Template talk:Major railway stations in Britain/Archive 2

Requested move
Template:Major UK railway stations → Template:Major British railway stations — Although Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, it has a completely seperate railway network. This move would bring the article line with other British railway articles such as List of closed railway stations in Britain which exclude Northern Ireland. This would also solve a repeated discussion of whether to include Belfast stations or not. Constructive feedback is welcome. — Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:40, 2 February 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.


 * Oppose - railway stations in Northern Ireland may not be included in the List of Closed railway stations, but those that are open and used by NI Railways are included on the alphabetical lists of stations - see for example UK railway stations - A. The question of whether to include the network in NI has been addressed many times, most notably in my experience on the Current UK TOCs template, with the consensus reached that it was valid to use the UK rather than Great Britain, and to include Northern Ireland. The question of including the two Belfast stations was addressed in April 2008 as part of a wider discussion on what to keep on this template and what not to keep, and certainly the prospect of at least Belfast Central remaining was agreed on then. In regards to GVS, I have listed several valid reasons why it too should be included at the bottom of this page. Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.17 GMT

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Discussion - to me this does not seem like a valid use of time - the NI question has been answered and a consensus reached; the template has been as it is for nearly a year without anyone being concerned about it, so why are we going through it again? Are there any really valid reasons? Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.21 GMT

Bristol Parkway and Cardiff Queen Street
I believe these should be added to the template. The passenger numbers are around 2 million each but I believe their importance as interchanges hide their true usage (as the passenger number is people who travelled from or to that station, not changed there) Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I shall be added these stations. If you oppose, please disucss here first rather than reverting. Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Could i discuss Manchester Victoria and Birmingham Snow Hill? Its probable usage figures for these stations are misleading as it seems to tend to focus on the other major stations. Manchester is notable for being a major local commuter hub and the same for BSH. BSH and MV are also the terminii for some longer-distance trains. Usage cannot be trusted as the sole thing for determining a major station. Simply south (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's more a matter of whether they would be considered "major" on a national scale. Cardiff Queen Street certainly cannot be argued to be "major" in this respect (especially as with one exception no train through it does not them immediately call at Cardiff Central.  Snow Hill and Manchester Victoria are important locally but I wouldn't rate them as "major" points on the network.  Bristol Parkway is not so clear, as it is at least an interchange point between South Wales, the South West and the Midlands, so of the four probably has the most mileage here.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out that the above user has been banned for vandalising pages related to rail transport in Cardiff, thus demonstrating his or her bias point of view Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they were not banned, they were blocked. (There is an important distinction: see WP:BLOCK.)  --RFBailey (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that Cardiff Queen Street is nationally (UK) important. It is very important locally, in Cardiff and the Valleys, etc. It is also notable in Wales / for ATW, as the Valley lines form a significant portion of the network, and the revenue. But throughout the UK? My opinion is no.

Further, to my eye (which is most familiar with the Wales and Borders area), CDQ is the only station in the list that is not an intercity destination. I would rate Newport, Hereford or Swansea as being of equal or perhaps higher importance in the UK network.

I feel that this template is for UK-notable intercity locations rather than local commuter hubs, and I find that this view has been expressed by others in the past. On that basis, I'm somewhat against the other three suggestions as well, but I can't speak with any real authority on them. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've got a strong feeling of déjà vu here: we've been through all this before, several times. Each time, usually after a lot of arguing, pretty much the same conclusion has been reached.


 * The problem with "second" stations such as Birmingham Snow Hill, Cardiff Queen Street and Manchester Victoria is that the usage data is inaccurate, as tickets issued to "Birmingham Stations" (for instance) are counted towards the largest station (e.g. New Street), thereby having the effect of making the second stations look suspiciously quiet. Also, PTE-issued passes don't count towards the figures either, thereby further distorting the usage of stations in PTE areas (e.g. Birmingham, Manchester but not Cardiff or Bristol).  Therefore, we should decide once-and-for-all whether we should be including such second stations.  (But then, someone will come along and say "What about Moor Street, Oxford Road or Liverpool Central?", so before you know it we'll have the same problem again.


 * But whatever happens, nobody should add or remove a station without first discussing it here! --RFBailey (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Snow Hill
I propose to remove Snow Hill. Could editors please outline their opinions and reasons. It will be removed in one week if there is no significant objection Welshleprechaun (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Per earlier usage discussions and it is served by terminus for long-distance trains. Simply south (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So is that a keep vote, then? --RFBailey (talk) 16:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So are some non-major stations Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed. If you wish to revert, please outline your argument. WL (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hammersfan 14/05/08, 16.00 BST
 * Birmingham Snow Hill
 * 0.296 mil passengers - can't argue, figures don't lie
 * Not really national destination; all services go to London - incorrect, serves Warwick, Leamington Spa, Stratford, Kidderminster, Stourbridge, Worcester all in the West Midlands by London Midland
 * 2 operators - one of your definitions is "more than one operator"
 * Although tram interchange - and bus interchange
 * Local commuter impression - why does how the local community see it matter?

Snow Hill is of little national importance - ie. local commuter impression. It has low passenger numbers and limited destinations. Please do not revert until you have explained why you feel it is of national importance and an agreement has been reached WL (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the argument of "little national importance", why do you insist that Cardiff Queen Street be kept? Does that have any greater "national importance" than Snow Hill? Snow Hill is the terminus of a major intercity route between London (the national captial) and Birmingham (the second city), not to mention also having several services by another operator, and being the terminus of the local RT system. Can Cardiff claim that? No, ergo, by your logic, Cardiff should also be removed. By somehow I can't see you agreeing to that WELSH leprechaun Hammersfan 14/05/08, 16.41 BST

Cardiff Queen Street has a passenger usage more than 7 times that of Birmingham Snow Hill. It has a large range of passenger services in all directions such as Bridgend, Cheltenham, Maesteg, Ebbw Vale and Gloucester. Birmingham SH has a limited range of destinations and only has a usage of 0.29 million which cannot at all be argued to be a station of large usage let alone national importance. CQS's usage is larger than some stations already on the template WL (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, BSH is served by 3 routes, CQS served by 5. How do you define a major route by the way? The size of the city is regardless, this template handles railway stations. WL (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, Snow Hill has more than 0.296m passengers. If you buy a ticket to Birmingham, then your trip gets attributed to New Street, unless Snow Hill is the only sensible option (e.g. form Jewlery Quarter). So, all those people who commute to Snow Hill every morning will get counted in New Street's total. Tom pw (talk) (review) 18:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even so, it's impossible to tell what the real figure is so we have to go by published figures. Also, I'm sure the majority of people buying a ticket would specifically mention that they are going to Snow Hill rather than just Birmingham. WL (talk) 18:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "I'm sure" now constitutes proven fact does it? Well, obviously I was mistaken about the purpose of Wikipedia. Using the given logic, here's a proposal for an addition - Lewisham - its passenger figures show over 4 million passengers in 05/06, it is a major nexus for routes from central London to north Kent, it interchanges with the local RT system (the DLR) and has a major bus station interchange with several routes to and from central London, east London and north Kent. To me, this is an ideal candidate for inclusion using Welshleprechaun's logic. If we include a station such as Cardiff Queen Street, where does it end? Hammersfan 15/05/08, 11.21 BST

Why don't we just add every London station then? I only see you arguing because Birmingham Snow Hill wasn't added. Also, unlike yourself, I haven't added or removed anything without discussion and agreement if you care to browse this page and the archives. Anyway, if you really want to take your petty argument further, I suggest you put it up to administratior intervension. WL (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Discussion and agreement? Hmm, let me see if I can find that. Nope, can't actually see much beyond yourself agreeing to remove Snow Hill. I am simply using the system you yourself suggested to ascertain what exactly a "major station" is, and, seemingly under your own system, Lewisham can be counted just as legitimately as your own suggestion. As for the suggestion that I am petty, there are silver objects that people can look in and recognise themselves. Hammersfan 15/05/08, 16.31 BST

I've put it up for vote. If you make a personal attack against me again, I will report youto administration. WL (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Toshack Hammersfan 23/05/08, 15.08 BST

Vote on Birmingham Snow Hill and Cardiff Queen Street
Please can all editors vote on whether Birmingham Snow Hill and Cardiff Queen Street should be included/removed from the template. Please add your username below the heading and give your reasons:

Add Birmingham Snow Hill
It's difficult to measure usage at this station as many people buy tickets to 'Birmingham Stations' which is credited to New Street (a quick check with National Rail shows this) and looking at the stations it serves, the figure is far too low anyway. It is also a major station within Birmingham, the second largest city in the UK and an interchange with the Midland Metro. I would say it should be kept (for now) as much as Manchester Victoria should be. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Define 'Major'
Re-examining (or defining) our criteria for a major station may help here. I didn't find anything concrete at a quick glance in the archives. I can think of three off-hand:


 * Footfall/passengers - some is covered by the ticketing info, but not all
 * Network role - Is there something about the station that the numbers don't show?
 * Do many people change trains here?
 * Does it connect with another mode of transport, e.g. ferry?
 * National relevance
 * Is it important nationally? If it's a station that's local to you, remember that a major station should be notable to people at the other end of the country
 * How does it compare locally? Is it important when compared to other nearby stations?

And then, when deciding how 'major' a station needs to be, we need to think about how many stations we want on this template.

Any views? Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 23:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well what do you think the minimum annual passenger usage should be of a major station should be? Personally I think it should run well into the millions. There should be maybe at least 2/3 train operators serving it and destinations over 100s of miles away. Also I agree with it being an interchange of some sort, both rail and other form of transport. Regarding the Belfast stations, how can we tell their passenger usage? Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's safe to keep the London stations in place but here's what I think:

Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Birmingham New Street - keep
 * Probably most major interchange outside of London as England's second city
 * 17 mil passengers
 * Served by four operators from Plymouth to Glasgow
 * Is it an interchange with bus/tram etc??
 * Edinburgh Waverley - keep
 * 15 mil passengers
 * Major interchange between England/Scotland (Airport bus i/change and soon to be tram interchange)
 * 5 operators from the Highlands to the South Coast
 * Gatwick Airport - undecided
 * High passenger usage, airport interchange and many operators
 * After the axing of CrossCountry services to the station, it won't be so important nationally but perhaps in London and the SE
 * Glasgow Central - keep
 * 30 mil. passengers
 * Major interchange between Eng/Sco
 * 5 operators from the Highlands to South Coast
 * Subway interchange
 * Leeds -keep
 * 16 mil. passengers
 * 5 operators - national destination
 * Northern rail hub - important as local-national interchange
 * Liverpool Lime Street -keep
 * 14 mil passengers
 * 6 operators as far as London
 * Manchester Piccadilly -keep
 * 21 mil passengers
 * 6 operators from Glasgow to South Coast - Northern rail local hub
 * Tram interchange
 * Belfast Central - keep
 * Intercity destination / cross border services
 * Bus interchange
 * Belfast Great Victoria Street -discard
 * No cross border services
 * Probably not an interchange (unlike Central)
 * Birmingham Snow Hill - discard
 * 0.296 mil passengers
 * Not really national destination - all services go to London
 * 2 operators
 * Although tram interchange
 * Local commuter impression
 * Brighton undecided
 * 11.855 million with 4 operators
 * But not a major city and furthest destination is Manchester
 * Bristol Parkway - undecided
 * Only 1.633 million and 2 operators
 * But destiantions from Scotland to South Coast and major rail i/change
 * Bristol Temple Meads -keep
 * 4 operators from Scotland to South Coast
 * Regional to National interchange
 * Airport bus i/change
 * 6.066 million passengers
 * Cardiff Central -keep
 * 8.357 million
 * Rail/bus interchange and national-regional-local(Valley Lines) i/change
 * Arriva Trains Wales i/change
 * 3 operators from Newcastle to Portsmouth
 * Cardiff Queen Street - keep
 * 2.126 million and rail/bus i/change
 * Regional interchange
 * Crewe -undecided
 * only 1.652 million and not a major city
 * but 7 operators from Glasgow to Carmarthen
 * Derby -discard
 * 2.621 million but not really an interchange
 * 2 operators - 1 regional, 1 national
 * Doncaster -keep
 * 2.837 million
 * 6 operators from Penzance to Edinburgh
 * Seems to be important rail i/change
 * Glasgow Queen Street keep
 * 3.735 million
 * Same as Cardiff Queen Street being important regional/local interchange
 * Subway interchange
 * Manchester Victoria- undecided
 * only 0.487 million
 * but Northern rail regional hub and tram interchange
 * Newcastle -keep
 * 6.108 million with 5 operators from Edinburgh to the South Coast
 * Metro and bus interchange
 * Regional Northern Rail i/change
 * Nottingham -keep
 * 5.371 million passengers
 * 2 operators from Cardiff to Norwich to London
 * Tram i/change
 * Reading -keep
 * 13.570 million
 * Heathrow bus i/change
 * 3 operators from aberdeen to plymouth
 * Sheffield - keep
 * 5.167 million
 * 4 operators from South Coast to Scotland
 * Tram i/change
 * Northern Rail regional i/change
 * York -keep
 * 6.148 million
 * 6 operators from London to Scotland
 * Northern Rail regional i/change

I agree that there should be millions of passengers, but I don't feel that I'm knowledgeable enough to give any further estimate.

Your idea of at least X TOCS sounds very good to me: if a station is an interchange of national importance, then it will definitely have more than one operator. Long distance services? Yes, that'd be a mark of national importance. Surely any candidates will have at least two such services travelling through. So how about:


 * At least X million passengers per year
 * Served by at least Y train operators
 * On at least Z long distance routes (that are at least Q miles end-to-end)

I'm not giving numbers on purpose. My idea is that we agree on a formula (e.g. this one), and then after accepting one we can try some values (and see which stations are included) and see which values give a list that we feel is acceptable. I feel that such a divide and conquer approach will be better than everyone voting yes/no for a candidate list of stations, and explaining their case each time. Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that there should X operators. One station could have one or two operators but to a large number of major and national destinations Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * X could be two. (It could be one, but that'd mean that the criteria is pointless). Ansbaradigeidfran (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We've been through all this before, several times, and I'm getting a strong sense of déjà vu about it.


 * Passenger numbers are obviously a useful, and certainly the most quantifiable, way of determining importance. However, this does tend to skew things in favour of stations in the South East with large numbers of commuters (e.g. St Albans, Woking, Chelsmford) which are otherwise not all that important.  Also, because the figures we have available to us are based only on National Rail ticket sales, there are the flaws in the way the figures are compiled:
 * 1. In cities with more than one station (e.g. Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool) where tickets are sold to "X stations", there are always counted towards the largest station, thereby inflating the figures for New Street, Piccadilly, etc., and probably doing a disservice to Moor Street, Snow Hill, Oxford Road, etc.
 * 2. In PTE areas, a large number of people travel on PTE-issued passes, season tickets, etc.; these tickets are not counted either, thereby further reducing the numbers in these areas.
 * 3. In no cases do the figures count the number of passengers changing trains (probably quite a significant proportion in some places), breaking their journey (probably not so significant), or getting off a stop early (for instance, when I lived in North London I would often have a ticket to "London Terminals" but get off at Finsbury Park).


 * I'm not sure number of operators is necessarily a useful criterion. For instance, in some areas, the "InterCity" operator and the regional operator are the same franchise (e.g. NXEA, FGW), while in others they're separate (e.g. Virgin and London Midland).  Then there's the issue of stations being served primarily by one operator, but once a day (or even once a week) by another.


 * I don't think that specifying a number of long-distance routes is necessarily sensible, either: for a start, we'd probably have to include Inverness (as Kyle of Lochalsh and Thurso are both quite a long way from Inverness, Thurso being further from Inverness than Cardiff is from London!), while some long routes exist purely for operational reasons by joining up shorter ones (Great Malvern to Brighton via Bristol and Southampton, taking five and a half hours, is my favourite of those).


 * In short there isn't an obvious way to define "Major" in any way other than saying, "A major station is one of the following list of stations", and I doubt we'll be able to find a list that is significantly different from this version (implemented 19 April 2006, two years ago!). --RFBailey (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this was not a problem until a short while ago. Hammersfan 15/05/08, 11.24 BST


 * It should be noted that with Manchester Victoria, it is possible to buy a ticket to Manchester Stations which can be any of the major stations in the city centre but is credited to Piccadilly. A quick look at stations on the Oldham Loop shows that usage cannot be that low. Snow Hill in Birmingham is a similar case.


 * I also disagree with discarding Derby as Derby is a historically important junction, and a major junction between the Midland Main Line and Cross Country Route and serves a fairly important city. There are about 0.6 million interchanges a year according to the usage data, which is quite high for a station outside of London.


 * On the grounds of Derby, Crewe should definitely stay. Brighton is also a major terminus of a major line plus two quieter lines and with a usage of 11 million plus 1 million extra interchanges.


 * Really, when looking at stations outside of London, we should be looking for these things:
 * 1) Usage of generally over 3 million, but not just passengers going into London like at Chelmsford and Woking (except Reading)
 * 2) Generally over 0.5 million interchanges as with Reading or Crewe, but again not stations like Shenfield and Woking.
 * 3) Being the main station for the city centre on a commuter line (Glasgow Queen Street, Manchester Victoria and Birmingham Snow Hill are good examples)
 * 4) Over 10 platforms.


 * Any thoughts? Incidently, I think Preston should be on there. It is the counterpart of York on the West Coast Main Line, having just under 1 million interchanges, serving the junctions of 5 lines (WCML, Blackpool Branch, Manchester Line, Ormskirk branch and East Lancs Railway) and historical importance. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

10 Platforms seem a bit much! I'd say a guidline of at least 5/6, but again these are guidelines so we can't reject a station just because they don't meet one aspect of the criteria. Also, I'm against Preston - An important regional one perhaps, but doesn't give a major station impression. WL (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't have to have that many, but if it does it would be a major station. There's a problem with allowing as little as 5/6 platforms as there are stations such as Chester, Blackpool North and Nuneaton, which although fairly important on their own, don't really classify as 'major'. Also with Birmingham Snow Hill there are also trains running to Kidderminster and Stratford; not just London. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

But there are major stations with such a number of platforms. I don't think # of platforms should be a factor. Some stations don't have a large number of platforms simply because there's no room to expand. Also, some stations divdide their platforms into A&B to accomodate more than one train and which doesn't count towards platform number, thus making a large station appear smaller WL (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Such as Cardiff Central? No, I didn't say that they need that many, but stations which do have that many should count as major stations, although stations like that probably satisfy the other criteria. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. But still do you think there could be stations with more than 10 platforms that aren't major? Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled Cardiff Queen Street on the basis that in looking through the discussions it appears that User:Welshleprechaun is the only user in favour of adding it, whereas the contrary position is almost unanimous. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've put it back on, because no agreement has been made, for now. I myself think it is of similar importance to Birmingham Snow Hill and Manchester Victoria. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Birmingham Moor Street
Seeing the debate about B'ham Snow Hill made me think that Moor Street would be a more suitable choice. Its usage has shot up to 2.681 million passengers and it does serve trains to London, the South East and Worcester and will soon have two additional bay platforms for local trains. Anyone agree? Mpvide65 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe not quite yet. It serves less destinations and i think is less importat than the other two, but i think to wait and see. Just my opinion. Simply south (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I meant replacing Snow Hill with Moor Street, as the latter is busier and serves exactly the same destinations as Snow Hill. The only difference is that Snow Hill is described as the 'destination' for Chiltern Trains, even though most passengers get off at Moor Street, which is closer to New Street. Mpvide65 (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Crewe
This is hardly a major station of national importance. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Belfast removal
I propose removing the two Belfast stations as they are on a completely different rail network, are not included in statistics relating to Network Rail and we don't know their entry/exit figures. Thoughts? 86.0.8.204 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is also based on other factors, not just usage figures. Also, even though the Belfast stations are on a different rail network they are located within Northern Ireland, part of the UK. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand there are other factors but how does it measure up against them? Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing. Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've restored the Belfast stations and encourage people to allow for opinions to be heard before what appears to be taking arbitrary decisions. Hammersfan 27/01/09, 17.35 GMT
 * As regards the Belfast stations in any case, I refer to the list above which states, by one particular user:
 * Belfast Central - keep
 * Intercity destination / cross border services
 * Bus interchange
 * GVS is the terminus for virtually all rail services in NI, and is also the site of the major Ulsterbus station in Belfast, Europa Bus Station. Hammersfan 27/01/09, 17.48 GMT


 * Reverting. If you want to support the addition or removal of a station, you discuss it here first. That's explained in the text. I removed them after no-one commented. Now they are removed, you will follow procedure. Welshleprechaun (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that it in this discussion, it seems to be two people in favour of keeping the Belfast stations, one (anonymous) person who seems to be in favour of removing them, and one who has offered no opinion, I figure that, unless anyone else offers an opinion, they should go back. Hammersfan 02/02/09, 09.50 GMT
 * Read above, there was no consensus for the addition! Just a comment from Simply South. I removed them when there was no reply to a request for comment so if you want their retention you can call for a consensus instead of starting edit wars. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is a consensus was reached almost a year ago, but you seem intent on stirring it up yet again. Did you actually ask anyone for their opinion before simply making the changes you thought best? If you did then everyone must have been asleep, because I'm sure there would have been more comments on here than there are. Don't you think it likely that because the template has been in place in its current format for so long, no one actually KNEW there was a discussion?? Did that not occur to you in the slightest???? Hammersfan 03/02/09, 13.30 GMT
 * Belfast is in the UK, its station(s) is major; keep them. This should maintain the balance in place. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If this is a UK template, then as Belfast is part of the UK and the two stations are clearly the two most important in NI, then there's no reason they shouldn't be included. (Arguments about usage statistics are problematic, and have put to bed in the past several times, before people insist on reawakening them and going round and round in circles, and everyone starts losing the will to live.)  --RFBailey (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename it Major railway stations in the UK and Ireland, add Dublin Connolly, Dublin Heuston and Limerick and have done. Semi-joking, but only semi. –  iride scent  21:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly for some, good for others but UK and Ireland aren't the same country anymore. Such templates are usually done per country/region and if you want do an international one the template would need some serious pruning to keep but the very busy/important stations. Keep it British as it is its purpose, Ireland can have its own (haven't checked if they do but then again I don't work on Irish related articles). I'm keen on maintaining my vote above and agreeing with Hammersfan and RFBailey. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok it's decided. We'll keep them. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Removal of disruptive template
I have removed the disruptive template about the contents of this template from the template page. This was causing problems to the appearence of articles and was likely to be very confusing to readers. It additionally had a standard message attached to it that it was misplaced. I think the threats made against an editor to report them for vandalism if they removed the template werre also disruptive. I have consequently warned the editor who inserted the template, giving them advice on how to achieve the discussions and how to go about assessing whether a consensus exists by more standard, acceptable routes. I am therefore closing all the above discussions about removal of names from the template pending a proper RfC with appropriate notices of it with pointers placed on the appropriate talk pages of articles and projects. That is all. DDStretch   (talk)  17:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)