Talk:Wellesley Hills station

Merge discussion
If this is the same physical location, let alone the same structure, then it should definitely be one article. Mackensen (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Same place, same line, same building even. It's the same station. I know that there was discussion some time ago as to whether we should put such an emphasis on current operations for stations that have a long history, and whether the building or the location of the stop is the notable aspect. I'll repeat what I said then, the fact that it is a currently active train station is the most defining characteristic and should be the central focus of such articles. (p.s. I'll fix the tags to make sure discussion is centralized.)oknazevad (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, especially since I tagged these two articles. When both MBTA and the art gallery that uses the station house give the same address, how can anybody not see them as one in the same? When I looked at the history of the B&A article, the author tried everything to distinguish it from the MBTA site, as if he was belittling it's present use as a commuter railroad station(Elitist, much?). BTW, let me know what you think of the work I've done on the MBTA version so far. I did swipe some text from the B&A version, and made a few adjustments. DanTD (talk) 15:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Sure. I'm afraid that there will be too much emphasis on the present use at the expense of its past uses, as well as too much emphasis on the MBTA part at the expense of the building part. After all, it was a B&A station a lot longer than it's been an MBTA one. Also, does MBTA control the building or use it? Apparently not. As for the commuter rail comment, the old B&A was very much a commuter service into Boston as well as a long distance service. clariosophic (talk) 17:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply; Even if the B&A article is merged into the MBTA article, the fact that it was originally a B&A station would not be ignored. There are plenty of articles about stations that served previously existing railroads. DanTD (talk) 03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional request
The current Wellesley Hills (Boston and Albany station) article is currently assessed as a Start-class article, while this is assessed as a Stub-class article. When these two are merged, I propose that we reassess the MBTA article as start-class, and the B&A article as redirect-class. Who's with me on this? DanTD (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I'm doing it now. Sorry, User:Kod2008, but it had to be done. DanTD (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

MOVE TO CLOSE This has been merged for over a year. I think this should get a closing tag now. DanTD (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"Wellesley Hills ((Boston and Albany station)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wellesley Hills ((Boston and Albany station). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 7 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

"Wellesley Hills ((Boston and Albany station)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wellesley Hills ((Boston and Albany station). The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 09:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)