Talk:Newcastle railway station/Archive 2

Can anyone add any info about the train crash in the 80s I don't know anything about that or find anything on the internet about it

Platforms
I have a question: does the 12 platforms include the metro platforms? Also, it would be useful if someone could supply information on how each platforms are used, as with York and Leeds? Anywikiuser (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I found out. They don't include the metro platforms. I found information on the platforms which I intend to add to the page. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metro station and railway station are seperate stations in their own right, being managed by Nexus and NXEC respectively Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, but most London stations have their national rail station (managed by the TOC) and their underground station (managed by TfL) in the same article. Do they need merging? Anyway, I have added a platform guide, but it would be great if someone could help find out more about them. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename
I know this has been talked about but don't know if a decision was reached. I think the articles should be moved to Newcastle railway station. It's the official name used by Network Rail, NXEC, on platform signs and in on-train announcements. It's called Central locally but there's not really any disamiguation required as the only other station in the city is Manors railway station and it would be very rare to need to disambiguate from that. Any thoughts? Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay at Newcastle Central. As has been mentioned in previous discussions, the rail companies likely call it Newcastle purely for operational purposes—they haven't actually "rebranded" the station like, for example,  a football stadium might be; it's formal name is still Newcastle Central.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 19:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But I was thinking maybe it was never branded Newcastle Central, just Newcastle. Then after the Metro started operations the locals needed to disambiguate and started calling it Central. We need to find a source stating the name when it was first opened Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Newcastle railway station appears to be taken, so unless that is moved, there still needs to ba a unique name for the article. While I agree that Newcastle Central appears to be made up, as a wierd accommodation of the local common name Central Station and the UK usage Newcastle Station, without conflicting with the global Newcastle uses. Although, if the current name is wrong, the other options look much worse, and while strictly all correct, would never pass the 'what a user would type in first' test:
 * Newcastle Central Station railway station
 * Newcastle, Central Station (railway station)
 * Central Station (Newcastle railway station)
 * Central Station, Newcastle (railway station)
 * Central Station, Newcastle, UK
 * Central Station (Newcastle, United Kingdom)
 * Central Station railway station (Newcastle, United Kingdom)

Incidentally, this source has an old map with Central Station on it from 1905?, and although it has references to Newcastle Central Station, I believe this is of the form, Newcastle's Central Station, rather than Newcastle Central railway station. And I believe that the Central Station TW metro stop was so named because it served Central Station. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Newcastle railway station redirects to a disamiguation page giving two other uses. I suggest this article be renamed Newcastle railway station and at the top of the page, a note saying not to be confused with... Ifnot, what about Newcastle railway station, Tyne and Wear? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well why not leave it at Newcastle Central? That way it won't be confused with anything.  Making such a move would go entirely against Naming conventions which state: "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things."  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 09:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue I have is that it is completely made up in my opinon, as I said above to satisfy local, national and international issues. It is not Newcstle Central, the current title should be read Newcastle's Central Station, but you can't show this distinction in a title, and it appears attempts to clarify in the lead have been opposed. MickMacNee (talk) 12:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not completely made up, though, is it? It's simply a variation of the name that just so happens not to have been adopted by the rail companies.  As a formal name it is entirely acceptable; it is used on all the heritage plaques in the station, including this one and this one.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At least one of those plaques supports the name Newcastle Central Station then, and this would satisfy the portion of naming policy you quoted above. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions
/archive 1 and /archive 1. Simply south (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On a quick read, there seems to be support for Newcastle Central Station, so what now? How about a simple vote? MickMacNee (talk) 00:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would certainly by my first choice, but the stumbling point in the previous discussions was the use of the word "station" and whether it should be capitalised or not. The proposed naming convention for UK stations at Naming conventions (UK stations) shows that the words "railway" and "station" should be uncapitalised; although this is only a proposed guideline, it does seem to have been applied across the board.  While I would be quite happy to see this article back at "Newcastle Central Station", I think others would strongly oppose it.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 12:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think evidence of a proper name should override any guidelines, per WP:IAR, as the current guideline clearly introduces a confusion by causing the name to imply the station is called Newcastle Central. MickMacNee (talk)

I think some people put far too much stock in the names of stations used by the rail companies. As I have already mentioned, it's likely they name stations for the benefit of their operations; using the briefest variation of the name possible without being ambiguous. The two examples given by the IP above are actually good examples of this: Swansea is just Swansea within the rail network, but what's the full postal address of the station? Let's ask National Rail... The same goes for Colchester.  Admittedly, for whatever reason, they don't give the full name of Newcastle's station but I think there are enough reliable sources for that elsewhere. The rail companies have their naming conventions, designed for their own needs, and we have ours. By all means we should use the rail network names as a guideline, but where there is clear evidence of a full formal name (especially one that is used commonly), then we must reflect that in the title of the article.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 12:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue of what is the correct name for this article just will not go away. I think people really need to think long and hard before we end up moving it again, will it really benefit the reader if this is moved? I'm not convinced it will, the current title seems acceptable. I suggest that people accept that it is likely to be impossible to satisfy everyone so rather than causing a load more disruption by moving this it should just be left as it is. Adambro (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The mish mash of opinions in the previous discussions, and the continuing requests do not suggest to me it is acceptable in its current form, hence the idea of a poll. Acceptable to some people means it fits a template, or is a good compromise, to others it means it reflects the actual name of the station. At the end of the day, if WP names something wrongly, that can actually disseminate into the real world, and thus the lie becomes truth, so a clearer statement of consensus is needed I think, before we start telling the world incorrectly that this station is called Newcastle Central. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Network Rail, which would in this case be the only opinion that matters, the name of the station is simply "Newcastle". Given more than one station in an area, people will invariably use local tags to identify them, e.g. you'll rarely hear a native of Swansea refer to anything other than "High Street station", and natives of Colchester will talk about "Colchester North" - hence people will refer to the big station in the middle of town as "Central" in the absence of another name (hence the name of "Central Station" station on the Metro).  There seems to be little to suggest whether "Newcastle Central" is a legitimate name or whether it is a local ploy to grandify the station's name to match its already-impressive proportions and architecture.  We already have a de facto convention here, so we should at least make very compelling reasons for ignoring them.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * TL-DR? The point being made is it is the convention that is making it appear wrongly that this station is called Newcastle Central, hence why the case is made to ignore the convention of adding railway where it isn't needed, and correctly refer to it as Newcaslte Central Station, as in Central Station of Newcastle, not Newcastle Central station (lowercase). There is no other Newcastle Central Station on Wikipedia, or on Earth, however there are other Newcastle railway stations. And look what comes out top result in a google search (.co.uk) for newcastle station - the www.livedepartureboards.co.uk page for newcastle central station. MickMacNee (talk) 01:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find it says "NEWCASTLE (NCL)", not "NEWCASTLE CENTRAL (NCL)". Title should be Newcastle station, since there's a Metro station on the same site or in the vicinity.  There's no question that this particular marvel takes precedence over any other station called "Newcastle".  81.110.106.169 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the title of the search result. MickMacNee (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And why Newcastle station, and not Newcastle railway station? Or was that just a mistake? I have no objections to Newcastle railway station, but I think some Australians might. And there are some odd people who insist on then, based on the title, removing the local name Central Station (capitalised) from the text, on their incorrect idea that this is just a local pride thing, ignoring the mountain of evidence that this is its formal and historical name. MickMacNee (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)PS. Reading this page Naming conventions (UK stations), Newcastle is clearly one of the most disputed cases for applying the 'de facto' convention, so it should be the last article anyone attempts to claim use of a standard form. At one point it appears that the presence of the Metro station on the same site was justification to break this convention and for wikipedia to call the station by the name it had 70 years before the Metro was even built. MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The way in which you refer to a "full formal name" is utter nonsense. You seem to be defining it in terms of "what I call it", without providing any backup.  The only authority with the ability to determine the name of a station is (collectively) the railway.  Street addresses are in part determined by the Royal Mail, so should be set aside for the moment.  A station will have an official name (in this case, Newcastle), and may have other names by which the locals refer to it (in this case, Central station, amongst others).  Usually, we use the former, though the latter are useful redirects.  From what I can see elsewhere, it would seem that the use of an archaic name should be avoided unless it is useful in identifying the subject in question.  For instance, Swansea railway station can stay where it is, since as things stand we don't have articles on any of the other former stations in the city (such as Swansea Victoria railway station, even though you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone local over the age of 40 (perhaps even 30?) that refers to the station there as anything other than "High Street".  81.110.106.169 (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is rubbish frankly. This is not merely a local name and if you bothered to do your research you would know it, but frankly, I am beginning to think you are a POV editor as regards your continual references to Swansea, which have nothing to do with this article at all. MickMacNee (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You [the IP] have completely missed, or chosen to ignore, the main point that I was making. I'm not denying that the name given to the station by the rail companies is just "Newcastle"; what I am questioning is whether a name that has apparently been given purely for the operational benefit of a particular industry, is appropriate to use in a general encyclopaedia.  When people are travelling to Newcastle by train, they want to know which train goes to Newcastle; they don't care, or need to know, what the station's called, so it isn't important to the rail operator.  However, when John Dobson built the station, he (I presume it was him) chose to name it Central Station, I don't know why, he just did.  Whether you like it or not, that is the actual name of the station, and to omit it from the title could be misleading.  Naming conventions (precision) states: "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, with Recent Changes or accidentally, or in some other way that robs him of the context, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely."  In this situation, the title "Newcastle Central" tells the reader exactly which station the article is about; "Newcastle", on the other hand, doesn't.
 * As for backing up the full formal name and the commonness of its use, I really didn't think it was necessary as there are plenty of examples in this and the archived discussions. If you haven't already done so, take a look at the plaques I linked to above, or the many examples given by User:ProhibitOnions in the Archive (about halfway down the page).  Alternatively you could do a Google search for Newcastle Central Station.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 18:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

So...let's clarify, why is a Wikipedia article on a railway station named so? Is it the local usage, Network Rail usage, operator usage, platform signage...?? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also to the IP, the reference to Swansea is irrelevant, especially because no-one calls it High Street station, just Swansea station so please stop pushing your pro-Swansea POV. Newcastle, unlike Swansea, is a large city which has more than one station as well as the metro stations, hence the need for disambiguation Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going to say i would support "station" instead of "railway station" if the T&WM article on Central Metro station is merged in here. Simply south (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia policy is to have railway station in the name rather station Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be station as it combines National Rail with the metro. This is how it works in London (e.g. London Waterloo station) and Newcastle shouldn't be any different. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed — I'm not sure why the metro platforms were moved to a separate article in the first place. The metro, of course, is also part of the reason for keeping 'Central' in the title of this article; the station isn't exclusively a National Rail one, so the name on the National Rail signs is not the final authority. David Arthur (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, I'm for "Newcastle Central Station", which is not only well sourced, but it also satisfies WP:COMMON; that's what people call it (and that's how it's described on the various plaques on the wall, except for one that calls it "Newcastle Central Railway Station"). It's an iconic 160-year-old building that would seem a fair exception to any naming scheme, and grammatically "Central" is a modifier that shouldn't be left dangling. "Newcastle" by itself is just the short form, but there are plenty of other "Newcastle station"s. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a lot of passionate discussion of this topic about a year ago (see the page archive). The consensus reached then was quite difficult to achieve.  I see no reason for changing the status quo at this time.  DrFrench (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't see any overwhelming consensus when reviewing that for the above machinations, and plenty of recognition of the proper name. It rests between support for an unadopted guideline, and the actual name and common local usage. It's a definite case of users forcing an un-needed standard, for what reasons nobody knows. Newcastle is a special case with the other newcastle pages on wikipedia. The nearest proper unambiguous name is Newcastle Central Station, which satisfies the actual naming policies by not conflicting with any other wiki article and being a recognised common usage. People just seem to not want to accept that and make up a name instead. MickMacNee (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Standards are useful in that they help people to find stuff and give a sense of things being a coherent whole. Remember this isn't our article and for it to be a useful article, other people have got to be able to find it and trust the information they read - having standards helps that.  So what we may call it in collquial everyday usage is, to a certain extent, irrelevant.  The standard appears to be railway station for articles relating to a National Rail station and station where multiple mixed-mode co-located stations are combined in the same article.  Being as we have separate articles for the two separate stations, railway station seems to be the appropriate suffix.  Then you merely have to decide if you want to call it Newcastle or Newcastle Central (which I personally don't have a very strong opinion about, but prefer Newcastle Central).  Adding comments like officially called, locally known as, etc. don't really add to the quality of the article - and IMHO simply make the article look a bit amateurish.  If the 'official' name was completely different (e.g. if it was 'officially' called Newcastle Exchange), then yes it would be relevant to mention it. And I guess people in many cities will colloquially refer to their main station as Central Station, so adding it here is somewhet redundant.  For what it's worth, I live within spitting distance of the station and in everyday speech I simply call it Central Station, but do I think that's appropriate for an encyclopaedic article?  No. DrFrench (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you've completely missed the point, the current version with 2 references to Newcastle Central is completely wrong, and stems directly from the use of an inappropriate standard. There are enough sources to put Newcastle Central Station as the official name, and this complies with the wikipedia naming policies described above, without needing disambiguation from Newcastle railway station. I will re-iterate, the 'railway station' guideline has not been adopted, and appears only to exist to help navigation. Well, I think no-one is ever going to choose 'Newcastle Central railway station' as their first choice when either trying to get to the article as a reader, or link to it as an editor. Newcastle Central rs is plain wrong, and Newcastle rs is ambiguous. And I think the station/railway station argument for whether it includes metro or not is complete bunkum, and an even worse case of editors trying to hamfist a guideline without considering the reader at all, who can tell full well what is a railwqay station and metro station from the first paragraph and infoboxes/pictures, it is irrelevant to any practical concern. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Calm down! Rather than setting up a renegade base here, if there is a problem with whether we should use 'railway station' or 'station', it would be better to discuss it on the page for discussing naming systems for British railway stations (where is it?). I could simply say that Newcastle Central station is appropriate because it has a metro and main line station in one complex, despite being seperately owned. It is argued that the article only shows the main line station, but really it should include more information about the metro station like with London Waterloo station which has a link to the tube station. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with anything. Newcastle Central Station was the name before the Metro was even built. No-one gives a crap about whether the article includes the Metro or not, it's an insignificance, only made an issue by artificial wikipedia (unadopted) guidelines. You have singularly missed the point, it is not Newcastle Central station (lower case S), it is Newcastle Central Station, capital name, proper name, acceptable first unambiguous name per wikipedia name official policies; the only people resisting this fact are the people who blindly insist every article has to have railway station on the end, as if readers are all thick, and ignoring the fact Newcaslte railway station is already taken, and Newcaslte Central railway station is completely made up. MickMacNee (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. I'd have to take issue with User:Welshleprechaun about the "official" name of the station. Just because a timetable describes the destination as "Newcastle" doesn't make that "official"; it's just the short version for concision, and the name of the destination city. After all, he created the article Eldon Square Bus Station (note the capitalization); yet, looking at a bus timetable, I note that it describes the stop only as "Eldon Square". That's not the "official" name, whatever that means; it's just the shortest recognizable variant of it. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 08:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But it's not just timetables. Both Network Rail and the train companies call it Newcastle, as do the platform signs. Other stations which officially do have Central attached to the name such as Cardiff Central or Glasgow Central are referred to as such by timetables, platform signs and Network Rail and the train companies. WL (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a pretty obvious reason why that is the case, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the official or local name of the station. As said before, Newcastle railway station is an ambiguous name for this article, whether it includes the Metro or not, which is neither here nor there. MickMacNee (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * An ambiguous name is better than an incorrect one. It can easily be disamiguated by adding, for example, (Tyne and Wear) or (United Kingdom).WL (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, the naming policies are quite clear, you use the next nearest official/common usage that is unambiguous. Your edits here are pure crap, there is no other way to say it. Newcastle Central is not an name/entity/station that exists anywhere but in the minds of wikipedians. This issue is seriously not that complicated if you drop the idea the every single station in the universe can fit into a wikipedia standard. The point about Cardiff Central is just plain wrong, per the entire discussions above, there is no Newcastle Queen Street station. The name is Central Station, there is a source above that pins that down for the last hundred years. MickMacNee (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Leprechaun, I wasn't "criticizing" your capitalization, simply pointing out that you, too, accept "Station" in uppercase when it is clearly part of the title of the institution, in the case of the article you created, "Eldon Square Bus Station". As for Newcastle Central Station, instead of inferring the "official" name via a single document that mankes no reference to anything being "official" (and thus violates WP:SYNTH), may I point you to the following paragraph from the archives, which I wrote in response to another user:
 * For a few other reliable examples of "Newcastle Central Station", try the Royal Station Hotel (in the station), the famous Centurion Bar in the station , GNER and Virgin Trains, the main railways serving it , Newcastle City Government , the Ministry of Transport (1960 accident report , the BBC , NewcastleGateshead Convention Bureau , Newcastle International Airport , Port of Tyne Authority , Gateshead City Government , Northumbria University , Gateshead College , North East Councils , the BALTIC Centre , the Newcastle Arts Centre , Eldon Square , The Sage Gateshead , Tyne and Wear Museums , the UK Tourist Information Centres , Nexus (in this document, "Central Station" refers to mainline services) , Go-Ahead bus lines , Stagecoach buses , Acas Newcastle , the Bowes Railway , the FA , the Royal Victoria Infirmary , the CBI , London 2012 , and Structurae . There have been several books about the station, such as .
 * There's also this plaque in Central Station itself, posted by Dbam, if you're still somehow not convinced. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 09:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Purely a personal observation, but I lived in and around Newcastle for four years, and in all that time never heard the station referred to once as "Newcastle Central"; it was always "Central" or "Central station"; which suggests that the current title is precisely what it shouldn't be. The fact that this format appears to be a standard is somewhat problematic. Black Kite 11:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been on Newcastle as long as Black Kite, but I agree. It seems a local thing, just like all the sources Prohibit Onions provided - except the London 2012 one which "can't be found". Perhaps you could provide some more unbias sources, ie. not in the North East. If it was Newcastle Central, it would appear on platform signs, like Glasgow Central and Cardiff Central. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any replies? Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are at least seven non-local sources in that list and your point concerning platform signage has already been addressed.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 17:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you point out these 7 non-local sources because they don't seem to be there - and the London 2012 link doesn't exist. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note the 'roundabout' tag at the top. Unless there is anything new to be said (and the lhe lack of posts between 18 May and 3 July suggests that there isn't) there doesn't seem to be much to be gained by re-starting the thread simply to make the same argument repeatedly. DrFrench (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

But taking into account what has been said above, the grounds for a name change are stronger than a keep Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little teapot short and stout
Just doing a change to the usual "arbitrition break1\2\3\etc" Simply south (talk) 11:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Metro station
The metro station is part of the same complex but the articles seem to be separate even though they are part of the same complex. Really, either they should be together or there should be a section on the metro station with a link to the main article. This means the article name should be Newcastle Central Station. Both stations are managed separately by NXEC and Nexus, but this is the same system used for the London terminals (e.g. London Waterloo station) and Newcastle should not be different. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles are separate because the stations are separate. London is a poor example to use, there are plenty of instances where co-located National Rail and London Underground stations have separate articles. In fact the example you used actually proves it; Waterloo, Waterloo East Waterloo tube and Southwark tube stations all have separate articles. King's Cross, St Pancras, King's Cross Thameslink and the tube station that links them all each have their own articles. Charing Cross, Charing Cross tube and Embankment stations have individual articles.  Euston and Euston tube stations have separate articles. And if you look at the Liverpool Street station article, you'll see there is a proposal to split the article into separate ones fot NR and the tube.  So, on the basis of WP:IFITAINTBROKE - I say leave it well alone. DrFrench (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or be WP:BOLD. If someone merges them and does a good job, we may well be happy with the fait accompli. It doesn't bother me either way. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 18:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the recent discussion at Talk:Balham railway station, Talk:Balham tube station, Talk:Balham station and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 9. Simply south (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Liverpool Street station has nothing in the discussion regarding splitting! Moreover Kings Cross St Pancras Underground station destination boxes appear on both Kings Cross station and St Pancras station articles. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which just goes to show there's no one right way or wrong way of doing it. I've always thought a good rule of thumb is how the platforms are numbered.  If there's one consistent numbering scheme then maybe one article suffices (e.g. I think at  Finsbury Park station the tube platforms are 1-4 and the NR platforms are 5 upwards).  Or where there is a common 'ticketed area' (again Finsbury Park is an example of this).  I still see little reason to merge the mainline and metro station articles here.  DrFrench (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How about maybe one or two lines of text at most, the T+W destination box, and a link to the T+W station article? As for KXSP mentioned above? Sunil060902 (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Moved!
I've read through the above discussion and decided to be WP:BOLD; it seems like User:Welshleprechaun, who had been one of the strongest objectors, had modified his position, and that there seemed to be an atmosphere now more conducive to "Newcastle Central Station". I've also merged the Metro station into the article; it's part of the station's integrated rail infrastructure, and including it addresses the issue of mainline vs. multimodal stations mentioned by some people in the discussion above; as the Metro clearly capitalizes "Central Station" this may allay some of the concerns regarding the use of this term. Of course, the move can be reverted, and the articles separated again, but I hope this is the solution most amenable to all parties. What we need are more text and more pictures! Pro hib it O ni o ns (T) 07:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it back to the previous setup. I disgaree that the Metro station is part of the same complex - and therefore shoudlhave it's own article. I disagree with the name change and was ahppy with the compromise that evolved aboutr a year ago when a serious discussion of the issue was raised.  DrFrench (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * DrFrench is right. The metro station is completely seperate from the mainline station so please leave this alone. Also Newcastle Central Station would be a better name than the current one but I still maintain that the best option is Newcastle railway station, maintaining the railway part in line with all other UK station articles. It's been explained and proved that Central is not part of the official title. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh no it hasn't... Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 13:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the move should have gone ahead without consensus even though I actually do believe they are part of the same complex. The normal format (at least with London terminals) is to have both the mainline and underground stations on the same page, but there's no point discussing this further because it is always ends up with the same people discussing to get the same result. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why I resorted to WP:BOLD: There's no consensus for anything, and always the chance that others will turn out to be happy with the fait accompli. (Unless, of course, it gets reverted immediately and no-one sees it.) Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 18:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

People can defend the current nonsense of a title all they want, the real world will just have to get along without them. MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename discussion resurrected (station annuncers)
The announcements on the East Coast Main Line stations (definitely Durham and Peterborough) refer to it as "Newcastle Central", so I would suggest keeping the name as-is. Mildertduck (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to bet that whichever trainee idiot that made those announcements probably got his information from this innaccurate article. People don't seem to realise the real world effect factually wrong articles can have. MickMacNee (talk) 11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No kidding. I think, though, that the reason is that for brevity's sake they always omit the word "station" -- no matter what. Pro hib it O ni o ns  (T) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I was referring to why they would incorrectly say 'Newcastle Central' instead of 'Newcastle'. Of course they would drop the station. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Announcers at Bristol (Temple Meads and Parkway), Cardiff Central and Birmingham New Street certainly do not refer to it as Newcastle Central, just Newcastle. This extra Central may be added at stations close to Newcastle such as Durham, but like other sources it points to the fact that Central is a local term and not official. Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again you completely miss the point. The Central exists because its name is Central Station, Newcastle. Newcastle central railway station is a manufactured name made up by wikibods, and as I said, is probably what is causing this corruption of general knowledge where people start wronlgy calling it Newcastle Central due to the wiki distorting real life effect. As I said eons ago, if you want to claim the official title is the national term Newcastle Station, then you have a problem with disambiguation, therefore by the naming policies you use the next best official and common usage supported by sources, i.e. Central Station, Newcastle. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The names of the station are represented in the worst possible way and I'm trying to put things right. This needs to be sorted out Welshleprechaun (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Accepted Name"
Newcastle Central station is not the universally "accepted" name. NXEC, Network Rail and the other TOCs certainly don't accept it and refer to it as such. Please do not revert and cause an edit war unless you have a sufficient source, although there shouldn't be one. That paragraph was already accurate. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it's the "universally accepted name", I actually said in my edit summary that both variations are "accepted" depending on the context. What i'm saying is that "Newcastle Central Station" is the full name (ie. the longest version of it); "Newcastle" is the shortened version used by the rail companies for reasons that have been explained a million times.  It really is that simple; there's no need to waffle on about local usage of the name or what the Metro station is called or how you should write the name.  Really, my version is nothing more than a note (I was actually thinking about making it a footnote), explaining the reason for the two names.  The current version however, looks like a load of POV pushing—an extension of the long debate on this talk page, trying to justify both sides of the argument.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Name of the station section
Am I the only one who thinks this section is almost entirely unnecessary? The part about the rail companies shortening the name to Newcastle due to a lack of other major stations in the city is fair enough, but does it really require a section to itself? The stuff about the local and proper noun variations of the name could be applied to any other station; both Glasgow and Cardiff Central stations appear to be referred to locally as "Central Station" and examples of the proper noun, like the BBC source provided in the article, can be found for pretty much any other station. What makes Newcastle so different that it must be spelt out to the reader? There has been no confusion or controversy surrounding the name outside of Wikipedia to make it notable enough to warrant a section on it. Thoughts?  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 21:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * With Glasgow Central and Cardiff Central, those are their single official names. That's what Network Rail, the TOCs, timetables, media staff and passengers call them. Newcastle, however, is signed as Newcastle, referred to in timetables as Newcastle, but locals call it Central Station or Newcastle Central, so it's not the same as Glasgow and Cardiff. There has been confusion, and much debate over the naming of this article, so this section is needed. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * But that's exactly what I mean—the section is only there as a result of the debates on the talk page; its only purpose is to summarise the viewpoints of editors involved in those debates. It is based on unpublished arguments and is therefore original research.  As I say, I have no problem with the line regarding the rail companies' usage of the name being included somewhere, but the rest of it just states the obvious and the section as a whole seems to be for the benefit of editors rather than readers.


 * Also, I never said anything about the use of the the names Glasgow Central and Cardiff Central, I said that locals in those cities refer to those stations as Central Station, just like the locals in Newcastle do. What I mean is if this article is telling the reader that the station is known as both Newcastle railway station and Newcastle Central Station, that anyone with a bit of common sense will know that it's highly likely the locals will drop the name of the city and refer to it as Central Station or even just "the station".  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is there because unlike Glasgow or Cardiff, the station is never called Newcastle Central. The name is Central Station, or Newcastle, which is why it is written as the full name Newcastle Central Station, all capitals, in both local and national sources. It is only this article's idiotic name that suggests that 'Newcastle Central railway station', or as the implied short form Newcastle Central, is ever used by anyone anywhere. It isn't (and where it is, it can probably be attributed to the phenomenon of Wikipedia errors appearing in other sources). If the title were changed to the correct form, instead of being crowbarred into an idiotic (and unadopted) naming convention, the section would not be needed, but all attempts to do so get nowhere. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So again, if the reason for the section is purely to summarise conclusions reached on the talk page, then as I say, it is based on unpublished argument and is therefore original research. I think that the way the section seems to draw its own conclusions from its cited sources is also original research.  This violates Wikipedia policy so I'm keen to get this sorted out.


 * I've always supported the idea of calling the article Newcastle Central Station, but realistically I know that it will never happen. And while I don't entirely agree with MickMacNee about the usage of Newcastle Central—a perfectly acceptable variation—it is rarely used in everyday speech, is certainly used as a compromise here and appears to be largely unpopular.  So with that said, I believe that the best thing all round would be to move the article to Newcastle railway station.  Start the lead with "Newcastle railway station, also known as Newcastle Central Station, is the mainline railway station...".  In the infobox, set the name parameter as "Newcastle" and set the other name parameter as "Central Station".  Have a hatnote for the Newcastle railway station dab page (which would need moving).  If all that means we can get rid of that unnecessary section then I'll be happy.


 * I think that if the article is laid out like that, the average reader will "get it", and will not need to have their intelligence insulted by having it all spelt out to them. Also, if conclusions reached on the talk page about the station's name need summarising for the benefit of the reader, then they should stay on the talk page in the form of an FAQ.  Now come on, let's try and finally work something out here, what do you think?  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 20:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I support this move as described. It should be listed at RM though. Anybody opposing based on the naming convention will have to deal with the fact it is not yet accepted as a guideline, and even if it were, it can be sensibly ignored. You might get some flak from the Australians though over whether it is the primary topic. MickMacNee (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also support this move, although MickMacnee is not entirely accurate saying that it's never called Newcastle Central. It is - on destination boards in the North East. However this usage is indeed wrong. Yes, this is Newcastle railway station, or Central Station, but Newcastle Central is just plain wrong and misleading. The Australians will just have to deal with it. This Newcastle was here first and is bigger. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't envisage problems with any Australians, as the Aussie station is at Newcastle railway station, New South Wales anyway, so it's already disambiguated. I don't think there are many who are strongly opposed to "Newcastle railway station", so I think only the mainline vs. multimodal business could cause problems here.  I don't have much time right now, but I can set up the requested move at the weekend, unless one of you guys would like to get it going before then.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was moved to what seems to be the official and most commonly used name for the station. -- Aervanath (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Newcastle Central railway station → Newcastle railway station — 1) Newcastle railway station and Newcastle Central Station are both considered to be the most common name for the station. However, Newcastle Central Station is widely regarded as an unsuitable article name as it does not conform to the "X railway station" format used by the vast majority of British railway station articles on Wikipedia.  2) Newcastle Central railway station uses a variation of the name (ie. "Newcastle Central") infrequently used within the rail network or in everyday speech; it is used only as a result of a talk page compromise. 3) Should this move be successful, the name Newcastle Central Station will be prominently displayed in the lead and infobox of the article.

Previous discussions can be seen here and here. —  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 20:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support - Newcastle Central railway station has limited usage. Proposed title within the rail industry is the norm. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - There doesn't seem to be any new argument in this discussion. The status quo is a hard-fought compromise that was reached after a lot of heated discussion. With no compelling new argument to suggest a change is required, I see no reason to change the article name. Raising the same question repeatedly just strikes of 'asking the other parent'. DrFrench (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please provide a valid reason why it should not be moved. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's a compromise is pretty much the main reason for the requested move. I would also like a valid reason for your oppose.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 13:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm starting to see what you mean: this really is destined to go round and round in circles. As long as people keep trotting out the same old arguments, then the compromise is probably the only option.  I don't agree that there is no reason to move, though; the problems I've highlighted in the section above still need addressing, and I've yet to see an alternative solution.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Newcastle Central railway station is a fictional name made up by Wikipedia. The station is correctly called Newcastle Central Station by all national sources when they are not being as lazy as a tabloid, and it is known as Central Station to the entire North East of England, even the scum down the road when they are escorted in and out of it. It is abbreviated by the Welsh and other provincial peoples simply as Newcastle, lazy as they are, because they don't have the intelligence or the culture to know any different. MickMacNee (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That last statement is your opinion and bordering racist. The station's operator, NXEC, calls it Newcastle, as do all train companies, timetables and national departure boards. Only locals and sometimes the media refer to it as Newcastle Central Station, but that's not where we're discussing moving it to.
 * Racism? What absolute bullshit. The idea that Newcastle is a formal name is total crap. It is a lazy abbreviation, that is all it is. For fucks sake. MickMacNee (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that the Welsh and other provincial peoples are lazy because they have no intelligence or culture is racist in my and most other peoples' books. Anyway, this is not the place to discuss it. I've taken it up with Wikiquette, as I thought you would have learned not to be incivil after your 13 blocks, 7 of which were for incivility. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to remove all doubt, yes Mick's comment was way out of line. It has earned him yet another block for being abusive. Chillum  18:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, suggested title should be a disambiguation page. Why not use the correct name of the town - Newcastle upon Tyne. There are many Newcastle's and even Newcastle upon Tyne has had more than one railway station. Mjroots (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the station is never called Newcastle upon Tyne railway station. Newcastle station, Australia is already disambiguated and the only other station in Newcastle upon Tyne is Manors railway station so there is no chance of ambiguity with that. This station is signed as Newcastle, refered to in timetables, by train staff and Network Rail as Newcastle. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another oppose with a weak rationale; the dab page can easily be moved to Newcastle railway station (disambiguation).  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 19:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak rationale eh? Newcastle railway station should be a disambig page because there are so many of them. Just sticking to UK and Eire give us Newcastle (Co Down), Newcastle (Co Limerick), Newcastle (Co Wicklow), Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle under Lyme and Newcastle Emlyn. That's before we even look at Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand etc. Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only two other Newcastle stations with articles on WP and they're already disambiguated. If an article about Newcastle (Co Down) station is created, then it can follow suit and be called Newcastle railway station, County Down or something. Not all those Newcastles even have stations, in fact I'm sure the minority do. Newcastle upon Tyne is going to be the biggest out of all of them. If a station called Paddington opens in London, Canada, you wouldn't expect London Paddington station be moved to allow that to become a disambiguation page, would you? Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All those Newcastle's have/have had railway stations. Each station is notable enough to have an article. Source is Jowett's Railway Atlas. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose we should use Newcastle Central railway station. It's universally known locally as "Central station", never as "Newcastle station" and certainly not as "Newcastle upon Tyne station". We can't use this in the general encyclopedia context and omit "Newcastle", and the addition of "railway" is a reasonable concession to standardization. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not true, as I have stated before it's only know locally as Central Station. It's known as Newcastle Station on platform signs, on departure boards, in timetables, to its operator National Express East Coast and to the Train Companies. That's why the move has been proposed. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The rag-bag of bus companies, record shops and homophobes who make up our current "rail operators" are no form of WP:RS for either railways, the naming of stations, nor even the efficient management of a whelk stall. I would also point out that claiming there to be only two railway stations in Newcastle is splitting hairs over the definition of the Metro to a ridiculous level. "Newcastle railway station" is that worst of all failings in an encyclopedia: it's unclear. Leaving "Central" in there harms nothing. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So the rail industry is a less reliable source than local people? Get real. Metro stations don't have anything to do with this. They're clearly disambiguated by being named XYZ Metro station. Saying that the Metro and the National Rail Network are the same thing is completely absurd. Leaving Central is doing harm - it's wrong. Simpleas that - and it's been pointed out why, but so far no-one has been able to provide a good rationale not to move the article to the proposed name. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "rail industry" have called it "Newcastle Central" for far longer and with more consistency than this week's bunch of accountants who think that a rebranding exercise and some new signs makes them the best thing since Brunel. If "Central" was good enough for Stephenson and Gresley, it's good enough for Wikipedia. As you state yourself, it's known locally as "Central Station". You have still failed to point out how "Central" is wrong. Do you dispute the name's use in that form entirely? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The term Newcastle Central railway station is not used. Compare with Cardiff Central and Glasgow Central, who are called so to disambiguate with other major stations in those cities. This station is either called Central Station or Newcastle Central locally. However, platform signs clearly say Newcastle. Timetables say Newcastle, Network Rail - the owner of the station - calls it Newcastle (compare here), the station's operator NXEC calls it Newcastle. Local people call it Central Station or Newcastle Central to dismabiguate from Metro stations. This is where the confusion has arisen from. The usage of Newcastle Central will be explained in the lead. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "This station is either called Central Station or Newcastle Central locally." So once again you agree that a form with "Central" is in use, then you deny that it's in use and you insist that Wikipedia must rename itself to an aberrant form in contradiction with the name by which it's best known. Fortunately this won't matter a jot to reality, but this sort of neologising makes Wikipedia look ridiculous and Canute-like. I don't support Mick's outburst, but I can understand how your ridiculous (meaning literally that it inspires ridicule) attitude led him to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't deny the usage of Central, it's just that the title of the article is in the wrong format. We want to name the article as it's know nationally ie Newcastle railway station. If locals want to call it Newcastle Central, or Central Station, that's fine, but that's not what it's known as to the rail industry today. It's comparable to Swansea railway station. Some locals call it Swansea High Street, or High Street station because of its name 150 years or so ago, but that's not what it's known as today. My attitude can't be ridiculous if other editors agree with me. In fact I wasn't the one who proposed the name change. I simply agree because it makes sense. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of opinions expressed either way, it seems to be two for and two against. That's not a consensus for changing the status quo. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

<--See What is consensus?: Disputes on Wikipedia are settled by editing and discussion, not voting. Consensus is not what everyone agrees to, nor is it the preference of the majority. Consensus results in the best solution that the group can achieve at the time. Remember, the root of "consensus" is "consent". This means that even if parties disagree, there is still overall consent to move forward in order to settle the issue. This requires co-operation among editors with different interests and opinions. This means that if the weak opposing rationale remains weak, the page is likely to be moved. So far there have been three editors against this move. One hasn't given a reason except no new argument (which isn't a valid reason), the other has been blocked for incivility motivated by POV-pushing, and the other doesn't seem to understand the situation of naming of the station. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So to paraphrase your argument here, although the majority of opinions oppose the move, you plan to do it unilaterally anyway. The fact that there is clearly no agreement here doesn't mean that the consensus is "to move forward", it means that there is no consensus and in the absence of that we shouldn't make the contentious change. Apart from your insinuations that anyone opposing your personal opinion "doesn't understand" or "hasn't read the discussion", I'm still waiting for you to explain what your problem is with the word "Central". You have failed to (or refused to) explain this. user:Dbam's original statement was that "'Newcastle Central Station' [...] does not conform to the "X railway station" format". The issue is the omission of "railway", not the inclusion of "Central". You misrepresent their statement when you use it to support your impending rename to "Newcastle" alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read the discussion!! Newcastle Central Station doesn't conform to the format, and more importantly it's mainly to local usage, whereas Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. Nationally this is Newcastle railway station not Newcastle Central railway station! And you're right, we're not going to reach an agreement because you're still failing to understand the argument.  Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down, your hysteria does your argument no credit at all. Nor does your assertion that "Newcastle Central Station" doesn't conform to the "X railway station" format, when it so very obviously doesn't - but the discussion is about Newcastle Central railway station instead, which does. For the vast majority of its existence, this station has included "Central" in its title: both by the railway companies, and by the local population. A handful of modern signs without it, which even today aren't the only signs in the station, don't change this.
 * Our task is to write an encyclopedia, which means that we should be clear and we should be accurate. Clarity wouldn't be helped by an article on Newcastle Central Metro station that strenuously avoids mentioning that this is the same location as the mainline railway station whose name we dare not speak. Accuracy suffers if we refuse to use the name by which it is known. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] I think there is some misunderstanding here, and it's due to the fact that there are two aspects to the debate. The first is whether "Central" is part of the station's name.  Although at first glance this maybe is what appears to be being debated, it isn't really the issue that it once was.  The most recent discussions produced agreement amongst the participants that "Central" is commonly used in the station's name, but is rarely used within the rail network.  The second aspect is the use of the word "station".  A proposed naming convention for UK stations states that all stations should follow the format "X railway station", except for multimodal stations which should end with just "station".  Although this guideline is unadopted, the vast majority of, if not all, UK station articles follow this format so anything not conforming still gets opposed.  This leads to problems here, because there are those who insist that when "Central" is part of the station's name, it must be formated "Newcastle Central Station", and that "Newcastle Central railway station" or even just "Newcastle Central station" are completely unacceptable.  But obviously "Newcastle Central Station" is no good because it doesn't follow the "X station/railway station" format.


 * So basically, this gives us three options: 1) "Newcastle", 2) "Newcastle Central" and 3) "Newcastle Central Station". Option 1 is commonly used (timetables, platform signs, etc.) and can meet the Wikipedia format ; option 2 can also meet the Wikipedia format, but appears to be the least commonly used; option 3 appears to be commonly used but can't meet the Wikipedia format.  My personal first choice would be "Newcastle Central Station", but since that is extremely unlikely to happen, then, looking at it logically, I think "Newcastle railway station" is the best choice because of it's common usage and "correct" format.  Under this proposal, the other commonly used name would be clearly mentioned in the article, something like this.  The most important thing here is how the article refers to the name in a more consistent manner in the title and article text, compared to the article in its current form.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 23:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just why is Newcastle Central railway station "completely unacceptable"? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know, I personally don't have a problem with it. But others do, which is why people keep dicking about with the station's name within the article.  The three name variations I refer to above seem all perfectly acceptable to varying degrees; but whatever name is used, I want it to be used consistently throughout the article.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 19:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Andy read the discussion. I explained this earlier, but I'll try again. Look at the platforms signs, in timetables and on the National Rail website. They will say Newcastle. However, if you were to want to go to Glasgow or Cardiff, you would find timetables and platform signs referring to them as Glasgow Central and Cardiff Central. Therefore, Newcastle railway station is this station's offical name. This is what it's know as today in the rail industry. Locally, by that I mean in Tyne and Wear, possibly Durham/Darlington too, you will hear and see Newcastle Central. This has led to confusion, making people believe that this is Newcastle Central railway station. But it's not. It's either Newcastle railway station or Newcastle Central Station. However, the latter is limited to local usage and does not conform to the style X railway station. There is no reason why this should be an exception as lots of towns and cities have local names for their stations. In Carlisle, residents might talk of Cituadel Station, but to you and me it's known as its offical name, Carlisle railway station. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There has never been a sensible use of "Newcastle railway station" as a single bare name in its own right. Even in the 1830s, the first "station in Newcastle" was called the Shot Tower because it was accepted that wasn't the final location for "Newcastle's station" (but they needed to solve the problem of the steep hills first). The second was what later became the Forth Goods station. All of these were recognised to be temporary locations and unworthy of a grand overall name of "Newcastle station". The Pilgrim Street station would likely have borne this name, had it been built, but in 1850 the High Level Bridge had been opened and Central station followed. This was a joint venture between the Newcastle & Darlington, the new Newcastle & Berwick and also superseded the existing Newcastle & North Shields terminus at Carliol Square. The choice of name was deliberate: this finally was Newcastle's single great station for major routes and it wasn't to have any name that smacked of parochialism or of any single company's dominance over it.
 * Because a few insignificant little paper companies have changed their signs, you appear to wish to ignore 150 years of history and the name of Newcastle Central. That's a poor argument, ignorant of both its history and the contemporary local usage of the name. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If any company, building etc. changes its name (and this isn't even a particularly recent change), then Wikipedia reflects that change. You can't just ignore an official name just because you prefer another name. You still don't get it. The rail industry is not a paper company. If they want to name a station a certain name, then that's its name. It's as simple as that. If you want this station to be renamed to Newcastle Central railway station, then I suggest writing a letter to Network Rail. It's not me ignoring history, I didn't name this station. I'm just against articles being named incorrectly. You can't accuse me of having a poor argument when you suggest ignoring an offical name, just because you don't like it. The situation has been clearly explained to you - and you've shown that you don't understand saying I'm ignoring local usage. I've acknowledged the local usage and it will be acknowledged in the lead, but Wikipedia isn't an encylopaedia just for Tyne and Wear. Just because you don't like an offical name, we're not going to leave this article named incorrectly. Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Wikipedia articles should reflect the current name. Past, historic, or locally used names can (should) always be mentioned within the article text. --DAJF (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
There may not be any new material as such, but this issue has come up several times, proving that it won't go away and doing nothing is not an option. Just because nothing has come of it yet, doesn't mean that it's right to leave it. Perhaps a new aspect or outlook on the matter will get us somewhere. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I wholeheartedly agree with Welshleprechaun. Just ignoring it isn't going to solve anything.  I agreed to the compromise name only as a temporary measure, until there was an outcome in the station naming convention debate.  But as that seems to be dead in the water, I think now is the time to take action here, because basically the quality of the article is suffering.  The names used in the article text don't correspond to the article name—why not?  Because nobody thinks that "Newcastle Central" is the correct name.  Only "Newcastle" and "Newcastle Central Station" appear to be accepted as the most common variations of the name, but only "Newcastle" fits the apparent standard (not guideline) on Wikipedia.  The idea is to use "Newcastle railway station" as the article name, refer to the station throughout the article as "Newcastle" (where not simply referred to as "the station"), but make it clear in the lead and info box that it is also known as "Newcastle Central Station".  This will make the article much more consistent in the way it refers to the station, and will also eliminate the apparent need for a section explaining the name.


 * Just to clarify, this requested move is primarily intended to try and improve the quality of the article. I think there is now a fairly strong consensus for why, when and what the station is called, which is why it shouldn't be as much of an issue as it once was, when some editors (including myself) were strongly in favour of one name over all others.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Before posting a comment or supporting/oppossing, can editors please read the discussion first to save yourself from contradiction. It explains why this move has been proposed. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just like i have proposed before, it could drop the "railway" part if the T&WM sta is merged in. Simply south (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to keep Metro and Mainline stations apart. Also they go by different names. The Metro station is simply called Central Station, whereas the name of this article will have to include the word Newcastle. Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm starting to see what you mean: this really is destined to go round and round in circles. As long as people keep trotting out the same old arguments, then the compromise is probably the only option.  I don't agree that there is no reason to move, though; the problems I've highlighted in the section above still need addressing, and I've yet to see an alternative solution.  Dbam  Talk/Contributions 20:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep it has always gone around in circles. It basically boils down to locals vs nationals, but at the end of the day most of the country knows this as Newcastle railway station. Given that the opposition has consisted of editors behaving incivil and getting blocked, and not fully understanding the situation after several attempts of clarification, I think it's best to go ahead with the move. I'll get the article moved acknowledging the use of Newcastle Central briefly in the lead. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC) I strongly object to your description of the existing and historical name as "fabricated", to the dumbed-down version of it as "universially(sic) known" and in particular to your description of anyone having the temerity to disagree with your opinion as "irrational".

You do do not have anything resembling consensus for this highly controversial move. Please don't pretend that you do. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I said it's irrational to name this article after a historical name rather than it's current one and find it hard to believe that you do not agree. Please do not twist my words into making out that I believe every disagreeing argument in irrational, in fact I believe only your argument is irrational. I welcome any decent rationale as to why this should not be moved, but he current article name, Newcastle Central railway station is fabricated, however Newcastle Central Station is not. There is in fact general consensus to move when two editors agree on it (myself and Dbam) and you are the only one who has shown strong opposition but your argument is flawed in that, as I've just said, you want to ignore the stations current name given to it by its owner, its operator and the serving TOCs and just go with history. That's not how things work and you've yet to show any real understanding of the situation despite several attempts at clarification. If you have a reasonable argument then the move wouldn't go ahead. It's as simple as that. Welshleprechaun (talk) 10:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I quote your post to WP:RM
 * Name fabricated- request move to universially known and official name (i.e. named by Network Rail and known as that to Train Operating Companies) Opposition irrational.
 * This contains at least three contentious statements. You describe the name as "fabricated". You describe the non-Central name as "universially known". You describe opposition (not my opposition, but any and all opposition) as "irrational". These are your words.


 * There is no "general consensus to act" if merely two editors agree, when other editors are equally opposed to it. Nor do I see user:Dbam as "agreeing" with your intended change (I've no intention to speak for anyone else here, so please clarify this as much as you wish). They appear to agree with you that they don't like the current compromise, but I don't see that they favour the same change as you do, so I can hardly see this as "support".


 * In particular, please note WP:Naming:
 * Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain.


 * To address the detail though and try to resolve the controversy, there are several (perhaps three) separate issues with this naming:
 * Should "Central" be included?
 * Should the suffix be "station" or "railway station"?
 * Should "Station" be capitalised?


 * Some issues are not contentious, and I believe we may unanimously ignore them:
 * The city may be referred to as "Newcastle" rather than "Newcastle Upon Tyne".
 * We do need to include the city name.
 * "Central Station" works as a name for the Metro, because that's a local service for local people who already know they're in Newcastle. An inter-city station however does need to clarify this, both in its own naming, and in the naming used by an internationalist encyclopedia.


 * My own opinion on the matter is simple: I want to see "Central" included in there. This has the weight of history behind it.


 * As to "railway station", "station vs. Station" and "Newcastle", then I care far less. I see variation in these to approximate whatever loose naming policies we might have as an entirely acceptable compromise for the benefit of a consistent encyclopedia. "NCrs" sounds good to me though. Of course I'd use "Central Station" to a local taxi-driver (the capitalised "S" is pronounced "Stee-ar-shun" in the vernacular), but I can hardly expect exactly that to work internationally in our context.


 * Overall, I find your attitude confrontational, uncivil, and arguing a position of authority from one of ignorance. Your past comments indicate a lack of knowledge about the subject, but still no reluctance to pontificate on it regardless:
 * "I was thinking maybe it was never branded Newcastle Central, just Newcastle."
 * "after the Metro started operations the locals needed to disambiguate and started calling it Central."
 * "the only other station in the city is Manors"


 * You also seem to have a strange attitude to sourcing. Although you recognise the need for it (and please note the large number of references supplied to support the use of "Central"), you're still happy to pre-judge your own decisions before you've sought out even the simplest of references.
 * "We need to find a source stating the name when it was first opened" (after you had already claimed that it had never been called Central)


 * This incivility and inability to co-operate doesn't seem limited to this article either. Just last month you caused chaos with a remarkably ill-thought-out edit to Major UK railway stations (causing a rename template to appear throughout main article space), and another politically-charged edit to the same where you stripped Belfast from a UK listing. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you feel my attitude has been incivil in anyway, take it up with admins. In fact, if you don't I may take it further regarding your false accusations. Also, READ my argument which will contradict what you claim I have said in quotations marks. You cannot make up something, put it in quote marks and say I said it! Get your facts right, and stick to them. Nor should you bring up irrelevant past discussions I have been involved in an attempt to undermine me to strengthen your argument. Although Wikipedia urges the assumption of good faith, I strongly believe that your agenda is to patronise and undermine me to get your way on this article. I've seen it before and will no doubt see it again. Any further problems you have with me, take it up on my talk page or with an administrator and stop wasting other editors' time who have to read this discussion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arguments to support the inclusion of "Central"
Since the station opened in 1850, it has been known as "Central" in some form. Whether this was "Central" or "Newcastle Central" depended more on the context of its use and whether that was local (i.e. if Newcastle was obviously implied) or national. This naming to include Central persists to this day in common use, and in the name of the adjacent Metro station.

Newcastle has had a great many local railway stations and significant route junctions over the years, but one has always predominated as the city's main transport portal. Unlike (for example) Liverpool with its three major per-company stations of Lime Street, Central and Exchange, Newcastle never had multiple companies fighting for trade (they agreed early on to share a station) and so one station could predominate. Despite not needing to distinguish Central from some other hypothetical "Blaydon Parkway" or "Heaton St Enoch", a station that could very easily have passed unconfusingly as "Newcastle" staunchly remained known as "Central".

Recent (post-privatisation) changes to signage have simplified some signs, according to the current fashion, and moved to the bare "Newcastle".

It would seem universally agreeable that:
 * The name has included "Central" for much of its life
 * Recent changes have made this less prominent, and might even wish it were dropped altogether.

Wikipedia doesn't have clear naming policies that address historical changes to station names. OTOH, regional names do and we have policies that still place Donald Campbell's 1967 death on Coniston water in Lancashire, not 1973's Cumbria. Let alone Gdansk! Clearly we do take history and common usage into account.

One policy is to use common names, where these "do not conflict with the names of other things". Including "Central" does not, and certainly not with the Metro station. Dropping "railway" to give "Central Station" might also be seen as a common variant, but IMHO that does run the risk of conflict or confusion.

We should also name things precisely. This means with fine granularity, rather than the broadest scope that can still be applied consistently. "Newcastle" probably does reduce the number of confused tourists, but "Newcastle Central" is obviously an appropriate result for a search bsed on terms of either "Newcastle" or "Central".

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)