Talk:Railway stations in Cromer/GA1

I've begun the Good Article review for this article. On a first read, it appears to be very close. One suggestion, though: I find the lead section confusing. The article title refers to the one railway station that still exists, but that station is not mentioned until near the end of the lead paragraph. I'd like to see this restructured so that the present station is described first, and then the history behind it. I think two separate paragraphs would probably be the best presentation. -Pete (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I dislike multiple-paragraph leads, I agree and have split the lead section; there's now one "brief overview" and one "boring list of dates". — iridescent 19:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that reads much more smoothly now, good work! -Pete (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The diagram of lines should also show the (closed) link that enabled trains to go directly between Sheringham and North Walsham without the need to call at Cromer (Beach). Mjroots (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I've added it — iridescent 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is Cromer Railway Station but the article mentions four stations. Either each should have a separate article or the title should be in the plural, with redirect pages for Cromer High railway station and Cromer Golf Links Halt railway station.Mjroots (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this could be resolved by simply un-bolding the names of the former stations. If the article is about the present station, it's fine to discuss the others, as a vital piece of the present station's history. It does seem a little odd that so much emphasis would be placed on the history, without a great deal of treatment of the present station. However, it may be that the station is a fairly uninteresting structure, and that its history is simply where the interesting stuff is. I've never been there, so it's difficult for me to judge. -Pete (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed them to italics, the station names don't dominate the article now. (IMHO)Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know why Cromer Beach is coming out bold in the Former stations section? No wikitext is there to do that! Mjroots (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted it. Whenever an article links to itself, instead of it appearing blue and clickable, it bolds itself. Simply south (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody minds, i am going to move thist to Cromer railway stations as there are (or were) multiple stations. Simply south (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or not that's right. The question is this: Is it "the railway stations in the municipality of Cromer" or "the railway station named Cromer"? Which of those subtly different topics is the subject of this article? I think the answer to that question should determine whether the title should be plural or not. -Pete (talk) 02:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is, it's an article about Cromer railway station. Therefore Cromer High and Golf Links Halt need their own articles, which can be linked to this one. A redirect page for Cromer Beach station is needed too. Mjroots (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Iridescent/Archive_3#Cromer_stations_(and_discussion_page), Talk:List of closed railway stations in Britain#Maiden Lane railway station and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_7#Quick strawpoll. Railway stations in Cromer? Simply south (talk) 12:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be going round in circles, doesn't it? I've no objection to Simply south's suggestion to rename it in the plural. Seems the easiest way out to me. Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support "Railway stations in Cromer" as a name, and (obviously, as the one who suggested it and performed the merge) support keeping the articles merged; realistically, the disused station sections are never going to grow beyond stubs, and they're more useful as sections of a general article on how railway provision in the town has changed over time. — iridescent 17:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, there's a reasonable case to be made either way. If I might suggest, in the interest of stability, the lead should be rewritten again to reflect whatever is chosen as strongly as possible. That way future editors will be less likely to revisit this decision ad infinitum. I'd be happy to do this myself, but I'll wait to be 100% sure that the plural name is what you all want to do. -Pete (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railway stations in Cromer? I thought the convention was (Name of station) railway station. Pluralising station then describes the article's coverage adequately. Mjroots (talk) 12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, seems to me that convention wouldn't quite apply if it's pluralized: "Cromer" is not a name of multiple railway stations. I think "Railway stations in Cromer" more clearly expresses that "Cromer" is being used to name the town, rather than the station. -Pete (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Pete here; "Cromer railway stations" implies three railway stations called "Cromer", rather than three railway stations within Cromer, none of which were called "Cromer" until after the services were centralised onto the single station. See the whatever the much-renamed London railway station happens to redirect to today (currently London station group) for a larger-scale example of the same problem. — iridescent 17:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further to a point of Pete's I've just noticed above, the reason there's more emphasis on the defunct Cromer High station than the existing station, is that the current station is just a strip of concrete at which trains periodically stop (see the photo in the infobox), and even in its Cromer Beach heyday was the terminus of fairly minor lines from Melton Constable and Mundesley, whereas Cromer High was the terminus of Great Eastern trains from London dating back to Cromer's 19th century brief spell as a major holiday resort, and consequently had much more significant buildings & facilities; services were centralised on the Beach station because the High station was inconveniently sited, not because Beach was a better station. I tried to make that clear in the article. — iridescent 17:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if its any help, but I've been involved with two articles that deal with multiple stations: Maiden Lane railway stations and Minor halts on the Talyllyn Railway. The first deals with two separate but nearby stations with the same name, the second deals with related halts that aren't significant enough (IMO) to have individual articles. – Tivedshambo (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) So, as I see it, there are three possibilities:

1. Keep the name as-is, Cromer railway station. Rework the lead a (tiny) little bit to make it clear that it's about the one station, and the others are treated only as part of the history and context for that station.
2. Rename to Railway stations in Cromer. Rework the lead to give fairly equal treatment to all the stations, mentioning secondarily that Cromer and Roughton Road are the remaining stations.
3. Rename to Cromer railway stations. Rework lead as in #2. (I think this one has been ruled out, both Iridescent and I oppose it.)

So, I'd say we need to make a decision between #1 and #2, and adjust the article accordingly. Having this decision "in limbo" would, I think, prevent approval of GA status, as it's hard to call the article "stable" with this question hanging over it.

Finally, in response to Iridescent: your statement above is good. I think it would help the article to include something along those lines in the lead. You're right, the article does say all that, but it would have been much clearer to me if it had been expressed in the lead; that would have made the rest of the article make more sense, which I think is the primary function of a lead section. -Pete (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i am going to actually support option 2. A possible option 4 would be Cromer's railway stations but i am probably opening a can of worms, more likely emptying them out!! Simply south (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support #2 as well, although I wouldn't oppose #1. I'm reluctant to add anything more that's not absolutely necessary to the (already bloated) lead section. On a second read-through, the Cromer High section isn't actually disproportionately long; only a single paragraph is about the station itself, the remainder is about the reasons for its closure and an explanation of the reorganisation of the routes following closure. I've split this section off into a subsection of its own to avoid the imbalance in the sections. — iridescent 01:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that #2 is getting the most support, though I agree that #1 is also acceptable. Do you guys agree that the lead should be rewritten with different emphasis, if we change the name? I'd be happy to take a crack at that if nobody else wants to; if so, I'll just post it here on the talk page first for discussion.

On the length of the lead, I don't think the present lead is bloated; WP:LEAD puts much more emphasis on the qualitative aspects of the lead than its length, stating that a lead "should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points…" It seems to me that the distinguishing characteristics of the different stations, or the historical context of why some still exist while others were abandoned, is one of the most important points. As for length, the guideline only states that the lead shouldn't exceed four paragraphs.

That said, if you want to keep the lead short, let me suggest a different approach: with the title Railway stations in Cromer, it may not be essential to name every individual station. Perhaps an overview of the history could replace that, and those with a specific interest in the exact station names could read further into the article. -Pete (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the lead to be more balanced between the four stations; I think this ought to be stable enough to work with any of the four title options. — iridescent 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Question:- is it really necessary to name the supermarket that built on the goods yard at Cromer Beach? Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the lead's better too. I renamed the article as discussed, and did a bunch of redirect/wikilink tidying. -05:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peteforsyth (talk • contribs)

In reply to Mjroots, probably not althugh the current land use should stil be named. I'll change this slightly. It could be mentioned in the town article though. Simply south (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]