Talk:Newcastle railway station/Archive 3

Construction and opening section

The sentence:

The station was designed by John Dobson for the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway company, which subsequently became the North Eastern Railway ,NER, following a merger with other companies in 1854, and the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, which was later absorbed by NER in 1862.

does not look right to me. The NER merged with other companies in 1854 and then was taken over by the NER in 1862? Probably just a minor grammar lapse. Could somebody knowledgeable correct that, or did I get it wrong? Thanks, --194.246.46.15 (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It was correct but a bit difficult to parse as one sentence so I've rewritten it to make it clearer. It makes sense if you look at the history of the NER which was formed out of all these little companies in a relatively short time.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The name, part #302130

Seriously, when are people going to face up to reality and realise that this station is officially and routinely called Newcastle Central Station, even by nationally read reliable sources????? This is no coincidence, because that's its proper name, and always has been since it opened. Yes, the sign in the station says just Newcastle, as does National Rail. It's surely not hard for people to comprehend that that's just because there's absolutley no need to use the full name when you don't have to!!!!!! There are no other railway stations in Newcastle FFS, so just 'Newcastle', in the context of National Rail stations, is perfectly proper. But that absolutely does not mean that this station is solely referred to, much less officially called, Newcastle railway station, which is still now what it was many years ago, a complete and utter made up Wikipedia fabrication, a bastard child of a flawed Wikipedia naming convention and truck loads of what by now can only be described as willfull ignorance of basic reality as well as reliable sources. I am fine with keeping the title of the article as Newcastle railway station simply as a descriptive title, but not if people keep insisting on removing the full and proper title from being bolded in the lede as all proper names for any article are. MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

People have. Person hasn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Following years of debate and general consensus, this issue will not be brought up again because you still haven't got your own way. This article is written from an international perspective not a local one. Even so, the local name Newcastle Central is still acknowledged in the toolbox. Welshleprechaun 16:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Why are you simply unable to read what people write? The article name was debated, and I AM NOT DISPUTING IT. I am disputing the removal of the full and proper name from being bolded in the lede, which the the consensus agreed state it was left in after the last move, until the recent bout of edit warring and blank edit summary changes like, oh I don't know, this. How the hell you can keep a straight face while claiming that the BBC national news website is not an 'international perspective' I'll seriously never know. Like I said, this "now can only be described as willfull ignorance of basic reality as well as reliable sources". And you still don't seem to even understand that 'Newcastle Central' is NOT THE LOCAL NAME, even though you've been told this a million times by several people. The 'local name' such as you laughingly call it, is Central Station. The nationally used full name is Newcastle Central Station. Your continued refusal to understand that this is the argument, whether you agree with it or not, is frankly either extreme disruption, or a basic competency issue. Anything else, including Newcastle Central railway station is pure made-up wikipedia bullshit frankly, and has no legitimacy as an 'international perspective' at all, (and FFS, when was Cardiff ever even considered international in relation Newcastle?), even though sadly mistakes like this which are allowed to persist on Wikipedia and have an UNDUE effect on the real world. I'm restoring the proper name to the lede, a simple fact which is supportable by NATIONAL IN SCOPE reliable sources and which are read internationally by a hell of a lot more people than any source which you might try and claim is an 'inernational' perspective (as ever, I'm guessing this is still the National Rail website and ..... nothing much else). If you have any sources at all to support your version, then let's see them. I'd love to know where this station was EVER referred to as 'Newcastle-on-Tyne Central railway station', it sounds like yet another made up name, along with yet another synthesised conclusion that someone has officially changed the name of this station. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

OK then: you give two links on support of your comments. First, one is to an edit diff, which you describe as "edit summary changes like, oh I don't know, this"; whilst the edit summary was indeed blank, that in itself is not a crime: and the edit was fully in line with WP:BEGINNING. The second link is to an old version, which you introduce as "If you have any sources at all to support your version". I must state that I was the editor concerned: and I did, in fact, provide references - two of them, one being

• Allen, Cecil J. (1974) [1964]. The North Eastern Railway. Shepperton: Ian Allan. p. 86. ISBN 0 7110 0495 1. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

the other being

• Butt, R.V.J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations. Yeovil: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 168. ISBN 1 85260 508 1. R508. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Messrs. Allen and Butt are generally considered to be reliable sources, as are most works emanating from the publishers Patrick Stephens Ltd. and Ian Allan Publishing Ltd. I don't see why the National Rail website should be doubted on something as basic as this, nor photographic evidence such as this. You will note, I hope, that I didn't remove the full name: I left the first part of the first sentence to read:

Newcastle railway station, formerly Newcastle-on-Tyne Central railway station, is the ...

This describes the current situation, and summarises the previous situation in ten words. The previous version was:

Newcastle Central Station, or simply Newcastle railway station, or Central Station, locally, is the ...

Why do we need local names? There must be dozens of stations locally known as "Central Station". Those in Glasgow, Liverpool and Southampton spring to mind straight away, yet we don't seem to be giving local names for those. I note that you have not put your own refs into the article, merely being content with removing mine. Please see WP:BURDEN. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Please write down here exactly what those sources say, verbatim please, in addition to a rationale as to why you think they they trump sources like the BBC for reliability or accuracy of what the current, full and formal name actually is, considering that they date from at minimum, 16 years ago, while the BBC link is from days ago. As for using just Newcastle, frankly, pointing to a photo or the National Rail website to show me what I've already clearly stated - that nobody in the railway context has any need to use the full name when simply 'Newcastle' suffices, does not make the case that the BBC are morons and don't know what the proper full name of the station is. It's this exact sort of willfull refusal to even read what I write on this topic which annoys me more than anything frankly. I endeavour to put the local name in here becuase the full name from which it derives is for some reason rejected as the title even though it is widley used, wide enough to be classed as the COMMON NAME easily (seriously, compare the two in full quotes in Google, it's not even a close contest), and this article has been for years the subject of massive ignorance over what the 'local version' actually is. It is not and never has been the wiki-bastardisation that is 'Newcastle Central railway station'. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And you can blame Welsh Leprechaun for me not noticing you added those sources, all I saw was you changing the lede and did not look further down the diff page - he has with his persistent bad behaviour sadly conditioned me to assume any change to this article's opening sentence is simply just more baseless POV edit warring. For that, I apologise, but I still want to see written down here exactly what those sources say on the matter, as that former name definitely doesn't tally with one of the historical plaques mounted on the station; and I would still like an explanation as to how the BBC are so easily dismissed as contemporary sources. You should understand that through all this nonsense, this is the first time anyone has even provided a source that the name has ever been formally changed to just Newcastle. Whatever happens, it's clear that 'Newcastle Central Station' is still in relevant use as a name of whatever form, even if it is now not formally correct, and as such, per MOSBOLD, it should be included in the lead as a valid synonym. As well as the local form, for the reasons above. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)At no point did I - or anybody other than yourself - refer to the BBC as "morons".

If you do not have access to these books, I don't see why I should risk copyright violation by "write down here exactly what those sources say, verbatim please".

I am going to invite comment from WT:UKRAIL. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a very short and acknowledged quote is copyright violation, so this is exactly what is said in Butt, R. V. J. (October 1995). The Directory of Railway Stations: details every public and private passenger station, halt, platform and stopping place, past and present (1st ed.). Sparkford: Patrick Stephens Ltd. p. 168. ISBN 978-1-85260-508-7. OCLC 60251199. OL 11956311M.

NEWCASTLE BR 34 NZ 26 RF Newcastle-on-Tyne Central

NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE CENTRAL NE 34 NZ 26 OP 29 August 1850; RN Newcastle BR [Replaced Newcastle Carliol Square]

"RN" means "renamed". "RF" means "renamed from". "NE" is "North Eastern Railway". "BR" is "British Railways (Railway Executive)" (which existed from 1948 to 1962). "34 NZ 26" is a map reference. There is no entry for "Newcastle Central". This was published in 1995 and it seems unlikely to have been renamed from "Newcastle" to "Newcastle Central" since then. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Newcastle Central Station" 1878-1987

Thanks very much. Copyright is certainly a novel reason on me for someone to not be willing to explain where they get their information from. Now we have it though, it still doesn't explain why it is referred to in formal contexts by reliable sources as Newcastle Central Station (not just Newcastle Central), both now, and in historical contexts (see image right). Frankly, if you told people these days you were off to 'Newcastle-on-Tyne Central' they'd think you were simple, not least as 'on-Tyne' is a very archaic form nowadays. In contrast, they wouldn't bat an eyelid at 'Newcastle Central Station'. I think the only plausible explanation is that the local form, Central Station, is taking precedence in national sources who simply add on Newcastle, even over the apparent preference and formal act of the railways to rename it simply 'Newcastle' station, presumably just because they could with no other conflicting stations. Although the fact we cannot even source a date let alone a reason why this was done, is probably good evidence if any more were needed that this was a change which did not propogate into the wider non-railway specific world or sources. And in that case, it's completely unjustifiable for people to try and alter this article to suggest this place doesn't routinely get called Newcastle Central Station in widely used national sources, on some bizarre idea that this is just a local name. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. "Newcastle Central Station" also seemed fine for the 150th anniversary plaque unveiled by the Queen no less, in 2000. MickMacNee (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You are right, people around here would not bat an eyelid if you asked for directions to "Newcastle Central Station". They would then direct you to the Metro station. If you then said, "No, I want the mainline station, for trains to Edinburgh", they would say, "Ah, you mean Newcastle Station"! If you go to thetrainline.com and type "Newcastle" into the "From" box you get two options "Newcastle (NCL) Main" and "Newcastle Central (Metro) NCZ". And so on. That it historically was called Newcastle Central is in no doubt, but that is not the modern usage for anything but the metro.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

That really is BS tbh. Nobody ever calls the Metro station 'Newcastle Central Station'. The Metro Station is Central Station, full stop. Asking for 'Newcastle Central Station' and meaning the Metro would get you the same look as if you asked someone for directions to 'London Green Park' tube station. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

@Dr Greg - small point, but the Railway Executive was abolished on 1 October 1953 (by Ministerial order); for events between this date and the formation of the British Railways Board in 1963, Butt uses the initials BTC (British Transport Commission).

@MickMacNee - I never said that I was "off to 'Newcastle-on-Tyne Central'". If I were to travel by rail to the city with more than five bridges, I would ask for a ticket to "Newcastle" because that's what the timetable calls it. Surely the official name is what we should be using? What do official documents actually state? Is the word "Central" used in, for example, the East Coast Main Line timetable? Historic names are all well and good, in their proper place; and that is what I was trying to show. Here, once again, is the diff of the changes that I made. Taking them one at a time then:

• Line 1 - from |name=Newcastle Central Station|other_name=Newcastle to |name=Newcastle|other_name=Newcastle Central - the word "Station" is redundant, we don't put that on other railway station articles; and the word "Central" is not part of the official name, although I'll grant it does still have its followers: so it goes in the other_name.
• Line 11 - from |start=1850|events=Extended|years=1890s to |years=29 August 1850|events=Opened as Newcastle-on-Tyne Central|events1=Extended|years1=1890s|years2=after 1948|events2=Renamed Newcastle - nothing is taken away. The |start=1850 is replaced by |years=29 August 1850|events=Opened ..., because otherwise the "History" heading occurs twice (see the previous version). The words "as Newcastle-on-Tyne Central" were added to show what Butt (see below) gives as the original station name. By using |years= and |events= for the opening, the previous parameters with these names merely get renamed to |years1= and |events1= which moves them down the list one position. The next documented event - that of the renaming to Newcastle naturally falls into place as |years2= and |events2=. I put "after 1948" as being shorter than "some time between 1 January 1948 and 30 September 1953", which is as accurate as we can determine from the sources.
• Line 23 - several items here, separated by unchanged portions.
  • addition of |owner=|gridref=NZ246638|original=York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway/Newcastle and Carlisle Railway joint|pregroup=North Eastern Railway|postgroup=London and North Eastern Railway - of these, |owner= is blank, and admittedly redundant; I had copied all the blank fields from {{Infobox GB station}} which weren't already used in this article, with the intention of filling in all that I could, and removing the rest. I clearly omitted to remove this one again. |gridref=NZ246638 is from careful examination of OS Landranger sheet 157. |original=York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway/Newcastle and Carlisle Railway joint, |pregroup=North Eastern Railway and |postgroup=London and North Eastern Railway are all from Allen's book (see later).
  • from "Newcastle Central Station, or simply Newcastle railway station, or Central Station, locally" to "Newcastle railway station, formerly Newcastle-on-Tyne Central railway station" - I have explained that already.
  • from "companies, York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway (YN&BR) and Newcastle and Carlisle Railway (N&CR). YN&BR merged with other companies in 1854 to form North Eastern Railway (NER), which later absorbed N&CR in 1862." to "companies: the York, Newcastle and Berwick Railway (YN&BR) and the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway (N&CR).<ref>{{cite book |last=Allen |first=Cecil J. |title=The North Eastern Railway |year=1974 |origyear=1964 |publisher=[[Ian Allan Publishing|Ian Allan]] |location=Shepperton |isbn=0 7110 0495 1 |page=86 |ref=harv }}</ref> The YN&BR merged with other companies in 1854 to form the North Eastern Railway (NER), which later absorbed the N&CR in 1862." - here we have a punctuation amendment, the wikilinking of one railway company, the correction of some grammar (the addition of five definite articles) and the addition of a reference (Allen) which supports the opening sentence.
  • Later in the same paragraph I added the sentence "Originally named Newcastle-on-Tyne Central, the station name was simplified to Newcastle at some point between 1948 and 1953." and gave it a reference (Butt).
• Further down (above and below old line 40, new line 45) I moved a misplaced sentence ("The metro station sees 5 million passengers a year and is the third busiest station on the system.") from inside an entirely unrelated reference to just outside it. No text was changed.

It is stated in the Manual of Style that the lead section (which includes the infobox) should summarise the article. Therefore everything mentioned in the lead must be re-stated later on, and I took care that my changes to the lead were so re-stated, with the exception of the OS grid ref, because that looks clunky if interposed into the text. A check of WP:LEADCITE shows that citations in the lead sre not always necessary: I took the view that if not cited in the lead, they must be cited in the main text, and this I did; the only fact that I changed or added without a reference was, once again, the OS grid ref, which is easily verifiable by clicking it and seeing if the maps so linked are centred on the station or not.

I hope this explains why all of my actions were taken. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

And for the second time of explaining, I did not notice any of your changes below the first line. I've taken some photos of all the plaques today (I'll upload them in a bit) at least one of which most definitely refers to the station as NCS in the present sense, and you'll be pleased to hear, comes from Ian Allen Publishing too. If people can square that circle, I'm all ears. And the word Station is not redundant, it's capitalised for a reason - being part of the full name as a proper name, derived from Central Station, Newcastle, as used by national sources. This is something the people who keep inventing the name 'Newcastle Central railway station' can't seem to get their heads around, for whatver reason. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I have two railway atlases here which both state "Newcastle", without further adornment; and one was published within the last six months:

• Baker, Stuart K. (2010) [1977]. Rail Atlas Great Britain & Ireland (12th ed.). Hersham: Oxford Publishing Co. p. 75, section B2. ISBN 978 0 86093 632 9. 1010/C. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Yonge, John (2006) [1994]. Jacobs, Gerald (ed.). Railway Track Diagrams 2: Eastern (3rd ed.). Bradford on Avon: Trackmaps. map 22, section A. ISBN 0 9549866 2 8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

That done: why are heritage plaques more reliable as sources for the current name of the station than the actual station nameboards? Also please note that there is no such organisation as "Ian Allen Publishing", it is Ian Allan Publishing. Please find other UK stations where the word "station" is capitalised. I'm not "inventing the name 'Newcastle Central railway station'", I'm following the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on which is more reliable (i.e. correct). That's not for Wikipedia to decide frankly. And thank you for pointing out my spelling mistake in Ian Allan Publishing, I'm sure it was extremely relevant to this discussion, FFS. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

"FFS" - I know what that stands for, so I'll kindly suggest that you please see WP:CIVIL. I happened to pick up on "Ian Allen" because it stuck out like a sore thumb, as you will understand if you check my contributions for the last day or so. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think that this discussion can be mostly settled by reference to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Official names -

The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous.

If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used.

The name shown on the station platforms is "Newcastle", the appropriate suffix for mainline stations is "railway station", and "Newcastle railway station" is not ambiguous, so the title of the page is clear. "Newcastle Central [S|s]tation" is an ambiguous amalgam of the mainline station's former official name and the Metro station's current official name. Plaques do not confer official names, as similar to headlines and book covers they are frequently adjusted for many reasons, including space, typography, graphic design and other aesthetic considerations. If you can show a reliable source that uses your preferred name in a context that has not been subject to such, then please present it here and we will consider it. Until such time, please respect the consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Eh? So, you can claim a rail station sign and a railway timetable is an expression of an official name, not subject to any modification for reasons such as, oooh space? maybe, or a complete lack of any need to write the full name where it is not ambiguous and is obviously being used in the railway context (in the UK at least). Yet, when the BBC refer to it in general news, in full, in a very specific way, when they are under absolutely no restriction as to space or typography, I am somehow required to still justify this to you? No, I don't think so tbh. As for the naming convention, it's made up garbage, as all such Wiki-wonkery is, especially when used to over-ride reliable sources as the reality. But as said above, I'm not here to change the name of the article, just to have reflected the proper recogntion in the lede of what is a full name used by national sources and other signage (yes, plaques are signage too, like it or not). But as for the idea that 'Newcastle railway staion' is not ambiguous? I'd bet the other Newcastle's in the world would disagree. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Space. Right. See the the East Coast Main Line timetable I linked earlier. If space were an issue, why are "Alnmouth for Alnwick" and "Berwick-upon-Tweed" not shortened? If Wikipedia is "made up garbage", then please go to some other user-edited website which fits in with your ideas, and leave us alone to follow the ideas which we still believe in. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The last time I looked, Wikipedia was not the place where content was shaped based on what spin and interpretation people can put on what's put in a railway timetable, it was a place where reliable sources like the BBC, and basic facts like what's on no less than three plaques placed in the very station, were respected and presented in articles. I could fucking care less what 'your ideas' are if they don't tie in with that tbh, I only care about policy and sources. If you want to pretend a poxy naming convention trumps basic policies like that, then you are going to get nowhere should you ever choose to write about anything other than railways on Wikipedia with any credibility. MickMacNee (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And I care about WP:CIVILity. I'm confused: are we arguing about discussing one tiny sentence in the article, or my competence? Every change that I have ever made to this article is verifiable. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Here are the plaques inside the station, as of today. All three refer to the station as 'Newcastle Central Station', including one from Ian Allan Publishing in the present tense, as of 2004. This is consistent with what the station is fully called in national reliable sources, such as the BBC, as per the example given above. It's not for me to explain why this is inconsistent with the signage/timetables, in the same way as it's not for others to remove this proper synonym from being bolded in the lede, per WP:MOSBOLD. MickMacNee (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 

Can I suggest a compromise for the opening sentence:

Newcastle railway station, formerly Newcastle-on-Tyne Central and still referred to by some sources as Newcastle Central, is the ...

I see no need to refer to local usage of "Central" as that is an obvious shortening. Note that after the first mention of "railway station" I have avoided further use of "railway station" or "Station", as such usage ought to be obvious from the context. Note that "railway station" is in lower case and therefore not part of the name: this is an article about a railway station called "Newcastle". (There will need to be further explanation of the opening sentence later in the article.) -- Dr Greg  talk  18:27, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

That's typical invented wikicrap: a name that has never existed, put forward as a compromise to offend everyone equally. There is no "Newcastle-on-Tyne", and "Newcastle upon Tyne" is a relatively modern invention (I suspect 1973), which post-dates the naming of the station. 19:19, 1 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Dingley (talk • contribs)

Please keep your cool and remember to act with civility in all discussions. Naming conventions exist to assist readers and editors in finding and linking to articles by virtue of them having predictable names. They are not "invented wikicrap ... to offend everyone equally". The name "Newcastle-on-Tyne" is a former name for the station documented in reliable sources whether it matches the name of the settlement or not. Remember the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires that everything be verifiable in reliable sources, the statements of individual Wikipedians, no matter how vehemently made, are not reliable. Original research is also against Wikipedia's policies. Thryduulf (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your request for citations for the statement I made regarding "Newcastle-on-Tyne Central" being a former name for the station (and ignoring the impolite way you did it), please see the quotation from Butt given above by Dr Greg. See also [1] (reliability unchecked), [2] (publication reliable, but context unclear from snippet), [3] (Reliable publication, I think). And that's just from a 2 minute search of google books. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The reason was asking is that Butt (which from comments up the page seemed to be the only source) is a recent source that's reliable, but often not accurate. 1850 is a little before my time, but AIUI, the "upon" did only come into use with the 1973 reforms. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot simply drop 'Station' because this is never referred to anywhere as just 'Newcastle Central' in modern contexts, the BBC would never simply refer to it as Newcastle Central station or Newcastle Central railway station, it is written by them as Newcastle Central Station for a reason. The other assumptive versions are simply grammatically incorrect. With that in mind, and having never argued for an actual renaming of this article in this latest outbreak of edit warring, and giving probably far too much undue weight to the new source for the old name which is hardly compelling, I would only really be happy with the following:

Newcastle railway station or Newcastle Central Station, formerly Newcastle-on-Tyne Central, is the ...

MickMacNee (talk) 12:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

All that said, is there a need for a Metro Central Station article which doesn't have any notable information the Newcastle Metro article couldn't include; should the main line station article include the Metro station details? The Commonscat includes photos of both Metro and British Rail. The Commonscat was renamed Newcastle railway station (as if it would a station of anything else) yet still has the Metro, Central Station, media. Neither WP nor Commons seem to address naming and sorting of information. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comments and at the risk of citing Commons once more, the Commonscat also includes the bus stop media.

I am new to this dispute. I have ploughed carefully through all the above discussion, and it is plain that Redrose64 and Welshleprechaun and Thryduulf are correct, according to clear Wikipedia rules. MickMacNee is mistaken. The lead paragraph should stand, except that "or simply Central Station within Tyne & Wear" should be removed. Many railway stations have a colloquial shortform used locally. We don't say in the Manchester Piccadilly station article, "or simply Piccadilly Station within Greater Manchester". -- Alarics (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I am also new and wish to abide by standard railway naming practices - if in doubt, try and use what the platform signs say. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes even platform signs are flawed e.g. if i remember correctly, at one point Liskeard reads "Liskeard for Looe" Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 20:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Yatton does have signs saying Yatton for Clevedon, but the for Clevedon is on a different colour background, and it's made clear it's not part of the name. Is it the same at Liskeard? Besides, I'd say where there's doubt, and we don't doubt Liskeard. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)