Talk:Telford Central railway station

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Shropshire Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shropshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Shropshire 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.ShropshireWikipedia:WikiProject ShropshireTemplate:WikiProject ShropshireShropshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Use of new town in lead[edit]

Just for future clarity before readding new town to the lead. Please read this [[1]]. Please check here from June 2021 discussion before readding it. DragonofBatley (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. ('Well I would, wouldn't I?'). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what JMF is concurring with, but my reading of that discussion agrees with my own feeling that the term "new town", linked to the appropriate article New towns in the United Kingdom, is a useful descriptor of such a town. In railway station terms, it points out that the town is a relatively recent planned development, and was not in existence in its present form at the time of the main creation of the rail network. I think it is informative for the reader. PamD 18:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonofBatley and John Maynard Friedman: I see my edit has been reverted (an incipient edit war rather than WP:BRD). I disagree with that decision, but have made the situation better by linking in the next section. The face that the station serves a town which didn't exist till relatively recently is, I'd have thought, a key characteristic of that station and useful information for the reader. Ah well, have it your own way, as long as you keep it grammatical. PamD 18:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out that new town has been in the lead sentence since the article was created 15 years ago, though not linked to the most useful article until I did so just now. It seems likely that consensus is that it is a useful thing to tell the reader. But one editor now disagrees. Or possibly two. PamD 18:30, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase from the discussion cited above at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/Archive_21#Status_of_New_Towns_in_21st_Century is "it will always remain a relevant term in explaining these towns' origins, regardless of how actually "new" they are". PamD 18:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I have not engaged in any edit warring. I think given new is already mentioned in the history section below lead it doesn't need to be mentioned twice. It can be seen by some as a repeating word. Also if TC got new in it then MKC and Stevenage would too but they don't. If it said serves the town of Telford (founded as a new town) in Shropshire England. It be better but also then Milton Keynes etc would also have that as no railway existed there for the village it was built around and the town didn't either only saying DragonofBatley (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DragonofBatley, you made a WP:BOLD edit and Pam reverted it per BRD, though ideally they should have made that clear at the time. Reverting a revert without recourse to the talk page counts as opening shots in an edit war, however unintentional. Clearly all this is a simple misunderstanding in good faith that we can resolve amicably through discussion. Can we now formally treat this a BRD discussion, please? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

When the article was created, it was wp:UNDUE even then to put the 'new town' bit in the lead. The article is about the station, not about the town. If it had been written in the last century maybe I could understand, even 20 years ago, but certainly not today. Yes, it is a key part of the history of Telford, just as it is even of an apparently ancient city like Peterborough that is in reality substantially a new town with a New Town Development Corporation. So yes, it is information belongs in the history section of the article for Telford (as it does in the articles for MK, Peterborough, Welwyn Garden City, Swindon and so on). But to make it a feature of an article about the station? That just reads as making a wp:point. In terms of value to the reader, it makes sense to explain in the history of the station why it is a 20th century installation – and that is the context in which it should be given in the body of the article. I hope this helps. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have we already reached a satisfactory resolution? The article looks fine to me now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One editor (with another's support now) has changed the wording of the lead which every editor since 2006 found satisfactory ... but I'll walk away. PamD 06:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh DragonofBatley (talk) 07:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pam. It was not an obvious one so I appreciate your concession. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Avanti services between Shrewsbury and London withdrawn on 14/8/22[edit]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-62520116.amp Anamyd (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]