Talk:Kimberley East railway station

Information, including a photograph, of this station already exists on the Kimberley Railway Stations page. Rather than starting again, perhaps one should be merged into the other. Tina Cordon (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't spot that. I was following the GNR route along. Having said that I wonder - is there enough for three separate articles which seems the norm (and some I've seen are one line stubs) Chevin (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the Kimberley Railway Stations article stands as an article on its own. Yes it can be broken down into three stubs but will there ever be enough information for these articles ever to be anything other than stubs. I suggest using East Kimberley as a test case. If this can be grown into a full article then perhaps the other two stations in the Kimberley Railway Stations article can be too. Tina Cordon (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I think its a matter of Wikipedia consistency. I don't know if there are any agreements about this. Certainly it might be clearer if there was ever a Nottinghamshire stations template like there is for Derbyshire ones. (Mind you that's getting a bit out of hand) On the other hand a link to the triple page could go something like Kimberley Railway Stations#Kimberley East Railway Station with a pipe | to "Kimberley East". I leave it to you. I don't want to interfere with your work and you can certainly merge my bits into yours. Chevin (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia railway buffs seem to prefer the one station per article option. The wider Wikipedia community objects to the proliferation of stubs which will never become complete articles. So the correct route forward is difficult to assess. Personally, I would like to see three complete separate non stub articles for the three stations concerned but I personally would have difficulty providing enough relevent information to do that, hence the solution I chose.

Piped links do work well enough for links from other articles. Perhaps I should warn you about the Nottingham's Tunnels article, which also has a group of subjects, some of which are relevent to your current work. Tina Cordon (talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note about Nottingham's Tunnels. My focus at present is Derbyshire's railways but inevitably it leads me over the border from time to time. I personally think 200 words is enough for an individual article. (Perhaps we should have two categories - "stubs" and "shorts") And 2500 the maximum. Due to the fad some people have for merging articles, there are some that are impossibly long. Not only do they become difficult to read, and for readers to find the particular information they are looking for, they become difficult to keep tidy. Getting back to the question of separate articles for different stations, someone has been inserting "last station, next station" templates into articles, as in Clifton-on-Trent railway station.Chevin (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

That sort of thing. Tina Cordon (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)