This article is within the scope of WikiProject Thomas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Thomas the Tank Engine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ThomasWikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Thomas & Friends task forceTemplate:WikiProject ThomasThomas articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Are these really appropriate (especially as one is pushing the boundaries of fact and fiction) to include in the previous/next station box? Personally, I don't think so. --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Can't remember who added it, but they were keen to see similar boxes for all the stations on the Island of Sodor (almost all within the main article that describes them all, fortunately). Frankly, I don't think it would be a great loss to remove the Fictional Railway boxes; however, the paragraph at the end of the lede - and the categories - should remain, as this station does appear in The Railway Series books.
I recall a brief edit war at London Kings Cross about whether Hogwarts Express should be in the succession box, with the upshot being that it was left off. So that suggests a precedent that could be applied here. I'll get rid of them. --RFBailey (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)Reply