Talk:Oldham Mumps tram stop

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as requested to Metrolink titles Mike Cline (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

– These three railway stations have been closed for several years for conversion to become part of the Manchester Metrolink. They are due to open early tomorrow morning (UK time) so they should be updated to reflect their new use. Sections in the articles can be made to detail the stations' past uses for heavy rail.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oldham Mumps railway station → Oldham Mumps Metrolink station
 * Failsworth railway station → Failsworth Metrolink station
 * Hollinwood railway station → Hollinwood Metrolink station
 * Support move, but wait for the reopening to occur - the reason that these have not yet been moved is given at Naming conventions (UK stations): "Where a railway station is closed for conversion x Metrolink station will redirect to the former railway station name until the Metrolink station opens at which time the article name will be changed to reflect its current use and the redirect will be reversed e.g. presently [Chorlton Metrolink station] → [Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station]." - it's therefore on the to-do list for tomorrow. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - they are historical and should be left with the relevant content moved and restored to the Metrolink articles. Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 18:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that there be two articles, one for the former NR station and one for the Metrolink stop? That goes against the convention established for other stations converted for Manchester Metrolink, such as Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the railway life of the station should be moved to the history section like the suggested example.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In reply to Redrose64, yes I am. If you look at the Tramlink stations for example, the BR stations that were converted still have separate articles such as Waddon Marsh railway station, Woodside (London) railway station etc. Actually, why is exception made in the Metrolink articles? Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years  20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * By that argument, we would need to split out the articles for all the converted stations, even those converted long before Wikipedia began. I think there are almost 20 of these, mainly on the Bury and Altrincham lines, and these articles have always covered both the Metrolink and pre-Metrolink histories. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately yes, although a brief history could be mentioned in each article. 20:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years
 * This convention was discussed and agreed several years ago and followed similar discussion about whether there should be seperate or combined articles on Man Vic and Man Pic stations. A simple redirect picks up those looking for former station names and the history is just as relevant for modern users so theres no point duplicating content. WatcherZero (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Update has pre-empted the outcome of this discussion and converted Oldham Mumps Metrolink station, Failsworth Metrolink station and Hollinwood Metrolink station into full articles, leaving the originals alone. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to do now. There's a lot of duplicated material.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We are now getting parallel updates, see for example and  -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing as has not done anything about it, and created the artilces before consensus was reached, I've reverted their edits so that this discussion can continue. I think that the railway stations articles should simply be placed into the history section of the respective new Metrolink articles.  Del ♉ sion 23   (talk)  11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * We also need to consider those which changed name between closure and reopening. I've just spotted Newton Heath and Moston Metrolink station, formerly Dean Lane railway station. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Any more users with an opinion on this move?  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  21:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Move all three to Metrolink station as they are now up-and-running. Zarcadia (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article split
I would argue that this article should be split into Oldham Mumps railway station for the former railway station, and Oldham Mumps tram stop, for the modern tram stop which carries its name. In the same way as Oldham Central railway station and Oldham Central tram stop are separate.

It is pretty clear that the two things are separate, as they are in different locations, and on different stretches of track, and carry a different transport mode. The only commonality between them is that the modern tram stop carries the name of the former train station. It seems a bit odd for two separate things to be squeezed into one article like this. Any thoughts? 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree - article should be split for reasons stated. Mjroots (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)