Talk:Hendon railway line

Image problem

This page has an image problem! JabberJaw_JAPAN talk 01:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Hendon railway line → Hendon railway station, Adelaide – As route had only one station (and was primarily a wartime industrial service to factories), it can be considered a minor deviation of the Grange line versus a separate line, with any and all information summarised in an article focused on the station itself; this is common practice on Adelaide and SA station articles (Port Dock railway station, GMH railway station, Old Clapham railway station, etc.). WP:RMT requested and approved 29 September 2017 with article edited appropriately, but move reverted with no article text reversions and little explanation by another user; contacted with no response. Discussion opened to avoid further misunderstandings and allow community contribution. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was a branch line, and it doesn't make sense to have an article on a station contextless from the actual railway one used to get there (this mess is, IMHO, an argument for undoing Nick Mitchell's merge of the two articles in the first place). It's for this reason that there's plenty more relevant Google hits for "Hendon line" than (the almost none) for "Hendon station" (excluding Wikipedia and limiting them to Adelaide). It also excludes freight services by only referring to the passenger station on what was, as you said, a line primarily for industrial service to factories. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that these articles were already "merged" (the station article already redirected to the line article) long before I ignited this discussion by moving the page and editing it accordingly. All I did was change the POV of the article in conjunction with the requested move from line to station, I did not, as you claim, "merge" the articles in the first place because there was nothing to be merged. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 00:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• See also Hendon railway station in London in England. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
• For additional context/discussion re merging single railway line/station articles in Adelaide, please also refer to Talk:Showground Central railway line. Thanks. JabberJaw_JAPAN talk 01:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Station and line are quite separate. Given that the article named Hendon railway line article was actually the railway station article, I have split into two to at least give a better working platform. Quite different to the Showground Central railway line mentioned above that was effectively a siding running parallel to an existing line. In this case it was stand alone (albeit short) branch running off in a different direction from the line it branched off. Bullgold14 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Purpose

It is not clear from the present article whether the purpose of the line was to transport workers to and from the factories, or if the purpose was to transport materials in and products out. If it was a freight line servicing multiple factories, the focus of the article could be quite different than if it just ended at a short platform with a bus shelter.

Either way, the article titles for the line and the station lead to the same article via a redirect, so let's improve the content to make the article something worth fighting over. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Was probably built for both, although that it closed after the remaining passenger services were withdrawn would indicate it was passenger only at the end. I have split the railway line and railway station articles in 2 so the content actually reflects the article names. Bullgold14 (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

It was passenger-only by the early 1960s, and probably much earlier - during my primary school days, my best mate lived in Pudney Street, and his house backed onto the station. Bahudhara (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)