Talk:Haymarket railway station/Archive 1

W/ECML

I know this probably a stupid question, but are you sure the WCML and ECML aren't the other way around as Lockerbie is said to be on the WCML in earlier stations e.g. Carlisle, DannyM 18:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the east coast mainline indeed.

POV or another writer's input ?

It is a POV that Haymarket station's name is not linked to bureaucracy. It is another writer's input to the picture, that Haymarket station's name is linked to bureaucracy. Do you believe in reflecting all angles to the picture, or don't you? 83.67.65.99

If you were to quote a written source that intimated a link between the name of the station and bureaucracy, or offered evidence that a significant body of opinion like a chamber of commerce or a local authority had tried to get the name changed and met with intransigence rather than sound argument, then your POV would have some facts to back it up. Wikipedia must deal with facts not opinions (it is in the rules) and theoretically every fact must be backed by reference to a published source. Every fact can if necessary be challenged with a request that a published source be cited. Such a request is usually followed by deletion if nothing is done to satisfy the request. Haymarket station has always been just that. If some petty official at LNER or BR or Railtrack had suddenly changed it to something else, that would have been bureaucracy. Have the station owners at any time resisted a public request to change it? That might be described as bureaucracy. The fact that it is called Haymarket rather than Edinburgh Haymarket is not a reason for mentioning bureaucracy. Very many people would not wish to see the name changed but wikipedia is not the place to argue the matter, our voluntary job is to record facts not opinions. I did not remove all that you had written, I left the fact that the station was called Haymarket not Edinburgh Haymarket and unless you can quote chapter and verse (and I will be delighted if you do) then bureaucracy does not enter into it. NoelWalley 18:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haymarket or Edinburgh Haymarket?

On thetrainline.com they have started to name Haymarket as "Edinburgh Haymarket", and Waverley as "Edinburgh Waverley" - when they used to refer to them as Haymarket and Edinburgh.

Is this an official change or is it just a decision by thetrainline.com (qjump, virgin, gner, scotrail all use the same engine as thetrainline so are doing the same thing). Matt-thepie 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Haymarket on the National Rail Enquiries http://nationalrail.co.uk/stations/HYM.html webpage and that is surely correct. The same website regards "Edinburgh Haymarket" as ambiguous NoelWalley 21:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Platform(s)?

I think I read in December that there was going to be one or two additional platforms at Haymarket. [Have been searching for article, but can't locate]. Did it say that the new platform[s] is[are] for services which will terminate in Edinburgh, and that the Fife Circle line will be one of those. Can anyone else find the detail and expand accordingly? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carena sez (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, i have read about something similar to this earlier last year. I have also just found a news article from the BBC, here. Simply south 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the info and ref accordingly. Simply south 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contained a reference to the new platform, which has been in use since 27 Dec '06. Signalhead 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Now that this station is multi-modal. Should this not be moved to Haymarket (Edinburgh) station or Edinburgh Haymarket station or something similar? G-13114 (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are keeping the word "railway" out of the title, I would propose Haymarket station (Edinburgh) as more suitable. Having the bracketed word in the middle makes it look part of the station's name, rather than a disambiguation. Jellyman (talk) 19:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburgh Haymarket I think is fairly widely used, but in terms of disambiguation I believe it's a question of what the station name boards say. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Haymarket Station, which is Edinburgh's second mainline railway station (see [1] and [2]) Edinburgh Haymarket is an informal but commonly used phrase. A tram stop has recently been built immediately outside the railway station. The appearance of a tram stop in close proximity to the railway station would seem a fairly poor basis to suggest removing railway from the title of this article. There are other Haymarket Stations elsewhere in the world. I can't see any good reason to use Haymarket (Edinburgh) station. So I reckon Edinburgh Haymarket station or Haymarket station, Edinburgh would be the obvious choices. Note that the naming conventions for a place in Scotland would be to use a comma, not brackets. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon that this should be put back to the longstanding title, i.e. Haymarket railway station. There was no consensus for a move, and that name is unambiguous. I've just done this per WP:BRD. Any change should pass through an RM, given the controversial nature of the move. RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's some prior discussion of the placement of bracketed disambiguators here, fwiw: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(UK_stations)#Disambiguation_II --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding convention that station which have more than a railway component should be called 'X station' rather than 'X railway station'. A close analogy to this would be East Croydon station which has a tram stop immediately outside, or maybe Nottingham station which has a tram stop on a bridge immediately above it. As the tram stop is immediately outside the railway station, and has the same name, I think this case is comparible to that. I put the above note about changing the name up asking for comments, and no-one replied after about a week. So I concluded there was no disagreement and decided to move it. If people objected they should have said so then. Unfortunately the Haymarket station namespace is already in use, so the name I moved to to was consistent with the de-facto convention for UK station disambiguation which puts the brackets in the middle, e.g Earlswood (West Midlands) railway station. I considered maybe Edinburgh Haymarket station as an alternative, but that would be a bit unusual. G-13114 (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The smarter thing to do is leave this at the stable title, given that it is both unambiguous and WP:CONCISE. None of the alternatives you propose add anything useful to the title. I understand doing what you say in most circumstances, but in this particular circumstance, this title seems the best. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC

Well maybe, unless you can explain why this should be exempt from the long standing conventions that all other stations use? G-13114 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If it's multimodal, it should follow the naming convention of being "station" rather than "railway station". -mattbuck (Talk) 19:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should not follow the convention if the convention results in Haymarket (Edinburgh) station, something which no one uses and is awkward. Haymarket station is ambiguous, because there are metro stations, bus stations, and American "railroad stations" that are called "Haymarket". There is only one railway station called "Haymarket", however. Guidelines/conventions do not exist in a vacumn. If taken as a whole, including elements of our article titles' policy such as WP:CONCISE, WP:NATURALNESS, and WP:NATURAL, this is the best possible title. RGloucester — ☎ 20:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There have been aspirations for Haymarket station to be a multi-modal interchange, but I'm not clear that it is multi-modal yet. Edinburgh Haymarket is owned by Network Rail and it is a large railway station which has now implemented controlled access to all the platforms. Outside the railway station there is a tram stop (which became operational in May 2014), a taxi-rank and some bus-stops. To access these other modes of transport, a person who had been on the railway needs to leave the railway station itself. The tram stop and taxi rank were developments that were approved in 2011 and are outside the station boundary, see this 2011 article and this 2015 article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. If Haymarket is "multimodal" because there is a tram stop outside it, then surely Waverley is as well? Has one not noticed the busses or taxis on Waverley Bridge? RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but then exactly the same situation exists at East Croydon station, with a tram stop immediately outside the station entrance, and the same situation will soon exist at Birmingham New Street, when the new tram extension is open. The fact that the tram stop is called Haymarket and is clearly intended as an interchange with the rail station would suggest it is intermodal. Edinburgh Waverley does not have a tram stop directly interchanging with it, or named after it, the nearest stop being St Andrew's Square. G-13114 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Buses are not considered part of the naming convention unless it is a bus station rather than a bus stop. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the different between a bus and a tram. They serve the same purposes. Surely "multimodal" does not imply an interchange between different forms of rail transport only? Regardless, the more important bits here are the WP:AT criteria that I mentioned above. RGloucester — ☎ 17:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]