Talk:Durham 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 Mid-importance).

This article lacks references.

Cleanup[edit]

I've marked this page for clean up of the writing style. It's appalling! Some examples of poor primary school level English:

"A new Entrance has been opened in The middle of the station. In the Victorian stone building....Also the old red Clocks are gone. They have been replaced by newer, modern types."

"The Waiting room is adjecent to the coffee shop. In the middle taking pride of place is a model of Durham railway station from years ago. Heralding the station's past. The station was known to be dirty and grimy but now it has been revamped to a clean and modern standard."

Sentence structure?

"Many travellers use this station and sometimes it can become crowded. Of course the station is quite well hidden you must as above turn off to your left almost as soon as you as you are under the viaduct and go up a steep hill."

Is it obvious to someone who has not been to Durham to know that you must as above turn off to your left and go up a hill?

"Before the refurbishment passengers had to stand on the platform waiting for their train to arrive."

What about now? Do they stand on the tracks?

–MDCollins (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MDCollins, I agree with you - the writing style reminds me of someone having a conversation with you over a mobile phone while they are jogging up a long and tiring hill. I would attempt to clean this up myself, but without knowing what is accurate, what isn't and from where any of it could be referenced it seems a bit pointless. Is there any way we could find out whether there are users in Durham who might be able to contribute here?ColourSarge 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just discovered this page as it uses my photo, and it has a distinct ESL air about it. Besides the near-nonsensical style, parts of it are plain wrong: "Of course the station is quite well hidden you must as above turn off to your left almost as soon as you as you are under the viaduct and go up a steep hill." - well, no, you have to turn right almost as soon as you are under the viaduct and go up a steep hill. Stevekeiretsu (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on a cleanup, along with 2 unregistered users. The fourth phase has just been completed. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 March 2016[edit]

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: not moved. Number 5 7 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Durham railway station → ? – This does not appear to be the primary topic of this term compared to two stations in the U.S. (North Carolina and New Hampshire. While "railway" isn't common in the U.S., but it's certainly not unheard of, and there are likely to be non-American readers of these articles getting confused. However, I honestly don't know what WP:UKSTATION would suggest for disambiguation here. Perhaps Durham railway station (England) would suffice? At any rate, the base name needs to point to the dab page. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Oppose - Durham Station, UK gets 2.5 million entries and exits, with a further 9,060 interchanges. The North Carolina only has 83,232 (only the 2013 stats are on the article, but I doubt more recent stats are more different), with the other US station having a mere 58,894. Surely that's considerably more than enough to warrant primary topic - this is a common sense primary article and I'd argue that the nominator hasn't done their homework! Jeni ^(talk) 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't base primary topic on "entries and exits". It doesn't get an overwhelming number of page views, for instance,[1] even though it's essentially at the base name. The North Carolina station is also significant as a historical building (which wasn't originally a train station). Is it "highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—" that readers are looking for the East Coast Main Line station? It doesn't look like it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the stats you've just pasted, I'd suggest yes, it's more likely than all the other topics combined that readers are looking for the station on the ECML. Thanks for backing up my argument :-) Jeni ^(talk) 16:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is clearly the primary topic for the title "Durham railway station" - if there is not a primary topic for "Durham station" that is irrelevant to which article should be at any other title. Hatnotes exist to solve confusion of the sort you describe. Thryduulf (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, after looking at the page view statistics. sst✈ 13:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What they said. Plus, the last station move wrecked incoming links. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Antiquated measurements[edit]

Why does this (and practically every other) station article have distance measurements that includes chains? I suspect that the majority of people nowadays don't know what a chain is, let alone how many of them constitute a mile. Can these be systematically changed to just miles? If they're now (as I suspect they are) officially defined in km, perhaps they should actually be km with miles in brackets. Additionally, "x miles y chains" (as they seem to commonly be styled) should be "x miles *and* y chains." 2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:68C3:415C:D182:605B (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2A0C:5BC0:40:107B:68C3:415C:D182:605B This has been quite contentious and is being discussed as we speak. Basically, the sources state Miles and Chains, so most people have added that in. Whether or not you agree, you can place your comments here. The discussion has been closed, but even that is now in doubt and is continuing as there is some disagreement. Good luck and regards. The joy of all things (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The joy of all things: The close of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Chains RFC has been contested. Other discussion threads (older and newer) exist at: Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London; Talk:East Croydon station#Chains; Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains; Talk:Chain (unit)#Attempt to clean up the lede and the article; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Units and conversion; Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of NAC at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject UK Railways, some of which are still ongoing. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]