This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Would there be any objections to moving this to Beckenham Junction? There isn't anything else called "Beckenham Junction", so the "station" seems superfluous. --CapitalLetterBeginning15:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also a tram station, which I assume is why it was moved from Beckenham Junction railway station to Beckenham Junction station, but there is absolutely no need for the word "station" in the page title. The usual reason to have it there would be to disambiguate from a placename (cf. the names of most other stations), but that's not applicable here. If it's the convention to have "station" in there nonetheless, then I would argue against convention. I see no specific mention of it in Wikipedia:Naming conventions. --CapitalLetterBeginning13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to upset anyone but it really should be called "X" Station - look at all the London termini, "they" (the cabal that run wikipedia - lol) have insisted on it ;) Pickle16:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the argument there was that the sign at the station said "Birmingham New Street Station" rather than just "Birmingham New Street". At Beckenham Junction, however, the signs just read "Beckenham Junction", so that's not applicable here. --CapitalLetterBeginning22:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No the argument is that stations have the word "station" in their name. And FYI signs on the platform itself never have the word station in them as, if you look at them from a passing train, you are expected to realise it is a station. MRSC07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, sorry, should have been clearer. Never mind the signs on the platforms, I'm talking about the sign at the front of the station. Whereas, as shown in a picture at Talk:Birmingham New Street Station, "Station" is clearly part of the name of that station, the same is not true of Beckenham Junction. And it's simply not true that all stations have "station" in their name. --CapitalLetterBeginning11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article says: "There are five platforms: two through, two bay and two Tramlink." On my fingers that makes six, as in the summary box. The "and" precludes counting Tramlink platforms as being one or both of those two bays. How many things are there on the table? There are five beans and the beans are food so there are six things. My recollection is that Tramlink did use a bay but I've no idea what else was lurking out of sight.--SilasW20:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article says: "There are two platforms: usually the right-hand one is used." Me, I can't work that out, am I meant to be facing Up or Down? France or the Great Wen?--SilasW21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the full station building "awful"? POV I think. The older picture is out of date, since it lacks the "Southeastern" signboard upon the awning. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 20:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
sorry Sunil, but as i previously said a couple of months back the other picture, is in a different league. much better. I Don`t think it matters whether it`s upto date or not i.e due to a new logo on the left or a slight change in paint coating. To mention POV when one of the pictures is actually taken by yourself i think ruins your entire argument. But you and User:Rodge500 are in danger of WP:LAME--Rockybiggs (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well Rocky, as I told you a few weeks back, I don't take my pics to win prizes. This is an encyclopedia, not an art gallery! I can point out my pic is up to date and shows the entrance in context with the rest of the station building. I know about 3RR so I refrained from changing it back just now :)
It just so happens that I have indeed visited every station on LU, DLR and main line within the Travelcard Area out to zone 6 within the last 12 months. Follow the link to Commons on my User page. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with the criticisms of the quality of Sunil060902's photography and of his habit of going around deleting some very good photographs and replacing them with his own pictures, simply on the grounds that his were taken more recently. Sunil says 'this is an encyclopedia not an art gallery'. But ask the editors of any reputable works of reference whether they would choose a high quality (not 'artistic', just high quality) photograph from a handful of years ago or an awful – yes, awful – up-to-date picture and they would choose the former, assuming there'd been no major changes in the appearance of the subject. If Sunil believes the up-to-dateness of one of his pictures justifies it replacing a much better, but older, one, he should propose this on the discussion page and let unbiased third parties make the decision. For the record, the photograph that Sunil deleted and replaced with his own is shown on the right. Personally, I would like to see it reinstated, and the same applies to a great many other good-quality photographs of railway stations that he has arbitrarily deleted. Russ London (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing no one else is going to be bothered to vote on this subject (especially as Rodge500 seems to have retired from Wikipedia, perhaps dispirited by exactly this sort of business), but I'll wait a while and see, before taking action. Incidentally, another merit of the original photo is that the actual architecture of the station is more visible, not being obscured by eyesore cash machines and coffee concessions. I think this is more important than the (inevitably temporary) up-to-dateness of the daytime image. Russ London (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed two tables from the "Services" section. Wikipedia is not a travel guide; it is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to give the times and stopping patterns of train services. There are already links to various websites which specialise in such information, such as National Rail Enquiries. The big problem with including timetables is that if done for one station, we'd have to do it for all - and there are something of the order of 2500 stations on the National Rail network. Then there is the problem of keeping them up to date - there are general changes to the timetables every May and December, also those which sometimes occur in March or September on some routes, not to mention the minor changes which may occasionally happen. It's now just eleven days until the next major change, and I do not relish the prospect of validating any timetable information that we may have included. Therefore, I have removed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
