cited must unambiguously support the information in the article. Much of the speculation in the development section is unsourced, when it is sourced the source does not support most of the assertions. The sources are primary sources which may not prove notability and have not been subject to editorial scrutiny. Grim<b style="color:#CC0000">2</b><b style="color:#FF0000">3</b> ★ 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ealing Broadway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718032029/http://www.westlondon.com/uploads/WLOSummary.pdf to http://www.westlondon.com/uploads/WLOSummary.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ealing Broadway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141111115304/http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/pdf/WLO_Full_Document.pdf to http://www.capitasymonds.co.uk/pdf/WLO_Full_Document.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)