Talk:Station building

Merge to Train station

To quote my edit summary: There's no need for a separate article at all. Just be because they exist in other-language-Wikipedia articles doesn't mean English should. The train station article covers buildings quite extensively.

I appreciate the bold decision to translate the Italian article with an eye towards the expanding based on the Polish one, but there really is no need for a separate article; anything that might wind up in this article would better serve as an expansion of the main article.oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article train station is already long enough (nearly 30,000 bytes). A breakout article about station buildings is therefore just as appropriate as the existing breakout articles railway station layout and goods station. The new breakout article, when it is expanded, will focus on the buildings, rather than the stations as a whole. Readers focused on architecture will be much more interested in the breakout article than the main article. The Polish language equivalent has been given the status of "good article", which is enough to indicate that the subject matter deserves a separate article. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am convinced. But, I just realized, we already have an article on head house, which is the technical name for station buildings, in American English at least. This article and that should be merged (with the inter-wiki links pointing to the merged article). Part of the issue may be that you created this article not knowing of the other's existence, which is understandable if there were no inter-wiki links or link in the rail infrastructure navbox.

The question is which title to use. While "station building" is probably more intuitive, it's also very generic, and not rail specific. "Head house", "station house", even the word "depot" are more likely to be used. So we need to determine the most common usage for the article title.

We should take this to the Trains WikiProject for input. We don't need multiple articles on the same subject, but we should make the one article have a title that people are going to look for. The usual, knowledgable hands over there can help determine the best course of action. oknazevad (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to note that in the UK at least, 'station building' is anything but generic. Even though bus stations, fire stations and ambulance stations exist, 'station building' will always refer to a railway structure. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MOAR!!!

Could we please have even more Poland pictures and Polish historical facts? You know, we definitely lack them in an article irrelevant to either Poland or history;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.72.233.80 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like that one PSZEK found the article and decided to design it with all pictures of each station in each village of Poland.95.165.97.12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not just the over-emphasis on Poland (which I tried to tone down), it's the synthesis, opinion and general essay like quality of this article that make it terrible. It got hijacked from a functional article describing the functions of a station building, to a flowery mess describing the aesthetics over all. I stripped out some of the worst and tagged the thing. Yuck, this is what I get for taking it off my watchlist. oknazevad (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)