Talk:Clervaux railway station

Luxembourg Low‑importance

	Luxembourg portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Luxembourg, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 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.LuxembourgWikipedia:WikiProject LuxembourgTemplate:WikiProject LuxembourgLuxembourg articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clervaux railway station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822205055/http://www.cfl.lu/CFLInternet/Espaces/01EspaceVoyageurs/02InfosGare/Clervaux/ to http://www.cfl.lu/CFLInternet/Espaces/01EspaceVoyageurs/02InfosGare/Clervaux/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Station photo

I usually do mostly gnome-ish editing, so I don't have too much experience with content disputes, but since there have already been a few reversions, I figured it was appropriate to open a discussion on the talk page here about the station photo. Perhaps it might be reasonable to discuss here and if still stuck, try a request for comment or a third opinion? I don't know the procedure that is generally followed.

I have never interacted with either User:Procrastineur49 or User:Ymblanter before, but was following a rabbit-hole of wikilinks off of the adjacent station template when I arrived here. I went into the history and saw the 2022 photo, which I thought would serve the article better, so I (boldly) inserted it.

The old station photo (from 2014, taken/uploaded and included by Ymblanter) has a nice view of the sign for "Clervaux" (with the yellow legs/frame), but it is difficult to see the station building, which I would think would be the goal of an article about the station. The 2022 photo that Procrastineur49 inserted earlier this year has a much nicer view of the building and was taken more recently. I looked at articles for other stations along this train line, and their pictures also seem to focus on the station building like the 2022 one does.

If there is something in particular wrong with the 2022 photo, there are a number of other good options at commons:Category:Clervaux train station. I think that commons:File:Gare Clervaux 01.jpg could be another possibility. It is also from 2014, but has an even better view of the building than the other two options (though it misses out on the perspective/track view). Cleancutkid (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the station building should necessarily be shown in full. I think my photo shows that the station is under the bridge, and at the same time gives an impression how it looks like, showing the platforms, the sign, and a significant part of the building. Ymblanter (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been to the station, but from looking on google streetview, it seems like the bridge is not part of the station infrastructure but a separate overpass for road traffic. It is not wrong for it to be visible, but it would seem to me that it should not be the focus of the image.

After you reverted my change, I looked at your talk page and Procrastineur49's to see if there was any earlier discussion. You appear to have taken offense to them inserting "their" picture, when in fact (as far as I can tell), they did not take the picture themselves and were simply trying to update things. Instead, it is you reverting edits to keep the picture that you took. Your picture was up for almost 10 years, but no single editor WP:OWNs the article. I get frustrated if someone removes something I contributed to an article, but that is part of the process of improvement for the encyclopedia.

(I do not know how active they are, or if they were already alerted above, but I wanted to be sure ping @Procrastineur49: to be aware of this conversation, too, since it touches on something you two have discussed already. Apologies if this is a double-ping.) Cleancutkid (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I was fairly annoyed at Ymblanter's obstinence in keeping his image on the page. It is of course a perfectly good picture, but my issue with it is that it shows the bridge, which is not at all the subject of the article and is not a part of the station, just as promently as the station building. It is as if one insisted that a picture of the Arc de Triomphe feature the huge roundabout around it, because one "does not see why this should be hidden in any way". The alternative picture you mentioned seems perfect - it shows the entirety of the building's facade and features most of the station amenities, though it is a shame the station sign isn't visible. I just find it a bit sad that we, no doubt a group of perfectly reasonable adults, are making such a big deal out of something so minor. Procrastineur49 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]