Talk:Stations in West Hampstead

Page move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

not moved. When/if the expansion is made, then the move will be considered. Joelito (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * West Hampstead railway station → West Hampstead station … Rationale: The name West Hampstead is covered by many stations but this is effectively one interchange. In the near future there are plans to make this one big station, with greater access to the London Underground. … Please share your opinion at Talk:West Hampstead railway station. —Simply south 18:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't name things contrary to our naming convention until they actually become the new type, I would have thought.
 * James F. (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC) West Hampstead railway station → West Hampstead railway stations — I just want to be on the safe side and have this as a provisional name, also there is more than one station here. Hopefully this should not turn out like the last one until this is much nearer the tie. Simply south 18:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Oppose - the 'railway station' suffix is as near-universal as makes no difference, and even if the stations are to be knocked together, there will still be separate entries for the three former stations. Maybe turn 'West Hampstead railway station' into a disambig page with redirects to four separate pages (the two BR stations, the LUL station and the proposed union station)?  Irides cent  02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - They should probably be split into separate articles. The plan to "merge" the stations actually consists of building a few long footbridges between the various platforms. They'll still mostly be separate. --88.110.235.235 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:

In Nov 2007, the 'station formerly known as West End Lane' becomes part of London Overground; and the two stations will be split naturally since this one will no longer be a 'National rail' station. Further, is it reasonable to expect editors to remember this is the exception to the rule, that a station is called "xxx railway station", even when there are multiple examples. Kbthompson 11:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * London Overground will be a National Rail service administered by TfL. --88.110.235.235 01:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Map or plan
Understanding this article would be helped with a map, plan or diagram of the station(s), and a coor link to allow readers to find maps and satellite images of it/them. --Scott Davis Talk 07:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm having a go at drawing one today. Unfortunately, my drawing skills are somewhat lacking, so it might look a bit amateurish!  Hassocks5489 13:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally remembered to upload it and add it today. Hassocks5489 21:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Split
I find the current arrangement of this article describing three stations in one as pretty confusing and I'd suspect that our readers might feel the same. Therefore, I am going to split these with an article remaining at this title providing an introduction with links to the appropriate articles. Adambro (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article now not needed?
Each of the three (not the "many" used somewhere in this talk) stations has its own article, refering as fit to the others, so there seems little point in retaining this article. A careful transfer of information from this to the others would render it quite redundant.--SilasW (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article acts as summary of the stations in the area as well as the proposal for the interchange. It just needs expanding. Other examples of article covering other stations include Stations around Shepherd's Bush and Wootton Bassett railway stations. Simply south (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see justification for "area" station articles just because the stations' names have a common element. Here changing names to "West Hampstead" seems to have been an attempt at emphasising the convenient proximity, in contrast to the original owners' trying to brand each station distinctively. Why not allow stations articles for every LBoro or county or ......? Each of the three WHampstead sta articles refers to the others and mentions the interchange proposal, since yesterday not in the same words, but maybe that uniformity will be attained by tomorrow. Of the two examples mentioned, Stations around Shepherd's Bush deals more justifiably with an areal and temporal mish-mash of stations and re-namings, while Wootton Bassett railway stations has the common theme of extinction.--SilasW (talk) 11:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO the article stands well on its own as a focus for the description of the stations for the following reasons: they have the common theme of similar names with geographical proximity but they still have operational and geographical distinctions (disambiguation purpose); the names have changed over the years with similar variants based on the name West End (disambiguation purpose again); and there is a common theme of the WH Interchange development proposals which would otherwise have to be described in triplicate in each of the separate station articles. It's better to have this detailed in one place. So I do not support deleting this article as it has its own merits. I have given the article a bit of work to bring it up to a more informative standard comparable to the Shepherd's Bush article, and I hope everyone likes the updates.Cnbrb (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that this proposal is dead and the amount of new homes in this area now prohibits this development to occur (there are things in the way now!) - I was thinking of recommending this page to be consolidated/deleted - or at the very least, cut down substantially. However, I then read this talk page - where these peeps above point out the "Stations around Shepherd's Bush" article - which deals with a complicated geographic spread of various different stations very well - and provides excellent context. Given then the substantial upgrade to the London Overground station and the new Thameslink station building - I therefore propose a rewrite of this article in that regard - with a section on the former Chiltern Railways proposal, of course. Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ with that.Keep for historical context - this is an article about an abandoned proposal. There are, after all, quite a lot of them and they make interesting reading. Cnbrb (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay - so I rewrote the page to be similar to the Stations around Shepherd's Bush article - discussing all three stations, while keeping info regarding the historic proposal. Name change time? Any thoughts? Turini2 (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved article. Turini2 (talk) 10:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)