Talk:Rugby railway station

Scissors Crossovers

Singular or Plural?

Syd1435 07:00, 2004 Nov 14 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 20:44, 19 March 2007‎ (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

1. Well-written: Pass
2. Factually accurate: Pass
3. Broad: Pass
4. Neutrally written: Pass
5. Stable: Pass
6. Well-referenced: Pass
7. Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc ^[talk] 20:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Rugby railway station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

At current, the article does not meet the GA criteria. The reason is that it is virtually unreferenced (criterion 2). I am therefor delisting the article. If at a later stage the article is adequately referenced, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. If there is an error in this reassessment, it can be listed at WP:GAR. Note that the GA criteria have changed since the article was approved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 20:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Picture

I have added a photo yesterday showing Rugby station with snow. This is the only photo which clearly shows the name of the station in it. I would suggest that its removal is reconsidered. Maltesedog (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to support the guy who removed it, although I disagree with his reasoning. My reason for removing it would be that it is not a good photo. It is tilted, badly lit, and I'm fairly certain you had water/snow on the lens because parts of it are quite blurry. Too much space is dedicated to uninteresting rails and snow. Further, why does it matter that the photo shows the station name? We don't need to see the station name, this is an article about Rugby station, it's implicit that the photo is of Rugby station. I appreciate that you want to share your photos with people, and that is laudable. However, I don't see the point of adding an image to this article, which is well-supplied with images already, which is of poor quality and does not really show anything useful. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Mattbuck, whilst I agree with your reasoning that the quality is the best, there is still no photo which clearly shows that its Rugby Station. I would have left it there until a better photo was supplied, but clearly it was in the correct station. It could be any station unless there is its name, I do not see it implicit. There are many stations which look the same! Maltesedog (talk) 09:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Nor does your photo - it will be displayed in the article as a thumbnail, which means 300px maximum, lower by default, and that size makes it impossible to read that it says Rugby. I agree, many stations look similar, but why can we not assume, in an article about Rugby station, that the photos are of Rugby station. Especially given image captions which say "so and so at Rugby". By your reasoning, we shouldn't have photos of any churches unless the photo has the church's name in it, because lots of churches look similar. Or animals. Cars, foods, computer screenshots, phones, settlements - all these things look similar to others of the same thing, but we do not require that they all have a label on them in an article about them. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Surely it is important that the picture that accompanies a section actually illustrates that section ("a picture is worth a thousand words"). If the pic had shown the reconstruction work going on, it would definitely have stayed. Might I suggest that you start a gallery at the end of the article (see WP:PICTURE – but be mindful of the advice in WP:Gallery not to get carried away with a mountain of pics) and put your picture there. Indeed there are a few other pics in the article that could join it, as they too are fairly marginally related to the section that they are in. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I simply don't see the need for one. What else might we put there that isn't already in the article? -mattbuck (Talk) 18:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hillmorton Junction

Would someone local like to add a short section on Hillmorton junction? [Because it is needed for the route diagram at Northampton loop. Something along the same lines as Hanslope#Hanslope Junction? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)