Talk:London Waterloo station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on London Waterloo 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170313082004/http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf to http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/central-london-bus-map.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917095311/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23742350-details/Delayed%3A+platforms+for+Waterloo+commuters+will+not+arrive+until+2014/article.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23742350-details/Delayed%3A+platforms+for+Waterloo+commuters+will+not+arrive+until+2014/article.do
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417031318/http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/news/network-rail/waterloo-p21+22-open.html to http://www.southernelectric.org.uk/news/network-rail/waterloo-p21+22-open.html

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) 00:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Waterloo Station" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Waterloo Station. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Merger proposal.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to keep the articles separate. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose that the page Waterloo International railway station should be merged into this article due to it technically being part of the same railway station. The content of the international terminal can be put into its relevant section on this article. No need for a seperate one. Slender (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense to merge to me. Kyteto (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree. -- Alarics (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was another article. In any case, it duplicates this one and is an obvious neologism - there has never been a separate station here with this name, as opposed to say Stratford International railway station, which is in a different location to Stratford railway station (and, ironically, cannot be used to get a train abroad). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dsergeant (talk · contribs) reverted the redirect against consensus. In answer to the question posed, the content is either duplicated in this article, or is unsourced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed. And I believe it's right because currently this discussion is still in progress. So until this gets closed (in a week I think) and consensus is 100% confirmed then the merge should be carried out.Slender (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. As I saw it yesterday's redirect completely removed all the still relevant information on the International period, at which time although the two stations shared the same site they were to all intents and purposes separate stations. I am happy with the content being integrated with the main article but it should be copied over in its entirety, possibly as a sub section. A 'redirect' does not do this. I would prefer to keep the International article and link to it 'Main article'.Dsergeant (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I would oppose copying the content over entirely, for the simple reason that a large amount of it is unreferenced, and would result in the parent article failing the good article criteria, specifically "factually accurate and verifiable". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree - I am sure it was done "in good faith" but generally I am against this sort of move. GRALISTAIR (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone could link the international article to the main article's International section with a "main article: _____" link. CarrotPieFI (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking of taking the Waterloo International article to AfD, as it's a neologism, and largely unsourced. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The Waterloo article is already very long. I think I'd prefer a substantial rewrite of the International station article rather than copying and pasting the content across, noting given the above points regarding failing the GA criteria. I can take a look this weekend potentially. Turini2 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Think it should stay as a separate article. 617TPR (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the international station was functionally independent from 1994 to 2017 and that period should be covered in a separate article. The main article should cover that period in summary form with a main article link, and have a section about the area from 2017-present as part of the main station. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf. Pleatrox (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I see despite opposing these changes Pleatrox you have already removed a lot of content from here and Waterloo_International_railway_station. Are you intending to rewrite those sections and supply references or just let the content disappear? I suggest reverting them until the consensus is clearer. Dsergeant (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

    Dsergeant, I've already reverted the removals for reasons stated there; this is a good article and part of a good topic, so changes have to adhere to those criteria. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

    • Yes, thanks, but you only reverted the changes at London_Waterloo_station, I have just reverted those at Waterloo_International_railway_station which deleted the whole of the Design section. We need to find sources for that as it is still relevant. Dsergeant (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

The content I deleted from Waterloo International railway station was largely the Design section which has seemingly never been cited and was flagged as such in March 2019. It fails WP:V and should not be reinstated until this is adressed, irrespective of the outcome of the merge proposal. Pleatrox (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

How is now going to cited once it is deleted? This content remains very relevant to the article and in my view should remain but the citing issue urgently addressed. Dsergeant (talk) 05:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Being very relevant to the article is not reason enough for it being retained. The text was never cited, thus it was original research. The section was flagged as such over two years ago, so there was ample warning. It can be reinstated, but this should only occur when reliable sources can be found to back it up. Pleatrox (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose the Waterloo article is already very long. G-13114 (talk) 06:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of the above. As a distinct entity from the domestic station for ~20 years it deserves a standalone article, easily passing WP:SIGCOV (as, although the article is woefully under referenced, The absence of sources or citations in an article... does not indicate that a subject is not notable, per WP:NEXIST). It is not a neologism, as it is not recent (this is from 1993, for example), and being the name of a gegraphical place, is recognised in language. Multiple sources exist to demonstrate notability, whether in scientific or technological works ([1], [2]), academic ([3], [4]) or popular works ([5]). Multiple instances of coverage in national news outlets (see: [6])—some of which note that plats 2-24 are still regularly called 'the old WI platforms' even years after the stations closure.
  It's frankly bizarre that we're having this discussion about a massive building in the middle of London that was open for 20 years *facepalm* especially, as noted above, the length of the Waterloo article as it stands already. ——Serial 14:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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.