Jump to content

Talk:Queensgate bus station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

--

(See Queensgate bus station#Article merge)

--

Requested move 24 February 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 01:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Peterborough Queensgate bus station → Queensgate bus station – to match article restore original title – 2.27.78.251 (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? 163.167.125.215 (talk) 10:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (same user as 2.27.78.251).[reply]
It is standard procedure for the nominator to indicate that they are such when the lodge an opinion separate from their nomination. Why are you flipping between two different IP addresses? -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Queensgate bus station is not a rail interchange though. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (same user as 2.27.78.251).[reply]
I didn't say it was, merely it would make sense to adopt a standard naming system for bus stations, and those that are interchanges already use the Town-Station format. It's not my main argument, which is that by definition articles on long-distance transport nodes are of interest to people from outside the town, and so it makes sense to use a name that is clear to outsiders. PS It would help a lot if you would just register, it gets really confusing when lots of IPs are contributing to a thread.Le Deluge (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought Victoria Coach Station, Victoria bus station etc. might be a better comparison? 2.27.78.251 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point, but Victoria is probably the only bus station famous enough to the general public to get away with that as their "long-distance" name. Certainly you see National Express coaches listing Victoria as their destination, but I doubt there's many others. Remember, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia, not the Peterborough-pedia. Le Deluge (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about Green Line Coach Station; Greyfriars bus station; Broadmarsh bus station; Victoria bus station, Nottingham; Crystal Peaks bus station; Eldon Square bus station; Haymarket bus station; Bearwood bus station; Pool Meadow Bus Station; St. Paul's Bus Station, Walsall; Seacroft bus station; Haymarket bus station, Leicester; St Margaret's Bus Station? 163.167.125.215 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Railway stations are a false analogy, but we have Cannon Street station, Charing Cross railway station, Euston railway station, Fenchurch Street railway station, Liverpool Street station, St Pancras railway station etc. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd note that all the train stations you mention are major London termini, that even people who don't live in London would recognise. Even so, there's an argument that they should still fit the guidelines, but that's a matter for WikiProject Trains. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on Wikipedia is no argument, I'm looking for what makes sense to a global audience. I'd pay more attention to what the operators call it. The main operator is Stagecoach, their website calls it Peterborough Queensgate Bus Station. If you try to book a trip on National Express to Queensgate it comes back with "not known", they only recognise Peterborough.Le Deluge (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is Finsbury Park station a major London termini? You are ignoring policy while relying on guidelines which do not apply here. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nomination rationale makes no sense. Move requests are made to change article titles. Therefore the current article is already residing at the current article title, it is impossible to do otherwise. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you check the edit history, you will see the page has been moved since nomination. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 10:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC) (same user as 2.27.78.251).[reply]
This is actually not exactly true the case, based on my "detective work" and my "fixes". What happened was that the anonymous editor probably meant to request the talk page moved via WP:RMTR, but requested that the article be moved by the way that the move request was inputted. However, it seems that Anthony Appleyard contested the article's current title at the time (but probably didn't realize that it was the current title based on how the move request was inputted on WP:RMTR), and then moved the request here (though because of how it appeared, it looked like the move had already been completed). So, I moved the article's title back to its previous title (making the talk page and the article titles match), and now it looks like there is some opposition to the shorter title anyways. In other words, I'm not understanding how the previous statement would have any bearing on this discussion, considering that opposition existed for the bold move to the shorter title anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was replying to the comment above that "the nomination rationale makes no sense" (and referring to my nomination, not Anthony Appleyard's), but you are right: the article was moved back to the original title, while the talk page was still at Peterborough Queensgate bus station. It was my intention at WP:RMTR to request that the talk page be moved in line with the article title to Queensgate bus station. The next time I looked, the article move had been reverted and the request contested here. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how "the bus station is related to ... Peterborough railway station"? It is nearby, but separately located in the shopping centre of the same name. We do not have Peterborough Queensgate railway station or even Peterborough Queensgate shopping centre. 2.27.78.251 (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a transportation pole of interrelated transport terminals -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "a transportation pole of interrelated transport terminals" means, but I'm pretty sure that Queensgate bus station is not one. 163.167.125.215 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far, we have two supports; one question, which (I hope) has been addressed; a weak oppose, citing imaginary guidelines at the expense of policy; and an oppose on nonsensical grounds. Meanwhile, nobody has made a single edit to an unsourced article that currently contains nothing noteworthy. If all this energy had gone into contributing content we might have a good article by now.
I will bow out at this point as others are clearly entrenched in their views and these soul-destroying exchanges are not what I edit Wikipedia for. I intended to expand the article, but I shall leave that to you gentlemen. I look forward to reading your work. All the best, 2.27.78.251 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the article should be immaterial to your editing it. Instead, you're doing politics on the what the page name is. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Both titles seem common, and probably Peterborough bus station, already also a redirect, is used as well but perhaps not so commonly. Any of the three would be acceptable, but we should prefer the more concise (and it's hard to imagine that the locals do anything else). Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queensgate bus 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 22:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article merge

[edit]

The article was originally merged to Peterborough#Queensgate bus station on the 4th August 2016 by me however an IP today had changed the redirect target here as well as removed the merged content on Peterborough#Queensgate bus station so as of 10th September 2016 the content's now merged at Queensgate shopping centre, United Kingdom#Queensgate bus station, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 14:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queensgate_bus_station&oldid=1200113618"