Talk:Buxton railway station

Requested move

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: move the page to Buxton railway station, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Buxton railway station (Derbyshire) → Buxton (Derbyshire) railway station – To bring the station into line with the general naming convention applied to other stations including Buxton (Midland) railway station and Hope (Derbyshire) railway station, according to which the disambiguator follows directly after the station name. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

National Rail don't disambiguate, and Buxton railway station leads straight back to this article, so why not move it to Buxton railway station? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Buxton railway station per Redrose64 - disambiguation is not needed here as this Buxton railway station is the primary topic. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy to go with Redrose's suggestion. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Move to Buxton railway station - Most logical option Jeni ^(talk) 08:59, 20 October 2014 (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.

Gallery

I see User:G-13114's move to put the photos in a gallery has been reverted by User:Redrose64. I personally thought the gallery was an improvement and I don't see how WP:IG applies here. The pictures were not "interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text" as WP:IG recommends – instead they're strung out untidily at the end of the (short) article below the infobox. I've therefore reverted Redrose64's edit. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

So why not move them to relevant sections, aligning left if you need to? The first two sentences ("Images are typically ..." and "However, the use of ..." are both relevant here, the second because the image File:Buxton railway station 1958012 9600359f.jpg could be used in a description of the station's location in relation to other lines and stations; and File:BuxtonStation1.JPG could be used with a description of the station architecture - that fan window is distinctive, but not unique - the (now-demolished) former Midland Railway station next door also had one. The second paragraph of WP:IG ("However, Wikipedia is not an image repository ...") is also relevant, in that this gallery is an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject; all of the images in it are in c:Category:Buxton railway station; there already is a {{Commons category}} template; and it doesn't have a descriptive title. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would support Redrose64's removal of the gallery. Those three images are pretty random and don't meet the requirement in WP:IG of "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images". The three images are essentially historical: the two relating to the station building could be interspersed in the history section, while the DMU image could be put with services. Lamberhurst (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I've tried interspersing the photos as suggested (see User:Dave.Dunford/Buxton railway station) and there isn't really enough text to make it work. I prefer the gallery to the messy strung-out right-aligned photos (or just remove most of the pictures). I can't see any merit in the status quo. Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The images should either be removed, or put in the gallery, but I don't know how anyone can think what was there before was better than the present situation. The images were strung out in random order vertically under the infobox. It is at least now more presentable. And there isn't enough text in the article to make it work any other way. If someone wants to expand it then that would be another thing. G-13114 (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did the train shed go?

The photo "Station exterior in 1965" clearly shows a roof behind the gable, which is no longer there. Did it burn down, or what happened? Riggenbach (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

You can clearly see the outline of the former trainshed roof in the surviving wall at the end of the station with the fan window. I believe the roof was removed sometime in the 1960s or 1970s, this photograph shows that it was gone by 1978. I don't know whether this was due to a fire or some kind of money saving scheme by British Rail to save on the maintenance costs. Either way it's a shame. The article is badly under-referenced at the moment. G-13114 (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Roofed buildings - even if open on one or more sides - were subject to business rates. British Rail's annual rates bill was huge, and in the 1960s they started removing roofs from buildings that could manage without, so that they could get a reduction in the rates. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)