Talk:Sheffield station

Dronfield services

I've added back Virgin Trains' stop at Dronfield as there is an extremely limited service, funny how Dronny is served by four companies and maintained by a fifth (Active8 November 2006). I'll look into or feel free to add major services to the annoying next/preceeded services template as Dronfield is an extremeley limited service for VT, MM and CT with nealry all services stopping by Chesterfield. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kyle Barbour 23:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Sheffield Midland station → Sheffield railway station Sheffield station — The current name of the station is just Sheffield so the article should be of that name. Sheffield Midland should be mentioned as part of the Sheffield railway station article. Needs admin assistance as Sheffield railway station is currently a redirect to Sheffield Midland station. I suggest that Sheffield Midland station should be a redirect to the main article which should be name Sheffield railway station. Adambro 16:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

1. Support - if that's the name of the station, then that should be the name of the article. --VinceBowdren 09:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support - should use the current name. Warofdreams talk 03:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose Neutral - if it should be moved it should be Sheffield Midland railway station. Simply south 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
2. oppose. 1/ The name Midland was only dropped to symbolise the main line stauts of Sheffield's only station, it is however still the same Midland station if you take my meaning. The name was only dropped mid 1980s, I do not see why for a 20 years of life without the added Midland the article name should be shortened, the case Lincoln Central station is another one where some keep the Central and some do not. 2/ The other main line stations, Wicker and Victoria still have articles regardless of them being closed, it would be inappropriate to move the Sheffield Midland station article to a place held by a disambiguation put in place specifically to differenciate the three stations. 3/ As LewisSkinner has pointed out, the station is still mainly referred to as Midland station, Wikipedia has always regarded use as well as factual names for its articles. It is also tactless to dismiss use on the grounds of a clerical decision. 4/ It has been discussed before and if ever the article should be move,d it would be moved to Sheffield station not Sheffield railway station, due to its use as a transport interchange and not solely a railway station. I can't soppurt the move in view of these above details. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
3. oppose as above L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - neutral

1. I'm leaning towards keeping the "Midland" as a useful disambiguating term, but it's no longer in the official name of the station. But wherever it goes, "station" (being a common noun) gets a little "s", per WP:MOSCL. Chris cheese whine 04:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Thanks for pointing that out. Changed proposal to Sheffield station as per WP:MOSCL Adambro 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Sheffield Midland is the historic name of the station. Sheffield is the current name as appears on timetables and the National Rail website. Adambro 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Network Rail (who own the station) business plan 2006, includes a route plan that covers Sheffield. The station is referred to as Sheffield.Route 11 - South Trans-Pennine, South Yorkshire and Lincolnshire Adambro 15:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, the station is managed by Midland Mainline, and is called Midland as it is on the old Midland Main Line - where Victoria, Bridgehouses, Wicker were not. I believe stations at Nottingham, Derby and maybe Leicester also had the Midland suffix. L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 17:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The TOC that manages the station and what line the station is on is irrelevant. I am trying to determine the present day name of the station. Can you assist with any citations of appropriate sources that help with this debate? I am perfectly aware that it was called Sheffield Midland but I'm suggesting this is no longer the case. The station has been the only one in Sheffield since the 1970s I believe so it follows that the Midland part of the name would be dropped. As an aside, Midland Mainline don't own the station, they just operate it on Network Rail's behalf. Adambro 17:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reread my comment. I said MML managed the station. Rotherham is still called "Rotherham Central", in spite of Masborough closing over twenty year ago, so simply the loss of Sheffield's other stations does not automatically indicate that the suffix has been dropped. I cannot find any source to support or refute either naming, and hence am only writing in the comments section and not voting. I know it is still known locally as "Midland Station", but then Cole's Corner is still known as such, in spite of the Cole Brothers store it was named for moving, and then being taken over by John Lewis, which is soon to move again! L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I misinterpreted what you were meaning, I couldn't see the relevance of who the TOC was so presumed you were suggesting that because Midland Mainline manage the station, that it would be called 'Midland'. I acknowledge the fact that the station is referred to as Sheffield Midland but I'm suggesting that based upon official documents (timetables, the Network Rail business plan etc), the proper name is now simply Sheffield. I'm also not saying just because only that station remains it will automatically become 'Sheffield', merely that it is likely. I have provided a link to a source that supports the name being 'Sheffield' and hope you can acknowledge its relevance. Even this article says the station is "now called simply Sheffield", so surely it makes sense for the article to be of that name. Adambro 22:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important to bare in mind that the station was opened in 1870, not 1985, and of the last 137 years of the station being opened, it has only ever been called Sheffield station for 23 years. For such an important piece of British and local railway infrastructure, the complete history of the place should be taken into account, not just TransPennine's timetable. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Good read

Before decisions are taken, i recommened the parties involved read available literature concerning Midland station so as to offer them a less down to earth frame of mind and think of the bigger picture, not just the last 20 years.

• S.R. Batty (1984). Rail centres n°11: Sheffield. Ian Allan ltd. ISBN 1-901945-21-9
• Peter Fox (1990). The Midland Line in Sheffield. Sheffield: Platform 5 Publishing Ltd. ISBN 1-872524-16-8
• Peter Harvey (1996). Abbeydale and Millhouses. Stround: The Charlford Publishing Company Limited. ISBN 0-7524-0732-5
• Brian Edwards (1985) Totley and the Tunnel, Sheffield, Shape Design Shop

Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to the comments by Captain scarlet. Whilst I'm sure the references are very helpful, I'm not sure how many Wikipedians will be able to find a copy for the sake of this discussion. Maybe you could provide some appropriate quotes from them. However, I don't believe the importance of history of the station is in question.

The real question which I suppose this discussion needs to answer is how should articles about railway stations be named. My suggestion is that they should use the current name. I don't believe Sheffield Midland to be the current name. I passed through the station today and couldn't see any trace of Sheffield Midland.

I shall discuss each of your points in turn:

1. I suggest that articles on railway stations should use the current name. Even if the name was changed yesterday, I would still see it as appropriate to move and rename the article to fit.

2. I don't see an issue, the page at Sheffield railway station is just a redirect not a disambiguation page. But its simply a case of adding the template:

This article is about Sheffield railway station. For other railway stations in Sheffield, see Sheffield railway stations (disambiguation).

or similar, which recognises that there are other stations in Sheffield.

3. Any commonly used names other than the official one should redirect to the page at the official name.

4. This is an article about a railway station, hence my suggestion that it should be Sheffield railway station. I don't see how the proximity of the Supertram or bus station change this. The primary topic of the article is a railway station. Whilst it makes sense to mention the Supertram and bus station, I don't think it follows that the article name should be anything other than railway station. The tram network is still a light-railway system anyway. If we were to follow your opinion that the name should be anything other than railway station, would you change the name of Manchester Airport railway station? That is a railway station which just happens to be near both a bus station and an airport.

To summarise, my proposal is simple, that this article should swap places with the redirect page at Sheffield railway station and this article to be reworded to the current name whilst recognising that the station was called Midland and is sometimes still referred to as such. I'm glad admin assistance is required for this move because I'd have gone ahead and done it myself otherwise and it clearly would be controversial. Finally, I haven't suggested that TransPennine's timetable is what determines the name, merely that timetables are an additional reference supporting the name Sheffield. Adambro 18:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians who have contributed to the array of articles of railways in Sheffield, of which Sheffield Midland is use the above publications as sources. You will find many of the articles on railway in Sheffield referenced to these. It is part of Wikipedia's functioning to use source to verify contributions and it is why, as conciensious contributors many of us have used the above well known and mass distributed books, it is for that reason I have tried to provide this discussion with the books' ISBN so as to gather curiosity about the subject rather than just the WP:RM, we are dedicated after all, not just token contributors. although it is pointless to repeat myself on the four points I've made above, I'd like to remind you that discussion on British stations has already taken place (god knows where but i will find it for you) where it was decided and agreed that any station which served more than one mode of explicitaly organised transport would not bare the word railway in the article name, it was then agreed for Sheffield, that its name would be, as a permanent feature Sheffield Midland station as per capitalisation rules. The same can be said about Birmingham New Street Station where station was given a bonus in the form of a capital S. It might have been in WP Uk stations or something, i'll fish it out at some point. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with regards to this Captain Scarlet, I've taken the time to look into the issue a bit more, which as you've mentioned, is one which has come up in the past. In light of what I've found, I have changed my proposal. I now suggest that the article be moved to Sheffield station, reflecting the fact that there is a tram stop and renaming to what I believe the station is now called. I appreciate there is currently a disambiguation page at that title. I would suggest that a template such as:

This article is about Sheffield station. For other railway stations in Sheffield, see Railway stations in Sheffield.

be placed at the top of the page. The current contents of Sheffield station should be moved to an appropriate title. I look forward to hearing peoples opinions on my revised proposal. Adambro 20:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess it should be Sheffield Station actually. Adambro 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't make my mind up on this one. Sheffield Station or Sheffield station. Not sure. Adambro 20:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be "Sheffield station" unless the official name on timetables etc is "Sheffield Station" (which I don't believe it is, because then it would be legitimate, although highly bonkers, to refer to it as "Sheffield Station station" ! (Chris Jones - not logged in) PS Can railway nerds (I love you really, though I'm canal nerd myself) say if there are ANY stations in the UK where "Station" occurs in the official name?)

BTW - I agree with changing the name from "Sheffield Midland". The name should be whatever is shown on official timetables. However, the old name is interesting for historical reasons, and should be explained in the article and given a redirect. Manchester Piccadilly USED to be called London Road, I don't see anyone clamouring for its articles to be named as such! Or are we saying that in Wikipedia everything should be called "Whatever it were when I were a lad !" (Official "Wagon Wheels are the size of dinner plates"). I live in Sheffield, no-one except rail nerds (no offence, as thay say on the Fast Show) calls it "Midland" station. I do admit to a hidden agenda ("Not all that hidden, then", ed) : anything that stops American guide books referring to Sheffield (and Manchester) as being in the Midlands is a GOOD THING. (Chris Jones - not logged in). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.106.209 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 2 February 2007

Proposing move to Sheffield station as per WP:MOSCL.Adambro 18:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

stn art lrnk and code

Moved from User talk:M0RHI

The stn art lrnk and code template will be removed from the article, deletion or not, it really is. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in putting a template up for deletion if you're going to make these changes regardless of the concensus that is most clearly forming on the TfD? If the TfD survives, are you going to go and reinstate these? I hope so, because I wouldn't want you ignoring concensus. When making edits, especially by removing the code= parameter from Template:UK stations, please ask yourself if it seriously detracts from the article. I believe it doesn't, there is no harm in leaving it. By all means, be bold in editing, but when you can see a clear concensus forming, take a few paces back and think if it's necessary.

I hope you appreciate my comments made on the TfD page, but please, until then, stop removing the templates, as they'll all be removed if the TfD succeeds, and thus proving it is of real detriment to the article. M0RHI | Talk to me 00:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

How about we go for some kind of concensus whereby we put the articles back to how they were before this whole edit war and TfD kicked off, then if you TfD succeeds, we go for some Coor dms style link, and the code linking to National rail in the box - or what do you suggest here? M0RHI | Talk to me 00:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no concensus being the outcome of this as there is no issue with the fact that the existance of that template brings nothing more than what already exists in a larger scale: half its content is out of bounds of Wikipedia and the rest is already present in almost all articles it is present in, there is therefore absolutely no point in it. I have largerly explained I do not go for website advertisement which this template does excercise. Do what you want to do to update the UK stations infobox but there is no chance that the template will feature on any of the railway article I maintain as I can justify removing with a dozen other valid WP reasons. Also I am confident that as usual, TfD will be kept on sentimental issues as people like yourself who have voted do not read other contributors replies. I am likely to go around the concensus and work with other rules I may apply to remove the present of duplicate information which I have no doubt about, I can be bold, work around 3RR and not resorting to vandalism. I do hope I am clear and I'll make my statement clearer: This template is useless and poor. It detracts lowers to standard of Wikipedia is out of bounds of what Wikipedia is, it is poorly written, it is one sided, i can go. (to maintain a conversation reply where the conversation was initiated, ping pong doesn't work well). Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 00:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This template is useless

No, it provides an external link to the official source of information in this country regarding train stations. Hardly useless. The external link provided is meritable, accessible and useful, per WP:EL.

This template is poor

It is, but only because it provides links to a third party, and does not use some neutral carrier, like Wikimapia. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has no official policy on map providers.

It detracts lower to standard of Wikipedia

It acts as a referencing tool for station information in the fact it provides reference to the station information, which actually improves the article (WP:CITE). I fail to see how linking to the official source of information is detracting from the quality of an article. I also can't see how it fails to meet official policy (per WP:EL).

This template is out of bounds of what Wikipedia is

It is not. Wikipedia is not a timetable is not official policy. It is a consultation document that may one day become policy. It also does not break WP:NOT#IINFO, as Wikipedia is not the source of information, Wikipedia is providing links to the source. I have removed timetables within Wikipedia before and linked to the external source because I too believe in the unofficial policy that Wikipedia is not a timetable. The policy, if adopted in a nutshell is not "Wikipedia is not a site that links to official sources of running information". It simply breaks no official policy, and forgive me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't even break Wikipedia is not a timetable.

This template is poorly written and one sided

Then make suggestions on the talk page for this article on ways to improve it. Wikipedia is founded on concensus. Being bold in your edits is fine, but being aggressive in your edits should be avoided, without firm concensus from the Wikipedia community, something you failed to achieve in your TfD, no matter how much explaining you did. See above for comments on it being one sided.

Ping pong doesn't work well

As you wish. I've replied here before and nobody has bothered to look back, whereas everyone gets the message if it's left on their talk page. Personal preference. If I were you (which I fully understand I am not), I would take a step back, leave it for a couple of days, contribute to talk on external links, contribute to the formation of policy on Wikipedia is not a timetable and go about creating proposals on the template's talk page, rather than clashing with editors where clear concensus has formed. I understand it's frustrating, and I'm not discouraging you from being bold, but saying you will find your way around the 3RR and generally antagonising is in fact working against the aims of Wikipedia, which you consider as your main reason for doing this. Just take a step back for a while. I hope we can continue to make good collaborative edits together in future, that are good for the Wikipedia community, though I doubt you will agree. M0RHI | Talk to me 06:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This template is out of bounds of what Wikipedia is

It is not. Wikipedia is not a timetable is a policy kept in view of all users under Wikipedia is nt a travel guide, last I checked a timetable helps people to know when a bus, a plane, a train is planed to circulate ergo a travel information. Also the National Rail website as good as it may be only provides travel information, not historical information. It is great to know if our disabled friends can reach platforms two, but unless it is used as a reference for Disability Act related construction (such as the contrustion of a lift to permit disabled passengers to go wherever) then it should be used.

This template is poorly written and one sided

The TfD is a pretty clear statement as to what I think of the template, be gone!

Ping pong doesn't work well

I just don't like having to hover between one page and another, it's simpler this way, the ocnversation is held in one place only. I won't leave it a few days and if I did, I'd remove the template on other various grounds such as the ones I used 5 minutes ago: duplicate information. There is only one consensus possible: deletion. I'm sure Wikiproject Trains will come up with yet another poor template with bright colours to awaken their senses regardless of all this. I aim to make Wikipedia the most professional looking (not talk pages haha) and this kind of work just shows what a bunch of sad anoraks and sentimental we are to readers who clearly, as Tivedshambo as proven: Also speaking as a user, not an editor, I use a number of stations, and the links to the maps is extremely useful, as is the timetable link. The facilities link is also necessary as verification of source information.– Tivedshambo (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC); Need travel information? Wikitravel is your friend, not Wikipedia, that's why this template has no other future than being TfDed again and again until it succeeds and people look beyond their own selfish opinions. Take care, Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You've once told me you wished we could work together in the interest of Wikipedia. I've however noticed both your and RFBailey's diruptive behaviour on Sheffield Midland station. Whatever the result of the TfD on the pitiful template that is Stn Str lnk, I have removed it permanantly from the station article. It was previously removed and accepted as its concent was deemed disruptive and of lower quality, please do not reverse this fact. Whatever consensus the creators and contributors of the template the WP:Railways may have it is of no consequence here. Please respect the boldness of my edits and note that neither you or RFBailey WP:OWN the article. You cannot impose a template on any article, if you wish to add controbersial changes use the talk page of an article before implementing, especially when instead of using the template it is possible to add its content instead and remove the central control the template creators hold on all articles using it. The template regardless of the TfD discussion is a travelguide information and has been removed. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 09:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to get involved in constantly reverting his edits, but I am surprised Captain Scarlet is suggesting that M0RHI and RFBailey are acting as if they own the article. It is in fact Captain Scarlet's behaviour that is disruptive and would leave me with concerns about ownership. He must recognise the consensus reached in reference to the template. The template is not "a travelguide information" if this was what was determined in the TfD. The guidelines are not just for Captain Scarlet to interpret and use to justify whatever actions he takes despite other editors disagreeing. The article in question is maintained by the community not a single editor.

I think there was a feeling that {{stn art lnk}} would eventually be made redundant by station coordinates and so I've not put it back in, but have added the links to National Rail. Adambro 09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks so much for butting in Adambro, your comments have really made a difference. I've kept the coordinates and removed the travelguide information again! The template wasn't deleted, so be it. You cannot, however, impose it. By constantly adding the information in you're behaving just as you've described me to: disruptive, unwilling to collaborate. All it seems you guys are interested in is standardisation at the loss of quality of content. The fact that it might be redundant is still off topic: a live departure board is a travel like information and it's been deleted. Even with you three constantly putting it back in (and therefore cleverly circumventing the 3RR) I must warn you that the concensus reached on the article itself (which therefore superseeds the template talk) was to have the information removed. Do I have to wait 24 hours everyday to remove it or would you like to be conceed once in a while instead of imposing your template dictatorship. All it seems is whatever the template, people are so territorial, not everyone accepts your wikiwisdom nor your values of standardisation. Some are actually interested in quality content on case by case value! Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 10:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that Captain scarlet appreciates my comments, I am however disappointed that he accuses me of trying to circumvent the 3RR rule. That is certainly not the case, I am completely independent of the number of other editors who disagree with Captain scarlet's view that the links are inappropriate. I have also not simply reverted his edits, instead I have recognised his view that coordiantes are better than the link in {{stn art lnk}} and have so given those priority over the template. I would suggest this is showing my ability to understand the views of other editors not being "disruptive, unwilling to collaborate". Anyway, if constantly adding the information is acting in such a way, than constantly removing it as he is doing is of course just the same. If his concerns about the links extend to other railway station articles not just this one, I would suggest he starts a discussion about this at the UK railway project or on the infobox talk page.

Captain scarlet says that consensus was "reached on the article itself" but I cannot find any discussion of this issue on the talk page so don't believe this to be the case.

I will reiterate the comments myself and others made in the TfD discussion that the link to the station departure boards is not governed by WP:NOT, instead we should focus on WP:EL, which says that links to "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" should be included.

I would also assure Captain scarlet that I am of course interested in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia for our readers. "people are so territorial", indeed. Adambro 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't completely reverted yours. The presence of disabled facility, lost luggage is not worthy of an encyclopedia, that is I'm afraid, only relevant to travellers. Such information, as I've told you before, is only relevant if used as reference, citing a historical fact. I don't wish to participate in UK railway project discussion. I was invited and refused to participate, I am not interested in the standard and UK-wide interests of the project, what interests me is Sheffield Midland station and that article alone, what is done on other articles is not my business, I haven't edited them and I no reason to want to impose my politics on these articles. Again, what happened on TfD is no significance, it stayed and wasn't deleted, it doesn't mean it has or can ne used... I failed the deletion this time, but won't use it never the less lol... keep doesn't mean use, it means keep. The decisions of UK railway project are unimportant, if one contributor on one article disagrees. It was already proven by the debacle you off course particpated in on WP:Sheffield that projects are unimportant and have no barings on proceedings, remember? Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it the information shouldn't be included in the article, that is why it is instead linked to, this conforms to both WP:NOT and WP:EL. There is nothing in the guidelines that justifies removing the links. As you note, I have in the past pointed out the purpose of projects and as it seems you are misunderstanding, I shall again. Project have no greater right to influence articles than anyone else, they provide a forum to discuss issues common across articles covering the same topic. As such, I don't believe that what a project says goes, rather that it is an appropriate place to discuss the issue with other editors who will be interested. You have previously "in quality content", as such I'm surprised your concern about the links don't extend to the thousands of other railway station articles, you only seem to be bothered about a small number. It seems to me that consensus supports the links.

I understand that the TfD outcome was "Keep", not "Use", but surely such an outcome indicates that editors feel that the content is beneficial to our readers and implies that it should be used. I would emphasise that what happened with the TfD is significant and is relevant in this discussion.

I'd note that the UK railway project does not make decisions, it is down to the participants in that project who together but form opinions independently. The project is not one entity made, it is made up of participants. As such, consensus reached their is as valid as anywhere else. Some of the hope of discussing issues at a national level is to avoid numerous discussion of the same issue spread across articles. Again, if you feel strongly about this, I would urge you to discuss it with other editors who share the same interest in UK railways. Adambro 12:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

At 10:38, 6 April 2007, the inhospitable information will be removed. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If by doing so you believe you will avoid breaching 3RR, then I'm afraid you are very much mistaken, please familiarise yourself with the policy. Adambro 13:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've told you why I do not accept such content to feature, now a fourth contributor? It is you who is avoiding 3RR. I find your continuous participation at confronting me patronising at best. My behaviour is not discruptive so you cannot claim my breaching of it, I suppose that being a threat I must warn you to refrain from doing so. If only I could put you on ignore you have no idea how relaxed I'd be right now. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone would find it easier on Wikipedia if they didn't have to accept other contributors opinions, but alas, this is a community project. I have not threatened you, so you do not need to warn me, merely I have reminded you to familiarise yourself with policy, something which I would encourage you to do.

If you continue to ignore other editors, it would be perfectly fair to describe your edits as disruptive. To continually edit against consensus is clearly so. Adambro 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh but it is a threat, repetitive may I add. Each and everyone of your contributions communicating to me seem to be endless patronising speaches after threats after insults as I see them. Policies are well known by me, continuously quoting them is insulting and patronising, hence you should not feel surprised by my responses to you. Since the adjectives used to describe my actions make them seem as disruptive yours can too. You hide behind consensus as if that consensus had valid authority to impose its verdict. Please continue the way you are and agreement will be but every harder to achieve my friend. RfC, TfDs, Sockpuppetery accusations are not the way to get your point heard, quality contributions are; templatefest is not, it is disruptive. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed completely with the sentiment Adambro has used. You are taking your own interpretation on policy - policy is generally open to interpretation, this is why community concensus takes precedent. The clear concensus made amongst community members (in fact, out of all that contributed, you were the only one that voted to delete) must show you that no matter how right you think you are, you are outnumbered in that opinion, and thus the principle of concensus dictates you are wrong. AfDs are where concensus is built and by those who care about it most. By all means, take this to Arbitration, if you so wish, but I should point out that this really does not contravene WP:NOT or WP:EL (see the keep debate, ad nauseum). I'm not personally going to claim you're wrong, but acting against the community when concensus has been decided above this one article is counterproductive and simply unhelpful. I've made constructive arguments in the past, I'm sorry I now have to point out only my annoyance. Please arbitrate if you wish. M0RHI | Talk to me 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

The station code has also been removed from Dore railway station. Andy Mabbett 11:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick! A link Pigsonthewing [1]. also removed from here; quick! A link [2]. You may dumb down Wikipedia by adding timetables, I won't. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 12:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added the station code back in. As this has previously been discussed and the consensus seemed to favour inclusion, Captain scarlet needs to provide a good reason why it shouldn't be included, beyond what he has previously said. Adambro 21:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

A related move

I have requested the moving of Sheffield Wicker, Sheffield Victoria and Oughty Bridge. See Talk:Sheffield Victoria Station. Simply south (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Road layout approaching the station

Thought this might be interesting. It has been published in the Sheffield Telegraph.

Action Station —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike0001 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

the Liverpool - Norwich Line

Hey guys, under the 'services' section, currently it says that on the Liverpool-Norwich line , Sheffield is preceded by Dore, and followed by Dronfield. This would seem unlikely as both are south of Sheffield. If however, this is the case, then I'd assume that it's done by reversal at Sheffield, and since it is labelled as the Liverpool-Norwich line, and not vice versa, Dore ought to come first. I will make this change, but can anyone confirm reversal at Sheffield? L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it reverses at Sheffield. Done that journey many times. --VinceBowdren (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pond Street Station?

I have edited the reference cited by JeremyA. The book, "Rail Centres: Sheffield" has a map (can scan if needbe), naming Midland Station as Pond Street. Indeed, a click on the ISBN and scroll down to Sheffield will see it is on-loan fro the Hillsborough Library. That's because I have it :). L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 01:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also found this. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 02:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The maps in Batty are drawn by the author. Peter Fox states that Batty is wrong, and indeed searching through 19th century books in Google Books I haven't yet found a single reference to Pond Street Station. For example:

• Leader (1876)[3] "...the road to the new Midland railway station" (p. 232)
• The illustrated guide to Sheffield and the surrounding district (1879)[4] "footbridge over the sheaf to the Midland Station road" (p. 189)
• The Official Guide to the Midland Railway (1894)[5] "Midland Station" (p. 23)
• Hand-book and Appendix of Stations (1894)[6] "Sheffield Station" (p.231)
• Our Railways: Their Origin, Development, Incident and Romance (1896)[7] "Sheffield station" (p. 278)

In addition Whites directory for 1879, Kelly's West Riding Directory for 1881, White's directories for 1901 & 1911 [8] all call it just the Midland Station while giving other stations their correct names (Victoria, Wicker, Bridgehouses etc.). If it ever was officially called Pond Street, the name doesn't seem to have made it into common usage, and looks to have gone completely by 1879.

While Batty's book is generally very good, I think that Fox casts enough reasonable doubt that in the absence of a contemporary source (timetable, map, or a photo showing a station sign with Pond Street written on it) a footnote stating that there is doubt as to whether this name was ever used is appropriate—Jeremy (talk) 03:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is is that Pond Street was the local name of the original 1870 station,. It lost the epithet when it was rebuilt in 1905. 81.132.202.63 (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Photos

Any reason to use Sheffield Station General View.jpg twice, and not use Sheffield Station from Sheaf Square.jpg at all? The one of Sheaf Square at night looks a lot better. --VinceBowdren (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Tunnel South of Sheffield Station ?

I was reading back through my collection of Railway Magazines and an article mentioned a tunnel south of Sheffield station (as originally built), but which was opened out into a cutting when the route as far as Dore was quadrupled in the years up to 1902. Can anyone confirm the existence of this tunnel, its name and its exact location ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinSmith (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I have discovered the relevant information from various sources. It was called Farm Road Tunnel and was opened with the south bound line in 1870. The tunnel was opened out when this section of line was quadrupled in 1902.--JustinSmith (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Sheffield railway station

After having read the discussion above, I fail to see why this article continues to defy logic and consistancy, by not being named Sheffield railway station. Can anyone help? Welshleprechaun (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea why it isn't named Sheffield railway station - would definately be the logical approach. I don't see any reason why the name of the article shouldn't be changed, could be quite confusing for people looking for Sheffield Interchange for example. Sheffield station (disambiguation) also exists listing the four original railway stations within Sheffield. Schumi555 23:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Start a move request and see how it goes. Keith D (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move #2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Sheffield station → Sheffield railway station – This article does not conform to the naming convention for UK railway stations, as notedin the previous section on this talk page. The move is technical as the target page currently redirects here. This is an important station, so it is particularly important to check that links remain operational after the move welsh (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Article isn't just about the National Rail station - it also covers the Supertram stop. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), last row of the box "Any two or more of the above". --Redrose64 (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with the site, but surely the railway station is the predominant feature of the location and is the way it is perceived by travellers irrespective of the precise means of travel chosen? In fact I would question (again without direct experience) the notability of a Supertram stop. It was that redirect that led me to the article in the first place. welsh (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose on the grounds that East Croydon is station not railway station, and that has an equivalent tram stop. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking to railway station

In view of the recent edits to Sheffield station I've applied a 1-week full prot. Since the nature of the dispute affects several articles about UK railways (mostly, but not exclusively, those about particular stations), I think it should be discussed with a wider audience than this page might get, so I've started a thread at WT:UKRAIL#Linking to railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Electrification of Main Lines

In the Future section, it states that the MML and the GWML past Hayes & Harlington are both not electrified. This seems a little misleading, with the ongoing 21st-century modernisation programme having already electrified the line well past there. I was going to edit it myself, but am unsure as to how it should best be phrased with the programme still in progress... Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I started off by removing the parenthesis entirely - but when I previewed, I found that the sentence then read "The line is currently one of the few major main lines and the plan found that the project would provide significantly enhanced services and significant financial savings.", which is nonsensical. So I restored part of the parenthesis, like this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)