Talk:Chester railway station

Assessment Report

1. The article needs to be expanded.
2. It should continue to make use of sections.
3. References and Citations are crucial for wikipedia, and so these must be added as the article is expanded. Make sure that as many as possible are "in-line" citations.(See WP:References, WP:V, and WP:CITE for guidance.)

Peter I. Vardy 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Images

Hey all, I think there are too many images in one place in this article, in cologneblue layout the menu and the images seem to be in conflict. Could you please sort it out, thanks DannyM 16:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a gallery instead. Does this help ? Velela 16:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the gallery is a good idea. It's important to show the carved wooden owl as it's mentioned in the text. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Rail-link bus

There is a conflict with what you are saying- I think. There are ticket barriers now installed, which retain your ticket. How can you show your tickets to the driver if the barrier has it? It is valid for all ticket types, and is advertised as a "free bus service to Chester City Centre". This should be reviewed, as I suspect, it is out of date information you are using.

S. Thomson 22:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's out of date information and have edited the passage to remove the contradiction and clarify the current situation.

Raywil (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a Rail-Link bus run by Aintree Coachlines, it is no longer free but runs every 6-minutes from the station to the city centre Altfish (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The Railway Lines in Chester diagram

It isn't obvious to which part of the diagram each legend refers. Can this be improved? 83.104.249.240 (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Historic Railways

There used to be a service to Corwen via Mold, the first station was Saltney Ferry (Mold Junction) - should this not be included in the table at the bottom of the page? Altfish (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester 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/20131219020509/http://www.merseyrail.org/media/201976/Wirral%20Line%20from%208%20December%202013%20to%2017%20May%202014.pdf to http://www.merseyrail.org/media/201976/Wirral%20Line%20from%208%20December%202013%20to%2017%20May%202014.pdf

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) 13:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester 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/20080821115005/http://www.chesterrenaissance.co.uk/railands.htm to http://www.chesterrenaissance.co.uk/railands.htm

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

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) 13:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Poor English copyediting

Recently a user, who is spreading their edits across a range of rapidly-changing IPs in a somewhat suspect manner, has been redrafting large sections of the article. The quality of these edits, in both factual and grammatical terms, is questionable at intervals. Examples of poor changes include "In 1993, the Wirral Line received third rail electrification", which is is factually inaccurate, and "It was decided that joint station" makes no sense in English - there's either missing words or poor wordcraft at play. Perhaps earlier reversions, that did not have these problems, should be reinstated. If these errors can be addressed, to return factual accuracy, it would probably be a step in the right direction. Kyteto (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that you write in a style compatible with an encyclopedia? Why is "It is furnished with a relatively lengthy (305 meters) two-storey façade," or "The station building is primarily composed of a combination of Staffordshire blue brick and pale grey Storeton sandstone" an improvement on my more straight forward English? I copyedit lots of articles, not only yours, and you must remember that "anyone can edit". You wrap facts in over-complicated wording so I simplify it so anyone can understand. It's easy to add an indefinite article, correct a typo, etc, much easier than making sense what was there. I left some advice on your talk page, you ought to take notice. I am a straight forward sort of person and rather object to "suspect", I edit as an IP because I am not obliged to register. If I have made something "factually inaccurate" it is because I didn't understand your wording, correct it in simple language not wholesale reverts. Cheers 92.41.76.212 (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Well actually, that's a good point raised right there on the station building. I worded it as "The station building", not "The station" as per your reedit, as that's technically a lie. The platforms of the station aren't made of Staffordshire blue brick, nor is the signal box, or the ancillary sheds - the main building is. Your simplification turns it into a lie, the original phrasing is defining exactly what part of the station is composed of this material. Likewise, it is the "The station building", not "The station" in its entirety, that's protected under the preservation order; the now-fixed comment about the Wirral line being electrified presumably in its entirety - the reedits created multiple lazy lies, perhaps through a lack of knowledge, certainly through a lack of care. It was simplified to the point of being wrong. Factual accuracy is extremely important to this project, and re-wordings that turn truth into lie, twist reality without a care, or simplify to the point of making laughable mistakes hardly seems superior. In an encyclopedia you have to be factually correct. Speaking on wholesale reverts, far more of your edits have been summarised as "as before" than my own; I don't think you're in a position to criticise without seeming hypocritical on the point... Kyteto (talk) 01:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Important content; and less so

Some readers will think it extraordinary that the shenanigans at Chester station between the LNWR and the BL&CJR are not mentioned. The whole business is exhaustively narrated in several serious sources, and a full description would sit better in this article than in the LNWR article or the BL&CJR article.

Conversely I wondered why someone included principal stations at which Birkenhead to Paddington trains called? I don't see that the Leamington Spa stop (for example) enhances our understanding of Chester station. Afterbrunel (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

There was more content on the LNWR and the BL&CJR, their origins and interactions ect. There was an intolerant IP editor who edit-warred to dumb it down/remove the details as "ten year olds wouldn't be able to understand it, and that's who we're supposed to be writing for." Sorry. Kyteto (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)