 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Untitled
editThe following has been taken from Talk:Flyhighplato and put here for general discussion on this topic. Please give your opinion:
So I guess there's no need of Mahalaxmi (railway station) page. The Mahalaxmi (location) should incorporate the template. Also the pages for Mumbai Central and Parel needs to be addressed also. Alren 19:50, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, there is. Both the station and the suburb are called Mahalaxmi. I guess I called the suburb entry a "location", but maybe it should be something else? Since, technically, a train station is also a location. And, I guess, so is the temple. Should I move Mahalaxmi (location) to Mahalaxmi (suburb)? --flyhighplato 19:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Umm! I don't think so. Most of the stations (esp. in Mumbai) are named after the area they are in. Exceptions being the likes of Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, King's Circle, etc. In most cases there's not much speciality about the station (again exception - Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus), so the suburb and the station are mentioned together e.g., Bandra, Borivali. So I would recommend to have the station and suburb/location as the same page.Alren 20:05, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. I think there's a big distinction between the suburb and the station. Certainly, it's in the same area, but it's not the same thing. When you follow a link from the article describing the Mumbai rail station, you expect to read about the station, not the city. Perhaps the station could be a subheader underneath the city, I'm not sure. I think this is something that should be in the discussion page on the disambiguation page for Mahalaxmi. I want to see what people think. Is it okay if I copy this conversation there? --flyhighplato 22:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sure. Though I would try having the conversation in Category:Mumbai railway stations and/or Category:Mumbai neighbourhoods (Or have a link from one to other). Alren 23:26, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Okay. It's been pasted. I'll give people some time to look at this. I'll also add links to here from the articles you mentioned. I'll give this about a month or two. I don't think there's any rush. --flyhighplato 00:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
One thing, let's get this straight, Mahalaxmi is not a suburb. As far as Mahalaxmi is concerned we have to disambiguate the station from the goddess. I disagree with flyhighplato having two separate pages for station and area as:
- Each page will have hardly any content. Stations such as Elphinstone Road, Vidyavihar etc. will be stubs as there isn't much to write about it.
- It will create unnecessary pages. Say I am looking for info on Vidyavihar, having both on the same page would make more sense.
- If a station really has some interesting matter, such as Bandra, then only create a new page such as Bandra Railway Station. Remember, if you want to create a new page, it should have some 'meat' in it or else it will be a candidate for speedy deletions or merges.
- Stations/area such as Andheri can have links to neighbourhoods such as Amboli, Saki Naka, Sahar etc on it.
[[User:Nichalp|¶ ɳȉčḩåḽṗ | ✉]] 19:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Nichalp. There is no use creating two separate articles on Mahalaxmi (the station and the location). Both the articles will end up being stubs. utcursch 11:12, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
I think the word "suburb" is loosely used as clearly identifiable area of Mumbai. I agree it's not right. Imagine calling Walkeshwar a suburb of Mumbai. Alren 14:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)