Talk:Glasgow Central railway station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed page move[edit]

Would it not make more sense to rename this article Glasgow Central station? Our Phellap 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Can just add a redirect in the meantime. Nach0king 13:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated this page to be moved. Our Phellap 00:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - all UK stations should have this format, especially London. Deano (Talk) 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - seconded. Nach0king 18:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move - thirded. And I'll help with redirects. AlistairMcMillan 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
N.B. - someone's gonna have to be willing to help with redirects if this is moved! Deano (Talk) 21:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google says "Glasgow Central station".
BTW 517 for Central Station, Glasgow. Why was this even moved in the first place? AlistairMcMillan 02:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page move 2[edit]

Please comment at Talk:Birmingham New Street station —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Warofdreams (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Template-o-rama[edit]

I propose getting rid of some of the templates on this page. Apologies to the people who put so much work into them, but quite frankly they make this page look like crap.

We don't need the "Railway stations in Glasgow" template. The "Railway stations in Glasgow" cat already fulfills that purpose quite happily.

We also don't need the "West Coast Main Line" template. If people want to know about the West Coast Main Line" they can click on the West Coast Main Line link lying front and center in the intro paragraph.

Anyone opposed? AlistairMcMillan 02:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1980's refurbishment[edit]

The information provided appears to be misleading. Up to the early 1980's all the ticket windows were on Gordon Street side of the building in a position equivalent to the current Travel Centre windows. As part of the refurbisment work, the local ticket office was moved to under the old destination board around 1981/2 - cannot recall the exact date, but it also coincided with the prototype new style tickets - preceding the APTIS system. I can not recall what happened to the the long distance tickets window at this point, however the old ticket office was then redeveloped into the current Travel Centre. Subsequently the ticket windows for the local trains moved to their current postion backing onto the the travel centre looking out onto the concourse.

I commuted through Glasgow Central regularly during this period, which also included the removal of the Ticket Barriers, removal of the Kiosk at the end of platforms 2/3 and associated shortening of platforms 2/3 and 4/5. Can anyone help with the dates of the various moves.

Pencefn 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost all of your comments. I'm not sure the information is misleading, its just missing all of your points. I commuted from Paisley towards Greenock throughout the 80's, so Glasgow Central tended to be Saturday visits only for me. In April 1979, the turnstile-type magnetic strip ticket bariers were on all platforms. When they were removed, due to APTIS and Portis(?) Glasgow Central became an open station; then after the refurbishment, the new gates went up so that the revenue protection guys could have ticket purges. There were changes around the Union Street side entrance as well. The Left Luggage Office disappeared. A Cassy Jones burger bar opened up and I think Boots & the newspaper shop, Menzies, moved sideways a bit.
I can't help with dates though, at the moment. Pyrotec 19:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes - probably not misleading (that probably came from the comment about the ticket office being under the old destination board). I travelled from the Cathcart Circle to Paisley from September 1980 to March 1986. I used the Trans-Clyde Paisley Raillink Ticket (part of the the GGPTE Transcard family). I can not recall the magnetic ticket barriers still being in place at Central then, however as they were only on platforms 9/10, 11 and 12/13, and I was not travelling on a ticket that could use the barriers that probably says something about my powers of observation.
I had forgotted about Casey Jones. I think the current W.H.Smith (as John Menzies) opened when the platform 2/3 kiosk was closed. Date - no idea, sometime in the early 1980s. I have a picture taken in 1985 with the new floor being put down and the old destination board in operation. Must find it and look in detail to see what was below the board at that the time.
Other changes, closure of the roadway onto Waterloo Street and the new vehicle exit between platforms 11 and 12, construction of the lounge - now a concession in front of the entrance to platforms 9 and 10. A later addition was the Eurostar lounge by the end of platform 11 - never used as such. I think Virgin now use it.
Pencefn 07:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Argyle Line Peak Hour Trains[edit]

I have reformatted the table this evening to reduce the width of the columns. However I do not think that the limited stop Argyle Line trains deserve a separate line. The WCML trains do not get separate lines for the trains which the first stop is Carlisle; the Neilston Trains for which the first stop is Muirend do not get a separate line.

I suggest the Peak Hour Argyle Line trains line is deleted.

Stewart 21:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some exceptions to this where peak hour trains which serve certain stations are mentioned but only if they are on effectively a seperate line that has not been mentioned or if they are a seperate train company on that route. However the above does not apply so i will delete this. Simply south 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Future public transportation?[edit]

Why is this article in the category Future public transportation? The category seems to be about planned projects or projects under construction, this doesn't seem to apply to Glasgow Central station Oxyman42 16:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's with regard to the section 'Future schemes' that mentions the Glasgow Airport Rail Link. Adambro 17:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well that doesn't make sense because it's the link that is Future public transportation not Glasgow central station Oxyman42 20:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page itself really is pretty clear in the section entitled "Future schemes" it explains about the rail link to Glasgow Airport which will serve Glasgow Central Station in the future. Fraslet 20:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me as a new public transportation facility - a raillink - is to be provided from Glasgow Central to Glasgow Airport. This will require constructional activities in the extension of the station. --Stewart 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the article itself was a Future Public Transportation article, the appropriate flag would have been placed at the top of the article; and clearly it was not placed there. It was placed in the section that deals with a future transportation link between Central Station and a new station yet to be built at Glasgow International Airport. Until this transportation link is up a running some of the text in this section is speculative and therefore the section was flagged as such. I placed it there; the relevant article on the proposal rail link is also flagged.Pyrotec 21:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the link, changes are going to be made at Central station, so the tag is appropriate here. AlistairMcMillan 22:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes to Glasgow central are small scale modifications, not large scale rebuilding like at say London St pancreas, should every station that has new services or a new bus shelter style waiting facilities be included in the category future transportation? The category is I feel for large scale project like new tube lines or high speed routes not small scale modifications to existing infrastructureOxyman42 23:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you aught to read what it states in the box. The text in the box provides a precise description. I've copied it here for you, "This article or section contains information about a planned or expected public transportation infrastructure. It may contain information of a speculative nature and the content may change dramatically as the construction and/or completion of the infrastructure approaches, and more information becomes available." It makes no distinction between bus shelters and new tube lines, or even changes to platforms. Pyrotec 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps you should look at what else is in that category? I am hardy going to copy the whole category to prove my point but this article is very much out of place, I had hoped that when I raised the point here that the editors would be grown up enough to admit they might have made a mistake, obviously given that response some editors are not and are more concerned with waving their dick around then providing reliable informationOxyman42 23:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The information on Glasgow Central Station is reliable; you at are at liberty to change the article, but have not yet done so, which suggests your only unhappiness is the use of the future public transportation info box. Can I suggest you look at North Clyde Line, it also has the same info box; which is in accordance with wikipedia policy on future events. The info box makes no distinction between bus shelters and new tube lines, or even changes to platforms; but it does state infrastructure, so your comment about services is irrelevant. I've added a link to templates Wikipedia:Current and future event templates, if you wish to create an additional one for bus shelters or other minor works, there is the place to add it. You could even create one for new services, I assume you mean railway passenger services, not other types of services? By creating such an minor works info box, you could move Glasgow Central Station into it.Pyrotec 00:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Glasgow Central railway station → Glasgow Central station — there is no need for the railawy to be in the title the most common name is Glasgow Central station —Barry O'Brien entretien 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Completing nomination - Chris cheese whine 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support Does it matter at all that no one calls it "Glasgow Central railway station"? Does it matter at all that all the signs in the station call it either "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station"? Does it matter at all that our official naming policy clearly says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other things"? Google Search for "Glasgow Central station":52,800 results. Google Search for "Glasgow Central railway station": 644 results. AlistairMcMillan 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support No one calls it Glasgow Central railway station it goes against Wikipedia policy of using the most common name there is no need for the railway to be in the title --Barry O'Brien entretien 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, I agree with Barry O'Brian.Pyrotec 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. There is no "naming convention" but there is WP:COMMON. ProhibitOnions (T) 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]

  1. Oppose - we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site. In this case, GLC does not have a portion on the Glasgow Subway, hence it is a "railway station". Chris cheese whine 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for the same reason given above. Signalhead 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - same as above. Glasgow Central railway station fits in with the established naming convention. --Dreamer84 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - as per above. It is easier to locate articles if they all follow the same naming convention. Keith D 11:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - it should be moved only if the convention is changed (i.e. all railway stations - except those with multiple modes - became merely 'station'.) Nach0king 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose - I'm opposing this because there is a clear convention that UK stations articles are called "[Location] railway station", one only needs to look at other articles. If you don't agree with this then I suggest this is taken up on a wider scale, as changing this station alone will leave it out of sync with the vast majority of UK railway station articles. As I have noted in the discussion below, there is no guideline on this, only the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), but I do note that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) as to whether the convention is correct or not. As Bryan Derksen has commented there, the disambiguating term is usually in brackets. My opinion would be to maintain the convention of "[Location] railway station", as I think it is more helpful for readers and that is what we should be considering here. Adambro 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, as User:Adambro — we have a naming convention already. — OwenBlacker 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, we have a proposed naming convention. AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a convention, in the sense that most articles use "[Location] railway station", but not a naming convention in the formal Wikipedia sense, only a proposal for one as AlistairMcMillan notes. Adambro 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Naming convention in the sense that members of the WikiProject have gone around and moved everything whether anyone else likes it or not. AlistairMcMillan 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  1. Which ever way this goes we should be very careful about the way forward. Wikipedia has a naming convention, which does not always fit with common usage. The big question here is does this station receive is common usage term. Today I asked for a ticket to Central. Note no Glasgow, no railway, no station. Just to highlight this I also used the Glasgow Subway from St Enoch - no station, no subway. Whether or not this survey goes one way or the other, I predict another proposed moved within a year. Please prove me wrong. --Stewart 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Where is this naming convention that people keep talking about? It isn't listed at Wikipedia:Naming convention. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no official naming convention for UK stations, there is however a proposal for one, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), however the convention in terms of what most article use is the format "[Location] railway station". Adambro
So we have an official policy on naming pages and a proposal for a policy on naming stations that is still under debate. Why are we even discussing this? AlistairMcMillan 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard it called Glasgow Central railway station there is no need whatsoever to have that as the title, and there are no other Glasgow Central Stations so whats the point?--Barry O'Brien entretien 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know we aren't supposed to canvas for votes, but I'm genuinely curious whether any Glasgow-based editors who travel through Glasgow Central regularly would support the article title "Glasgow Central railway station". AlistairMcMillan 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Glasgow area based editor. Before moving to around 10 miles south of the city, my local station was on the Cathcart Circle, and my nearest station is now on the Neilston Line. I did a little digging on Wikipedia:-
The second (or just 'Central) is how I and many of those I know refer to the station. --Stewart 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lived in Paisley, so that rules me out (Note: For those not aware of the tradition, Paisley people always deny that they live in Glasgow, and in return Glasgow people call them Paisley Buddies) however when I bought train tickets I always called it Central or Glasgow Central; mostly the latter to avoid any confusion with Greenock Central station. I'm happy for it to be called Glasgow Central Station; but Glasgow Central Railway Station is a a nonsense.Pyrotec 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also a Glasgow-based editor, living beside the Cathcart Circle, and I support Glasgow Central railway station as the title. Although it would be normal to use a shortened form like "Central Station" in conversation, it would be understood from the context what was being talked about. That is not necessarily the case with Wikipedia, as anyone could arrive at that article by a variety of routes. Apart from that, there is a convention that has been followed, and if this railway station article is renamed, then the rest of them should be, for consistency. Signalhead 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might also be worth point out that on the aforementioned Central Station page, all but one of the UK articles are called X Central railway station (the one being Newcastle Central station, which has a tube station along with regular rail). --Dreamer84 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The articles are all at "X railway station" because members from a certain WikiProject moved them there. I bet hardly any of them ended up there because people use those names. They should all be moved. AlistairMcMillan 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think some common sense is needed here. Glasgow Central Station was moved to Glasgow Central Railway Station as recently as February 2007, moved back in February and reverted in March. Signalhead is correct in so far as we are using shorthand. I probably would refer to Cathcart Railway station and/or Bishopton Railway station, but in the centre of towns and cities, particularly where there was more than one station, must people use the shorthand style, e.g. (Paisley: Canal, Gilmour St., or St. James); (Edinburgh: Caledonian, Waverley), (Glasgow: Central, St Enoch, Queen St. etc) etc. My personal preference is to drop railway from the article name. However, coming to my main point: to take just one example, Glasgow Central, the article name has been changed three times this year so far; but not only that, almost every map, figure and article that references Glasgow Central has been dabbed probably three times to match the current article name for Glasgow Central. This is a lot of churn. I would suggest that for every station article with a X railway station name, there should be a corresponding X station redirect. That would allow all the current links to be left alone. It would also be a more productive use of editor's time.Pyrotec 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The current naming convention is a de facto standard, in that pretty much every station article meets it, and has gone pretty much unchallenged for over a year. Chris cheese whine 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been challenged this year; and it was you that moved the Glasgow Central article twice, so is it your naming standard, or has it been agreed by the community?Pyrotec 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion page would suggest otherwise. If you want to change the convention, please do so there, not here. Chris cheese whine 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy on naming stations the one everyone is quoting is a proposed one --Barry O'Brien entretien 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Birmingham New Street. 147.197.251.136 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to expand on that comment please? Adambro 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are pointing out that Birmingham New Street station is not a Birmingham New Street railway station and not part of the de facto naming convention. --Barry O'Brien entretien 18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been in operation for at least a year, and has pretty much gone unchallenged. It's a bit cheap to say it is only "proposed" - it has become a de facto convention, which means anyone that wants a moan needs to go to that convention's talk page, not here. Chris cheese whine 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats funny because the page was at Glasgow Central station from 15 April 2006 till 2 February 2007 when you decided to move it, and its not pretty cheap to say it is only "proposed" because that is exactly what it is look at the page References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". which means unless it becomes a policy I will moan till my hearts content as it is this page goes against WP:NAME --Barry O'Brien entretien 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At the beginning of 2006 we had a vote here on the article title. We decided on "Glasgow Central station". It stayed that way until now except for four weeks in March/April 2006 after someone moved it without asking on the Talk page and for a week in February 2007 after you moved it without asking on the Talk page. The convention for this article is "Glasgow Central station". AlistairMcMillan 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly were people supposed to go and "moan" on the convention talk page when only people involved in that WikiProject knew about it? When it isn't listed at the main naming convention page? When it wasn't listed on the naming convention category? AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the logic of the support being given to this survey is followed through the article should be renamed as Central Station, that it what is commonly called in Glasgow. This is followed by Glasgow Central. Using all three words in the title is very rarely used locally. All a google search shows is the conventions other webmasters has used to avoid ambiguous names. Shall we follow this proposal with one that Paisley Gilmour Street railway station is renamed as Gilmour Street. This is the logically conclusion (extension) of this proposal. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) is in existence. One final thought for the time being - We could always go for the current fashion that the media have and called them all train stations. --Stewart 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'm all for moving it to "Central Station" or "Glasgow Central" with whatever disambig in needed in brackets, "Central Station (Glasgow)" or "Glasgow Central (station)" for example. Anything as long as it doesn't stay at a name that is never used. AlistairMcMillan 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming just on the basis of the common usage term isn't good enough. In conversation, you have the benefit of context; in an encyclopaedia you don't. I'm going to use a sporting analogy here: Take Glasgow's two principal football teams, Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C.. Would you not agree that to almost everybody in this city, the common usage names are just "Celtic" and "Rangers", without the "F.C."? Yet both Celtic and Rangers, quite correctly, lead to a disambiguation page. The point is that an encyclopaedia covers every topic under the sun, and it may seem a little bit arrogant to assume that every person understands "station", without further qualification, to refer to a railway station, when there are in fact other kinds of station. Nor can you omit "Glasgow" from the title, because "Central Station" means something different to people in Cardiff and Newcastle. This article's title should remain as Glasgow Central railway station. Signalhead 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This argument using "Celtic" and "Rangers" is quite interesting, the suggestion, from Signalhead, that they should be called Celtic F.C. or Rangers F.C. is OK by me, but there are many types of football, e.g. football- (11 a side), five a side football, two types of Rugby football (League and Union) and possibly some other types of football I've not yet mentioned. So if we were to use Christcf's station ruling we would probably not be allowed to call them Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C., they would have to be Rangers 11 aside football club, Rangers Football (11 a side) club, etc, etc,. I just hope that common sense comes in somewhere. Pyrotec 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article was Glasgow Central Station from September 2003 until preemptorily moved by Chriscf in February 2007 and March 2007 to Glasgow Central Station. It should return to Glasgow Central station until or unless there is an agreed station naming convention.Pyrotec 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand you Signalhead. You think people are going to come to this article and might look at the article and think it is about a space station or something unless we have the word "railway" in the title? AlistairMcMillan 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying that the disambiguating terms ought to be in the title, to make allowance for similarly-named articles. While a space station is clearly a silly example to give, there could be locations where you have "XXX railway station" and also "XXX police station" / "XXX fire station", each with their own articles. The points that I made above, and which you haven't addressed, still stand.
I note that Jordanhill railway station has recently been moved to Jordanhill (railway station). Although I don't think the parentheses are necessary or appropriate, if it would satisfy everyone then I would go for that - just as long as the words themselves stay in the title. Signalhead 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a general search and really "station" is more common, despite mode of transport than railway station etc. However, if we started naming everything station, wouldn't this become more confusing? Simply south 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a current picture of the Gordon Street entrance however in the book Glasgow Central - Central to Glasgow[1] there are multiple references to Glasgow Central and Central Station. There two pictures naming the station as Central Station (page 35 of the Hielanman's Umbrella; and page 115 of the south end of the 1904 extension from platform 11a). Based on this book this two names are the most popular, but these are too ambiguous for Wikipedia. Therefore what is the fall back - AlistairMcMillan's proposal to rename or leave as is following (the proposed) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)? --Stewart 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Added (the proposed).Pyrotec 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Glasgow Central - Central to Glasgow (Compiled by Dugald Cameron; edited by Jim Summers); published by Strathwood (2006) ISBN 1-90527609502
Seriously, why are we even having this discussion. It's called Glasgow Central and it's a railway station. Do the maths. As I've said, moving individual articles to names that one or two local editors prefer isn't an acceptable solution, we'll end up without any consistent naming. Go to the discussion page for the naming convention (which is a de facto standard, and has been tagged {{proposed}} by a disgruntled user), and seek to change the names for all stations their. Change them all, or leave them where they should be in line with that standard. Chris cheese whine 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And George W. Bush is called "George W. Bush" and "the president" so why isn't his article at "George W. Bush the president", similarly "Ford Escort car", "iMac personal computer", "United Kingdom country" etc.
Could you please point us to the "consistent naming" Wikipedia policy page. AlistairMcMillan 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the proposed tag was added because naming convention have to go through a process to become accepted policy. You can't just create something and say it is policy now. Wikipedia:How to create policy. AlistairMcMillan 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This posting was made by Chris on the UK railway stations naming page - {proposed} is for things in the initial stages of discussion. Things which have been in place practically unchallenged except by oily wheels and sticks in the mud, for a whole year (if it were not, we would not have a situation where some 7,000 articles are already titled in line with it) are {guideline}s. Chris cheese whine 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC). With this mentality, and the fact that Glasgow Central Station was moved by Chriscf without consultation, I recommend that his changes been undone.Pyrotec 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really overly interested in this, but hope that my input can help. On the one hand we have those who wish to see the title written as "<X> + railway station" as a disambiguator, because X can be more than one type of station when looking at the wider picture across the UK. On the other hand we have those who wish to change this page because it creates an article name which fails WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. everyone calls it "Glasgow Central", "Central Station", "Glasgow Central station" or just "Central").

So how about: Glasgow Central (railway station)? The reason I suggest that is because the wiki software explicitly recognises the text in parentheses as a disambiguator. For example, if I type [[Glasgow Central (UK Parliament constituency)|]] with nothing after the pipe, what appears is Glasgow Central. Also, although they don't demand it, both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation routinely use, and I would say implicitly recommend, parenthesising the disambiguator.

Bear in mind I came up with this based only on Glasgow Central. There may well be instances for other UK stations where that won't work. However, it's a possibility and seems to offer a simplification in future editing and wikilinking, and would bring Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) closer in line with more general WP guidelines. Hope this helps. --DeLarge 11:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

There is evidently no desire to treat this particular railway station differently from all the others. A change to the naming convention may be desirable, but consensus should be reached on that before this article is moved. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article appears to have been renamed without any consensus or discussion on the matter - should this be moved back until consensus is reached? Keith D 23:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the status quo. It was moved from here before any consensus was reached. Considerable discussion has taken place, both on this talkpage & on other talkpages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrotec (talk • contribs) 23:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh oh here we go again. First time I've noticed this article has been moved back to Glasgow Central station. My question is why was it moved six months after the last move? And doesn't the administrators comment above indicate that it should have remained at Glasgow Central railway station until consensus was reached?
Although I was an opposer to Glasgow Central station last time round, I'm pretty much neutral about it at the moment. Its somewhat ironic(?) however, that the user who was the 'main' opposer last time (and the one who initiated the move last time) hasn't edited Wikipedia since the end of March. --Dreamer84 23:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed back in March and no consensus was reached, although 7 were in favour of Glasgow Central railway station with 4 against. A user who took part in those discussions and didn't get the outcome he desired has waited for a few months and renamed it, hoping that nobody would notice. It should be moved back to Glasgow Central railway station as quickly as possible. Signalhead 23:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree it should either stay where it is or get moved to Central Station (Glasgow) --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 23:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and presumably the others who preferred Glasgow Central station back in March still do too. But that isn't the point. The point is that no concensus was reached following a lengthy discussion, and now suddenly the article has been renamed with no discussion at all. Move it back. Signalhead 00:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not have been moved and the sooner it is reverted to follow the naming convention of other railway stations the better. The fact is that it has been arbitarily moved without discussion especially after a previous discussion earlier this year determined that it should not be moved. Those who do not like the naming convention should be consistent and start a wholesale renaming of all railway stations around the UK (and the world!). I could start with Langside railway station and move it to Langside or how about Pollokshaws West railway station and move it to Shaws West. There is a de facto naming convention which has now been broken for Central Station. I have used the station for 30 years and Glasgow Central Station is not an appelation I have heard used at all - the commonest usage is Central Station, to differentiate it from Queen Street Station - is our arbitary renamer going to be consistent and rename Queen Street station. Yes I am annoyed - this renaming should be reverted and the sooner the better. The redirect was in place to allow the station to be found. --Stewart (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought - to quote the move justification moved Glasgow Central railway station to Glasgow Central station: People call it either "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station". No-one calls it "Glasgow Central railway station".) - this justification does not jusitify the naming given, it suggests that Glasgow Central or Central Station' should be the name of the article. So why did the renamer not move the article to one of these names!!!! --Stewart (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is already artilces with those names the station is added due to disambiguation and I still noticle the so called de facto naming convention is still proposed and not policy --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are traveling by train from Paisley Gilmour Street then it could well be called Glasgow Central, as there is another central station - Greenock Central on the same line. I've have certainly called it Glasgow Central in the 30-year time frame.Pyrotec 13:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There also happens to be a book called Glasgow Central Central to Glasgow which is referenced in the article. So on this basis Glasgow Central station is not an unreasonable name of the station.Pyrotec 13:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greenock Central is not in Glasgow and I do not get your point, the most common names for the station are Glasgow Central or Central Station I would say the latter is the most common while the former is the stations official name as there Glasgow Central Parliament constituency staion is added for disambig. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 13:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) My point is quite simple. People who live in Glasgow may well call it Central station as it is the only central station in Glasgow; however people who commute into the station on the Inverclyde line may call it Glasgow Central when buying a ticket to avoid confusion with Greenock Central. If you ask for the ticket at Gilmour Street to Central the obvious question is Glasgow or Greenock? (2) If you look at official BR Scottish Region maps, Trans-Clyde or even GGPTE maps the station is called Central Station. (3) Greenock Central station - happens to be on what is now called the InverClyde line, previously known as the Gourock - Wemyss Bay services; and before that the Glasgow, Paisley and Greenock railway. Greenock has never been part of Glasgow; I did not claim that it was. P.S. your link to Glasgow Central does not led to the Parliamentary consistuency, it leds to a disambig page.Pyrotec 14:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

move indent:I know the link does not link to the constituency the point I was making is that because there is another Glasgow Central they need to disambiguated hence station being added to the title it is the inclusion of railway I have a problem with as this is nethier the stations common name or formal title. --Barryob Vigeur de dessus 14:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we are in agrement - I'm happy with Glasgow Central station.Pyrotec 14:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Low level closed not due to tram competition - correction[edit]

The comments about Central Low Level being closed due to tram competition are incorrect. Some stations on the former Glasgow Central Railway closed in the 1930s due to tram competition, notably Botanic Gardens. However Central Low Level closed in 1964 as part of the Beeching cuts. At this point it was worked by DMUs, which didn't prove as effective as the EMUs on the Glasgow District line (Queen St Low Level) at attracting customers. Having been worked by steam until the early 60s, the Central low level route was dark and grimy. Part of the 1979 reopening involved a massive amount of cleaning, and installing bright new surfaces to counteract the grime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.121.65 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage 06/07 (at Queen Street and Central)[edit]

Please see the discussion I have started at Talk:Glasgow Queen Street railway station#Usage 06/07 (for Queen Street and Central) regarding the 06/07 usage figures for Glasgow Queen Street railway station and also a recipricol effect to Glasgow Central. --Stewart (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should have some explanation why usuage appeared to drop dramatically in the last year shown i.e. that many journies previously attributed to Central were redistributed to Queen's Street at this time, rather than there having been a real drop in usership.86.1.196.156 (talk) 01:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Platform renumbering[edit]

Some of the platforms will be renumbered at the end of December 2008. 11a becomes 12; 12 & 13 become 14 & 15; 14 & 15 (Low Level) become 16 & 17. The article will need to be amended when this comes into effect. –Signalhead < T > 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has now taken place - any body got a link for the revised layout? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So does the station now have 17 platforms in total? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.46.131 (talk) 09:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Platform 12 (previously 11a) has now closed (around Christmas 2009) whilst the two new platforms are constructed at the location of the previous car park (closed September 2009). These will be numbered 12 & 13. Currently 15 platforms in operation. --Stewart (talk | edits) 21:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, excellent - 15 in operation now, 17 when the construction is finished. Thanks! I imagine the infobox will be updated once they are in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.225.15 (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station Usage vs Birmingham New Street[edit]

Both this article and the Birmingham New Street article claimed that their respective stations were the busiest outside London. Both were right: the latest Network Rail figures show New Street to be slightly busier, the latest Office of Rail Regulation figures (which are less ridiculous now that they include PTE travelcard tickets) show Glasgow Central to be slightly busier. Having the two articles contradicting each other was clearly unacceptable though, so I've rewritten the leads for both to reflect this ambiguity in a way that I hope is WP:NPOV. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The still contradict each other, though both articles now claim the other to be the busiest!FrFintonStack (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a can opener to open a can of worms[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Black Kite (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Central station → Glasgow Central railway station – The age old debate. Glasgow Central station vs Glasgow Central railway station. Using "railway" station in the name helps to distinguish between the modes of transport. Glasgow Central is its name. All modes' stations are shortened to station by everyone. For UK stations, see wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Difficultly north (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the bit at the top of wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) which states ".....though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply...."? I'm not aware of a Glasgow Central police station, a Glasgow Central bus station, a Glasgow Central trolley bus station, a Glasgow Central tram station or a Glasgow Central metro station, so why does the article's name need the disambiguation word "railway"? Pyrotec (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What precisely makes Glasgow Central an exceptional case any more than numerous other stations that don't generate so much talkpage discussion? Timrollpickering (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think just Glasgow Central is fine. Unreal7 (talk) 23:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per previous discussion on the matter --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 00:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is acceptable to use commonsense when naming articles. Glasgow Central station is a widely accepted, recognisable and natural usage for the railway station. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article's current title is anomalous, having been re-named contrary to the de facto naming convention without consensus. The outcome of this discussion has the potential to affect every railway station article, not just this one. A few relevant points to consider:

  • "XXX railway station" is entirely unambiguous. Most Wikipedians who contribute to railway station articles will likely have a personal interest in railways and are therefore inclined towards taking "station" to mean "railway station". The same should not be assumed of everyone else who will read these articles.
  • "XXX railway station" achieves consistency across all articles, irrespective of whether or not there is a police station or tram station etc. of the same name. If consensus is reached to use "XXX station" where possible, are we expected to check whether any other variety of station exists in that town, which would demand the exceptional use of "XXX railway station"? I personally can do without all that extra effort.
  • The useful "Stnlnk" template requires that articles be named "XXX railway station".

–Signalhead < T > 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Nothing has been put forward to show why Glasgow Central should be an exception from other railway stations. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Glasgow Central station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glasgow Central station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Central DfT Category?[edit]

Should this piece of info be listed on this article, I’m sure that this station is a category A station? If there is any reason why this info should not be on the article, could you please explain it to me as soon as possible? Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like almost all other Scottish stations, it's not listed in the source documents that we used (see refs in United Kingdom railway station categories). Glasgow Central might well be DfT category A (and going by the facilities available, almost certainly is): but we cannot be sure. The policy on verifiability trumps educated guesses every time. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no information on the years 1930 to 1955[edit]

When the station is viewed on Google Earth, it gives the appearance of two stations that were merged structurally. As I understand it, the LNER went south and the LMS went west. Did the two portions of the station merge early in the 20th century? Or later? Filling in the chronological gap might be an interesting project for this article. LFlagg (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any apparent "division" of Central station is due to the original building being extended at various times. You get a similar effect in the roofs of London Waterloo and London Liverpool Street. There was only ever one station at Glasgow Central, which was wholly owned by the Caledonian Railway (CR) until that amalgamated with the Glasgow & South Western Railway (GSWR) and several other railways at the start of 1923 to create the LMS. The GSWR didn't use Central, but St Enoch. The LMS also inherited a terminus at Buchanan Street from the CR. Apart from suburban services, the CR routes from Central were mainly to the south-east of Glasgow, such as Carlisle; but also to Ardrossan, Gourock and Wemyss Bay in the west and south-west. The LNER was never involved in Centtal: like the LMS, the LNER was also created in 1923 by amalgamation, but here the Scottish partners included the North British Railway (NBR). NBR trains to Glasgow (which ran mainly from the east, north-east and north-west) mostly used that railway's Queen Street station, although some used St Enoch. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much. My neighbor grew up in and around Glasgow from 1932 to 1957 and got me interested. Glasgow Central for Dummies might make a good type of approach to this topic.LFlagg (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Name[edit]

I know there is another thread discussing this, but it was quite old so I thought I should bring it up again. Surely the title of the article should be "Glasgow Central railway station". Glasgow Central sees only National Rail trains serving it, and as per the normal naming conventions it should say Railway. Station on its own is for when multiple modes serve it. Bobster1001 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would agree with this. Am aware of the conventions for this and extremely uncertain why some above regard it as an exception to a rule in place?
Unless there's any disagreement I might consider moving it (although the redirect work would be extremely tedious!). Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a moving discussion above dating from 2007. Given how long ago it was, and the fact that it didn't seem to have a consensus even then, I would say no-one would object to you moving to the normal format. The convention that a railway station should be named X 'railway station' unless they are shared with a metro/tram/light rail has become much more established now then it was 16 years ago. Unless anyone can give a good reason why this should be exempt from the convention. I can't see a reason for it being here, in fact, I'm surprised it's remained here for so long. ---- G-13114 (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the reasons discussed in previous discussions. Nothing has changed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NCUKSTATIONS. I need give you no further information. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that "guideline" was brought up before in all the previous debates.
Show me a single sign in or around the station that says "Glasgow Central railway station". All the signs say either "Glasgow Central Station", "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline (rule, really) is the definitive regulation for stations. I'm not interested in the signs, in all honesty, because that's almost exclusively used in disputed cases (see, for example, Talk:Newark North Gate railway station).
Interestingly, in one of the debates earlier for an RM, Talk:Glasgow Central station#Requested_move, there was actually a general consensus that the guidelines, in this specific case, should be adhered to... Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 January 2023[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Silikonz💬 05:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow Central station → Glasgow Central railway station – In accordance with naming convention guidelines, at WP:NCUKSTATIONS. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 21:09, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Originally proposed by Bobster1001, seconded by myself, and thirded by G-13114...)

  • Support, There wasn't any consensus to move it here in the last RM back in 2007, so technically you would be in your rights to move it without doing this. However, the convention that stations are only called 'X station' if they are multimodal in the same building, e.g. Manchester Victoria station, is far better established now then It was in 2007. And I fail to see why there should be a special exception for this station. ---- G-13114 (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The naming convention is clear and there's no obvious reason to depart from it. If there's a claim that "Glasgow Central Station" is a proper name, then supporters of that claim have to demonstrate (per WP:NCCAPS) that it's used almost exclusively when referring to the station. Mackensen (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The naming conventions are clear and there's no obvious reason for this to be an exception. Per G-13114 I note this was moved to its current location against an RM consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - in line with other articles as it should be, especially as it is not multi-modal. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 20:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose This is an example of the worst kind of Wikipedia edit. Who exactly does this help? It certainly doesn't help our readers. None of them have a clue about your arbitrary "guideline". None of them are going to be confused about the article sitting at the actual name of the station that is actually written on signs around the actual station. This kind of edit is just to satisfy some urge in Wikipedia editors to create some tidy little imaginary naming convention where none exists in the real world. It's self-serving. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Does a strong support balance out a strong oppose? This is an example of the best kind of Wikipedia edit, bringing much-needed consistency. It is much better to have articles follow convention than use the actual name of the station that is actually written on signs around the actual station which varies widely from station to station across the UK. --10mmsocket (talk) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glasgow_Central_railway_station&oldid=1217225026"