Talk:Newcastle Interchange railway station

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Redirect

Article is largely a combination of Wickham railway station and Newcastle Interchange. Both of these are significantly different to warrant separate articles being located on separate sites and existing simultaneously, albeit within the same suburb. Similar situation occurred where Shellharbour Junction railway station replaced Dunmore railway station within the same suburb. Turingway (talk) 05:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Turingway: Wickham railway station was succeeded by Newcastle Interchange railway station. In fact, Newcastle Interchange was initially called "Wickham Transport Interchange". People still refer to it as either "Wickham station" or "New Wickham station". Animations, released around the time of the new station's design was unveiled, showed signage retaining the old "Wickham" name (On OSCAR display boards at 0:20, signage at 0:23, and more signage visible at 0:34 and 0:54). Shellharbour Junction and Dunmore were two different stations in two different suburbs. Newcastle Interchange is a transport interchange consisting a station, light rail stop, shops, bust stop and taxi/kiss and ride rink. The article I created and wrote was about the train station specifically, the successor to Wickham railway station. I've restored my article, and the changes to the article about the greater transport interchange for the time being. The Wickham railway station article will be kept pending further discussion. It'll be best if we kept everything exactly where it is for now so we can discuss properly here and avoid any edit war. --Philip Terry Graham 07:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So here's what I understand your argument to be - you're accusing me of content forking the articles Wickham railway station and Newcastle Interchange to create the Newcastle Interchange railway station article. This is untrue because 1) my original edits saw the Wickham railway station article be redirected to Newcastle Interchange railway station, and 2) if you had actually read the Newcastle Interchange railway station article, you'd find it's almost completely original of the other two articles, and larger than the two combined in fact (Newcastle Interchange railway station is 29,767 bytes, while Wickham railway station is 6,237 bytes and Newcastle Interchange was 8,061 bytes before my first changes), aside from infobox, navbox, category and tech template similarities. The Wickham railway station and Newcastle Interchange articles were pretty bare-bones to begin with. I'm planning to update the Newcastle Interchange article in the future.

I couldn't have possibly forked from Wickham railway station, because Newcastle Interchange railway station had a lot more information, with more citations, on the original Wickham station than even that article did. Thus, the reason why I decided to redirect it into the Newcastle Interchange railway station in the first place. It was basically a merger of that article and a hypothetical article about the new station into one article that chronicles the entire history of stations on the Wickham railway station site. Newcastle Interchange was repurposed by me to become an article about the entire site, rather than just the railway station. Long story short, I didn't content fork, I simply make an article about the railway station, and have plans to create one about the greater complex, out of the Newcastle Interchange article. Here's a visual representation of what these article topics and their relation are, from my point of view:

4. Station history from 1936-2014
Wickham railway station
2. Train station at Newcastle Interchange
Newcastle Interchange railway station
5. Station history from 2014-present
No article
1. Transport complex at Wickham
Newcastle Interchange
3. Light rail stop at Newcastle Interchange
No article

--Philip Terry Graham 08:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't ever suggest that the Newcastle Interchange was superior in terms of content to the Newcastle Interchange railway station article, but what we have ended up with is two articles that can more then adequately be covered in one as is being discussed below. Turingway (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge and split

After 3 months, consensus is to merge Newcastle Interchange and Newcastle Interchange railway stations for the station opening in 2017 and retain separate Wickham railway station article for the station closed in 2014. Mindavale (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Propose to merge this article into Newcastle Interchange and reinstate Wickham railway station article. The railway station is the largest component of the Newcastle Interchange, so both should be consolidated into one article. Generally multi-modal stations where the railway station is the dominant component are incorporated into the one article, e.g. Central, Edgecliff. Wickham railway station, which currently redirects to this article, is a separate structure on a separate site and still stands today.

Suggest Wickham article be reinstated to cover the detail up until 2014 and Newcastle Interchange, the period after. When a station is demolished and rebuilt on the same site as a like-for-like replacement, the case for separate articles is weaker, but as the two stations still both exist, are on separate sites, have differing names, are quite different in function (through station vs multi-modal terminus) and there was a period of a few years between one opening and construction starting on the other, think there is a case for stand alone articles. Silverserv (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - @Silverserv: they are the same station, though. The old structure will eventually be demolished and the new one will take its place. I don't see seperate articles for the various forms of Central railway station, Sydney, nor do I see seperate articles for Schofields railway station. Both examples have had rebuilt stations located on decently further away sites from each other. In the case of Schofields in particular, your argument that the old and new Wickham stations are different from each other because they serve different functions is to the contrary of the Schofields article, which documents the history of both the former sole one-platform station and the new two-platform concourse and train-bus interchange, located 800m south of the original site.
The new station was built as the old station still stood, similar to the situation with Wickham. Though, in the case of Wickham, the station isn't being relocated a great distance - it's literally just across the street. So, the idea of these two Wickhams being completely seperate historical entities doesn't shape up in comparison to other examples of articles about the New South Wales train network. As I mentioned above in the other discussion, the new station was still gonna be called Wickham until the name was changed to "Newcastle Interchange". I feel like we wouldn't be having these discussions if it weren't for that simple fact that it's name is no longer Wickham. TL;DR we don't need seperate articles for when a station gets a facelift. We've never done it that way, and it'd be hard to convince fellow editors that it should be the way to go for all these sorts of articles about stations with a different or multiple forms throughout history. I have yet to expand the article on the broader Newcastle Interchange complex, so I thing we should avoid being trigger happy on this one. Philip Terry Graham 12:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator on 2 articles; Wickham station for the one closed in 2014, Newcastle Interchange for the one opening in 2017. There is a clear difference between the two. While Newcastle Interchange is replacing Wickham station, it is also replacing Newcastle station as the terminus of the line, so a bit more complex than a straight knock down and rebuild to which TL;DR we don't need seperate articles for when a station gets a facelift would apply. That Newcastle Interchange at one point had the working title of Wickham Interchange is of little relevance. With the railway station the largest part of Newcastle Interchange, don't see any real need to have a separate Newcastle Interchange railway station article when it can be accommodated within the former article. Turingway (talk) 05:53, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Silverserv and Turingway: Okay, so what do we do with this new precedent in regards to articles like Central railway station, Sydney, Schofields railway station, Helensburgh railway station, Stanwell Park railway station, Como railway station, Sydney, ect.? I feel like it's unfair to be splitting this one up and not the others that have had different contiguous locations in their respective histories. You haven't really given a substantial argument as to why it's more than a "knock down and rebuild", because that's exactly what it is. I don't know how much more I can possibly emphasise that, I've written two paragraphs worth of stuff basically saying that there's stations out there that have been less continguous than Wickham/Newcastle Interchange, and yet this article has to be hung, drawn and quartered simply because the station has a different name now... – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A knock down and rebuild is where a station is demolished and a new one built on the same site, e.g. Chatswood. In this case, Wickham was a run of the mill 2 platform through station, NI is a more substantial terminus station with attached light rail and bus termini. I am not aware of any policy that states there can't be articles for both old and new stations, we have Old Bunbury and New Bunbury. The scenario we are discussing is like the one where Barangaroo wharf has been built as a replacement for Darling Harbour wharf. Like Wickham and NI they are located a few hundred metres apart and serve the same function, but are sufficiently different to justify separate articles. Turingway (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Turingway: To be fair, King Street Wharf 3, the Darling Harbour wharf you're referencing, is part of the King Street Wharf. Both the Barangaroo ferry wharf and the King Street Wharf are still standing and both still operational for their needs. Barangaroo was built, and services were redirected. The infrastructure itself was not replaced in this discussion's context of the word. If by old and new Bunbury, you mean Old Bunbury railway station and Bunbury railway station, it seems the former is still standing and is even heritage listed by the state government's Heritage Council, so you couldn't get more "still there" than that. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 02:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Naming convention for other similar integrated stations is not to include the 'railway station', e.g. Mawson Interchange, Meadowhall Interchange. Mindavale (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also

There are no see also links, could we add some (obviously only if they are relevant). Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Absolutelypuremilk: I've been told by numerous editors in the past that "see also" sections are largely frowned upon, though --Philip Terry Graham 19:51, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Newcastle_Interchange_railway_station"