Keep or redirect?
[edit]
- I would redirect it to London#By train for now and unredirect it if consensus to allow such articles to ever be created. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 06:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I really want to see how the article develops before making my mind up. However this could mean that a lot of time is waisted completing eat and buy sections only for the article to be redirected. St Pancras is on the borderline of having the same justification for an article that an international airport has. Unlike most London stations it is quite likely that some passengers will transfer between trains without stepping outside. But the article has to be close to being a star to allow it to be the exception to the rule of no railway station articles. AlasdairW (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd support a rule that states that a railway station article must be a guide or star article within x amount of days or weeks before it will be deleted or something along the lines if we are to permit railway station articles. SHB2000 (t | c | m) 09:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I really want to see how the article develops before making my mind up. However this could mean that a lot of time is waisted completing eat and buy sections only for the article to be redirected. St Pancras is on the borderline of having the same justification for an article that an international airport has. Unlike most London stations it is quite likely that some passengers will transfer between trains without stepping outside. But the article has to be close to being a star to allow it to be the exception to the rule of no railway station articles. AlasdairW (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I support huge railway station articles, similar to huge airport articles, as long as the station articles fulfill the similar for airport articles (with "airports" being read as "stations" and "flights" as "train routes"). I myself have stayed within Howrah railway station for several hours while switching trains there, which is the case for many Eastern Indian passengers living outside Kolkata (it is also the largest railway station in India by the number of platforms).
| “ | I'd support a rule that states that a railway station article must be a guide or star article within x amount of days or weeks before it will be deleted or something along the lines if we are to permit railway station articles. | ” |
- Unfortunately, I don't support this rule, as we usually don't rush to make an article a guide or star. I think railway station articles should be treated as "airport articles" as long as huge railway stations are super rare compared to huge airports (similar to how we treat town and village articles as "city articles", though rural areas are treated separately). So similar criteria for airport articles can be applied to railway station articles. For example (based on WV:WIAA),
- The station should serve as a hub with a large number of connecting train routes. Travellers are unlikely to spend a lot of time at stations that are merely origin or destination points.
- It must have several food and shopping options available; if the station does not have enough amenities to fill out "Buy" and "Eat and Drink" sections, it does not merit its own article.
- Both London St Pancras International (UK) and Howrah railway station (India) seem to satisfy the above proposed criteria. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- The station article template will also be similar to the airport article template, with a few changes:
- Station codes instead of airport codes, though airport codes can be added if assigned to the station.
- "Services" instead of "Flights" to list rail services or train routes. Can also include metro/subway services.
- "Road transportation" instead of "Ground transportation", as railway is a type of land transport after all. It will cover road connectivity to the station.
- Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly this. I'd support articles for major train stations under a very similar rationale to that of major airports. As a traveller, these are useful when there are enough services to warrant a guide that separates the good ones from the bad ones, and that points out helpful amenities or features I might not find on my own. Once something like that becomes too unwieldy to fit in the local geographic article, it probably merits its own article.
- All this said, I presume articles for train stations are going to be much rarer than those for airports, since airports have a greater tendency to be isolated mini-villages of their own. RickScott (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- The station article template will also be similar to the airport article template, with a few changes:
- I don't think I've mixed myself in the previous discussions on this topic before, but I've had an interest in creating dedicated articles for Schiphol, Amsterdam CS and Utrecht CS before as part of Rail travel in the Netherlands for quite a while. As someone who himself tries to avoid flying at all reasonable costs, I've really been missing these kinds of articles for major hub stations. A five-hour transfer onto a night train in Hamburg I made two years ago is an example that comes to mind. It would've been amazing then to have a quick overview of what I could have done within that timeframe, where I could've stored my luggage, what and where to avoid, et cetera.
- Ultimately, I don't think these articles should be held to the same standards as airports, unless the airport guidelines get rewritten for intermodal hubs in general. This would be especially handy considering that many airports also are intermodal hubs (like Schiphol), but not all large intermodal hubs that'd benefit from their own articles are airports (like Amsterdam CS). What I think would be worthwhile is to start a couple of these articles, and figure out that way how we should go about handling these articles for stations that could without doubt benefit from this treatment - I'm all for keeping them.
- I'd say, let's see where this article goes. It very clearly has potential. Get In paragraphs can't contain as much information as a dedicated article can, after all, and that additional information is very useful to some, including travellers like myself.
― Wauteurz (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)- That's a good idea. Though I'm not saying that station articles should be held to the same standards as airport articles, I believe that railway stations that are hubs connecting multiple rail services (local, express, intercity, high-speed, metro/subway) can be standalone articles. Such articles should cover train services useful for travellers.
- The busy intermodal hubs can be standalone articles too, especially if they connect three or more different modes of transport (plane, train, bus). Some airport articles (and indeed some city articles that are otherwise bedroom communities) that are parts of intermodal hubs can be rewritten to those standards. Such intermodal articles would have a single "Services" section with "Plane", "Train", "Bus", "Taxicab", "Car rental", etc. subsections, with "Ground transportation" being redundant.
- I'm looking towards this new station article and see where it goes. It can be a role model for other potential station articles, including the one I use quite often to switch trains. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this kind of articles is useful for travellers, for travel purposes, they should be allowed, but we should avoid confusion between what should go into London#Get in, London#Get around, district articles and here. The local ticketing system should not be discussed here, and there needs to be some careful thinking about what to say about rail services here and in London#Get in and Rail travel in Great Britain#Inter-City lines. Also London/Camden#Get in has some redundancy with this. Do we need to have any Sleep here, given the district article? –LPfi (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the argument that articles about huge, complex train stations can be useful to travelers. I could easily imagine articles about New York's Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal being useful, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- On the point of how complex a station is, London St Pancras International is not only a medium-sized shopping centre, it has airport-style luggage searches and reasonably complex passport controls. This could be the qualification for whether a railway station warrants its own page.
- See also Wikivoyage:What is an article?#Exceptions for airport article criteria, which St Pancras meets:
- It should serve as a hub with a large number of connecting flights. Travellers are unlikely to spend a lot of time at airports that are merely origin or destination points - St Pancras is a standalone shopping destination, very much like its own town centre for locals. It is also an interchange for passengers between the East Midlands, East of England, South East and mainland Europe, with no need to exit the terminal to complete the interchange.
- It must have several food and shopping options available; if the airport does not have enough amenities to fill out "Buy" and "Eat and Drink" sections, it does not merit its own article - As above, St Pancras is a standalone shopping destination.
- EasternCounties (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think quite a few main train stations are shopping destinations. Roma Termini is basically a shopping mall with a train station inside it, and there are lots of shops at stations like Berlin Hauptbahnhof and Muenchen Hauptbahnhof. I could easily see there being dozens of useful articles about European train stations if we allow them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very much is – quite common to see in Japan too. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there's an emerging consensus to allow huge, complex train stations to get their own articles. Should we create some kind of new Wikivoyage:Airport and railway station articles and put guidelines there? If not, how should we handle this? A separate new page for train stations that links to Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we should retain the term "airport articles" for articles on huge, complex airports, train stations, and other transport hubs. This is similar to using the term "city articles" for articles on individual cities, towns, and villages ("rural area articles" refers to articles on clusters of towns and/or villages where individuals can't have their own articles).Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 11:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)- I would prefer if we had a separate criteria for huge train stations and maybe create a separate expedition for that, tbf. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 11:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That'd make it easier to handle aspects that usually differ, such as the Ground transportation"/"Road transportation" mentioned above. I suppose there also are more subtle or unobvious differences, for which one would want to tweak wordings. Finding wordings that fit both types may be difficult, leading to awkward language. –LPfi (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, that may warrant to have a separate "station article", which I may support as long as we can create templates on the basis of this consensus. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek, SHB2000, LPfi: I have created separate status templates for huge stations (currently labelled as {{experimental}}s): {{Outlinestation}}, {{Usablestation}}, {{Informativestation}}, {{Guidestation}}, and {{Starstation}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- That'd make it easier to handle aspects that usually differ, such as the Ground transportation"/"Road transportation" mentioned above. I suppose there also are more subtle or unobvious differences, for which one would want to tweak wordings. Finding wordings that fit both types may be difficult, leading to awkward language. –LPfi (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there's an emerging consensus to allow huge, complex train stations to get their own articles. Should we create some kind of new Wikivoyage:Airport and railway station articles and put guidelines there? If not, how should we handle this? A separate new page for train stations that links to Wikivoyage:Airport Expedition? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
- Very much is – quite common to see in Japan too. --SHB2000 (t | c | m) 07:32, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
- I think quite a few main train stations are shopping destinations. Roma Termini is basically a shopping mall with a train station inside it, and there are lots of shops at stations like Berlin Hauptbahnhof and Muenchen Hauptbahnhof. I could easily see there being dozens of useful articles about European train stations if we allow them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with the argument that articles about huge, complex train stations can be useful to travelers. I could easily imagine articles about New York's Penn Station and Grand Central Terminal being useful, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this kind of articles is useful for travellers, for travel purposes, they should be allowed, but we should avoid confusion between what should go into London#Get in, London#Get around, district articles and here. The local ticketing system should not be discussed here, and there needs to be some careful thinking about what to say about rail services here and in London#Get in and Rail travel in Great Britain#Inter-City lines. Also London/Camden#Get in has some redundancy with this. Do we need to have any Sleep here, given the district article? –LPfi (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Creating this page was a good initiative. If any station needs its own article, this is surely it. Though if the "experiment" fails, and this is ultimately redirected, so be it.
LPfi wondered if there should be any 'Sleep' here, and while I think having a short section on nearby options is probably desirable, there's no need to duplicate the listings in the district articles. The same is probably true of any other station we'd conceivably allow an article for, as they'll almost certainly be in the centres of large cities.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think only if there are places to sleep in the station, but there is at least one, isn't there? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ish. Yes, the Renaissance is in the same building, but you have to briefly go outside to access it. Plus, it is and should continue to be listed in London/Camden, and we're not supposed to have two listings for the same business. Definitely mention it, but I'd continue to list it only in Camden. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Ish. Yes, the Renaissance is in the same building, but you have to briefly go outside to access it. Plus, it is and should continue to be listed in London/Camden, and we're not supposed to have two listings for the same business. Definitely mention it, but I'd continue to list it only in Camden. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 02:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
| “ | Ish. Yes, the Renaissance is in the same building, but you have to briefly go outside to access it. Plus, it is and should continue to be listed in London/Camden, and we're not supposed to have two listings for the same business. Definitely mention it, but I'd continue to list it only in Camden. | ” |
I think it is better to list nearby accommodations at respective station articles rather than respective district articles. For instance, accommodations near BOM IATA are listed at the respective airport article, and it is mentioned at Mumbai/Western Suburbs (the district where the airport belongs) that accommodations near the airport are listed at the respective airport article. So, there's no chance to have more than one listing for the same business. If we have an article on Howrah railway station (currently a redirect), we can mention at the "Sleep" section of Howrah that "Accommodations near Howrah railway station are listed at Howrah railway station#Sleep." Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 02:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- No, I think this is where airport and station articles fundamentally differ. Airports are nearly always on the edges of cities, often in places without many other reasons for visiting, and so the hotels are clustered near the terminals. But all hotels that could be listed on this article, even the Renaissance, are more important for travellers staying in London than those breaking a journey. Furthermore, this is central London; there are thousands of rooms within a mile radius! There's no particular need to list certain hotels here that are a fraction closer than countless other options listed in the districts (or not listed anywhere).
- Howrah seems a slightly different situation, as it's a bit on the periphery of Greater Kolkata. There does seem to be one hotel right in the station that is owned by the railways and intended to be used for catching some shut-eye between trains. But aside from that, I bet while hotels near the station will be used by lots of people who arrived by train, most of those will be visiting Howrah or Kolkata.
- This kind of discussion is exactly why keeping this article is a great idea. As a test case we can hash things out for future station articles with real examples.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm persuaded by your argument. The Renaissance should be mentioned in this article, but the full listing should remain in London/Camden. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe only accommodations within the station or attached to the station can be listed at the respective station article, with other nearby accommodations at the respective district article. So, the Renaissance should be listed at the station, and other accommodations would go to Camden. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 05:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, it probably is too early to lay down any hard rules excluding anything from this brand new class of article based on a single case. So yes, in principle, Sleep listings could be allowed in a station article; time and further such articles will tell whether that's a good idea. But I still don't think the Renaissance belongs in this article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I added a lead to the Sleep a while ago. I suppose the listings could instead be mentioned and linked in normal sentences in that lead. Doing that change now: Special:Diff/4991488/4991604. –LPfi (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just mention that I'm drafting an article for a train station hub that I'm very familiar with myself: Utrecht Centraal. The way I've tackled sleep, is suggesting where to look for cheaper hotels, but still creating listings for the (5) hotels located within a five-minute walk of the station itself. The same rhetoric as the one I've used for restaurants under Eat, essentially. If it fits on a {{Mapframe}} at zoom level 16, I'll probably include it. The thought behind that being that some people might be using Utrecht for a layover before travelling onwards into Germany by train. Utrecht hotels are generally cheaper than those at Schiphol or in Amsterdam, so people flying in at Schiphol that want to travel Europe by train, might want to opt for Utrecht instead. Listing the closest few, I reckon, would be a handy convenience for such cases.
― Wauteurz (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- There are a whole bunch of hotels within a few blocks of Muenchen Hauptbahnhof. I wouldn't support moving their listings into a future guide to the train station. But I haven't been to Utrecht. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Judging by the hotels that Google Maps returns when I look for hotels around München Hbf, it's a completely different scale of density. Listing nearby hotels in the case of München defeats the purpose as it'd create tens of listings. In Utrecht's case, most hotels in the city centre are found around the Oudegracht, the old moat which now runs through the middle of the city centre, about 15 minutes away on foot. Between the Stadsbuitengracht (nearest city moat) and the Jaarbeurs complex to the southwest of the station, there's the five hotels I've listed. Maybe a few B&Bs as well, but that's it.
― Wauteurz (talk) 12:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)- Yeah, that is a different situation. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- Judging by the hotels that Google Maps returns when I look for hotels around München Hbf, it's a completely different scale of density. Listing nearby hotels in the case of München defeats the purpose as it'd create tens of listings. In Utrecht's case, most hotels in the city centre are found around the Oudegracht, the old moat which now runs through the middle of the city centre, about 15 minutes away on foot. Between the Stadsbuitengracht (nearest city moat) and the Jaarbeurs complex to the southwest of the station, there's the five hotels I've listed. Maybe a few B&Bs as well, but that's it.
- There are a whole bunch of hotels within a few blocks of Muenchen Hauptbahnhof. I wouldn't support moving their listings into a future guide to the train station. But I haven't been to Utrecht. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'll just mention that I'm drafting an article for a train station hub that I'm very familiar with myself: Utrecht Centraal. The way I've tackled sleep, is suggesting where to look for cheaper hotels, but still creating listings for the (5) hotels located within a five-minute walk of the station itself. The same rhetoric as the one I've used for restaurants under Eat, essentially. If it fits on a {{Mapframe}} at zoom level 16, I'll probably include it. The thought behind that being that some people might be using Utrecht for a layover before travelling onwards into Germany by train. Utrecht hotels are generally cheaper than those at Schiphol or in Amsterdam, so people flying in at Schiphol that want to travel Europe by train, might want to opt for Utrecht instead. Listing the closest few, I reckon, would be a handy convenience for such cases.
- I added a lead to the Sleep a while ago. I suppose the listings could instead be mentioned and linked in normal sentences in that lead. Doing that change now: Special:Diff/4991488/4991604. –LPfi (talk) 11:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, it probably is too early to lay down any hard rules excluding anything from this brand new class of article based on a single case. So yes, in principle, Sleep listings could be allowed in a station article; time and further such articles will tell whether that's a good idea. But I still don't think the Renaissance belongs in this article.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)