Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of West Midlands railway stations


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted 20:11, 3 February 2008.

List of West Midlands railway stations
(Self-nom) This list follows a similar pattern to List of London Underground stations, which is already featured. As it stands, the list is fully referenced, and noteworthy points are covered in a 'Notes' section. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as nom. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Many of the tables next to images are scrolling right off my screen - an impressive feat at 1600x1200. Could something be done to remedy that? Also, I don't think we need an alphabetical TOC after every letter, especially when each letter (except B, S, and W, and those still aren't very long) is relatively short. We definitely don't need it after every footer section. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the TOCs now. Done - TOCs are now after every 4 or 5 sections, and removed from footer sections. Not sure about the scrolling issue - it's fine on my screen (IE, 1024x768), however I'll have a look on my home PC tonight/tomorrow. TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, though involved as editor. I've cleared up and simplified the rest of the ref tags, merging some and using  . This removed 30K from the page size! I'm not sure if it's necessary to provide identical refs in every table header, but I've left them in for the time being. The notes ([a], [b], [c] etc) are still manually coded, but I can't see a way to avoid that. Tivedshambo (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have dealt with the hand coded notes - all are now 'proper' refs, with thanks to User:Pomte at the WP:Village Pump technical page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TicketMan (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, due to one objection and several quibbles:
 * Objection: I can't find any explanation of the use of the abbreviation "m" in the heading Station users (m). I normally expect "m" to mean "metres." That clearly isn't the case here, and I've worked out that it is the number of users in millions, but it needs to be clearly explained in the article. (List of London Underground stations has the same issue.)
 * Quibble: Defined or not, millions seems a poor choice of a unit for the numbers in this article. Only one station has more than 1 million users (some have less than 100 thousand, so the values in the table are almost all decimals less than 1. Many users will be confused when 27000 is represented as 0.027.
 * Quibble: If millions is retained as the unit, can the abbreviation be something other than the confusing "m"? (Surely I am not the only one who sees "metre" there. For me, "M" would be a better choice, as it indicates "mega" -- or one million -- in the SI system.)
 * Quibble: The spacing of the table is very annoying. I suggest (1) removing all the width parameters from the table formatting and (2) removing the

that separates the images from the tables. That will eliminate extra space within the tables and force the images to display alongside the tables -- far more appealing to the eye.
 * --Orlady (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: the clear tag was added to prevent display problems with Firefox - I'm reluctant to try to put the pictures alongside the table as this will be too compact for smaller browsers. I agree there's no particular need for fixed width colums, so I'll clear that up, and I'll try to do something about the millions. Tivedshambo (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns have been resolved. Removing "oppose". --Orlady (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - It now looks like everything worth fixing has been fixed. --Orlady (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - I've hidden the resolved issues, this is in a much better state now, well done on all your hard work! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I am really stunned to see how much better this list got during the nomination. Great job!-- Crzycheetah 09:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Looks good. I took the liberty of amending a wikilink.
 * Slight problem with "It includes all railway stations in the West Midlands that are currently open". Pedantically, depending on what time of day you visit the page, it may not be true. You clearly mean that the list excludes stations that are not defunct; I'm not sure how you can amend the copy, but suggest that it would be worth fixing. Done - changed for now - trying to think of a better term to use.
 * The same organisation seems to have three names, mentioned in two different paragraphs, one of them (Centro) not explained. --Dweller (talk) 11:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)  Clarified Centro/NWM/WMPTE, also introduced WMPTA to set context.
 * Both good points - I'll have a think about this one, and see what I can come up with. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Have addressed both points made by Dweller. Have explained Centro, and also added a footnote explaining their parent body, WMPTA. I've also added an extra column detailing the metropolitan borough each station is in, as noted on the article's talk page. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, better, esp on the defunct stations, which you've handled elegantly. I'm still slightly chary over the explanation of Centro's names, esp. the need to deal with it in two different paragraphs. I know it's dull and obscure corporate stuff, but surely there's a simple way to present the information without losing comprehensiveness? (by the way, this isn't an oppose - see below) --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see you've sorted this admirably. That's the ticket. --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Groan :-D --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Significant improvement since I first looked at it, now seems to satisfy the FL criteria admirably. Just a couple of points.
 * Entries in the Zone column might look better centred rather than left-aligned.
 * You've linked every standalone year, both in the Year opened column and in the notes. The MoS says that year articles should be linked to "only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic". Not convinced that's the case here. Struway2 (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Both issues have been addressed by User:Tivedshambo --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 17:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support issues resolved, excellent work. Struway2 (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support my currently unresolved issue above isn't sufficient for me to withhold support from this FL quality list article. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, my how it's changed since my first comment above. --Golbez (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support great improvements with the single table & sorting columns. May be a link to Commons needs adding for other photos but apart from that looks great. Keith D (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Commonscat added. Tivedshambo (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.