Talk:Machynlleth Town 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 Low-importance).

Wales Low‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 4 September 2024

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The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. This is clearly not going to move, and to be honest I'm finding myself swayed by the arguments below. — Voice of Clam (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Machynlleth Town railway station → Original Corris Railway station, Machynlleth – The article states that the station was unnamed, and therefore "Machynlleth Town" is made up. This is misleading, therefore I suggest simply referring to it as the original Corris Railway station in the title and throughout the article. — Voice of Clam (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I think the only issue with "Original Corris Railway station, Machynlleth" is some books use that or a similar title to refer to the first Corris Railway station next to the Cambrian Railways station (ie the 1878 building at Machynlleth railway station (Corris Railway) converted from the 1874 stable block and warehouse). The situation with 4 narrow gauge and 2 standard gauge stations at Machynlleth is confusing! I'm happy to follow whatever consensus develops here. Opolito (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Machynlleth Town is the name used in sources to discuss this station then we should be using it too, regardless of whether it is historically accurate. I don't have access to any of the sources used in the article, nor can I find anything in 2 minutes on Google, so I don't know how they do refer to it. If "Machynlleth Town" isn't the term they use we should move the article to the title they do use, with crafting our own title being appropriate only if there isn't a name consistently used in sources. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a careful distinction drawn in the article between the "original" station, which has been the accepted wisdom since Lewis Cozens' booklet on the Corris Railway was published in the late 1940s; this is why myself and the other author chose "Machynlleth Town" as a clearly separate identifier. If the term "original" is used for Machynlleth Town then the distinction needs to be drawn between Machynlleth Low Level (first station) and Machynlleth Low Level (second station). It is worth also considering the legal nature of the passenger business: Machynlleth Low Level (the first) was the original Corris Railway station where passenger tickets were legally booked, there was no legal basis for the passengers carried from Machynlleth Town, I do not think that "Machynlleth Town" could be regarded as a station within the conventional understanding of being inspected and by a member of the Railway Inspectorate and reported to the Board of Trade. I will supply a copy of the article to Thryduulf for independent assessment, and as one of the 'discoverers' of "Machynlleth Town" I would far rather see the terminology we have used in our researches to be maintained rather than a reinterpretation of our words, however well intended. MRFS42 (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MRFS has emailed me a copy of the article they co-authored ("Corris Railway Stations at Machynlleth Before Steam". Narrow Gauge and Industrial Railway Modelling Review (139), currently reference 1 in the article) and "Machynlleth Town" is the name consistently used in it to refer to the station. If this is the name used in other sources too, then there is no justification for using any other title for the en.wp article. Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to Machynlleth Town railway station (1860 - 1878), or just Machynlleth railway station (1860 - 1878), thus keeping the name at the start of the title, while making its historical status clear. There is a precedent at Battersea Park railway station (1860–1870). Then create Machynlleth railway station (disambiguation) to give readers a list of the options available, and clarify which ones were/are SG or NG. Alternatively, Machynlleth (Corris) railway station and Machynlleth (Cambrian) railway station? -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 16:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed - it's even more of a made-up name than Machynlleth Town. Plus, we simply do not name station articles in that manner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK there's no precedent for articles for stations which had no name, unless you can point me at one. Therefore to say we don't name station articles that way is meaningless. My suggestion is not a made-up name; it is simply a description, and would be described as "The original Corris Railway station was ... " in the lead. — Voice of Clam (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, there is no evidence for any Corris Railway station or stopping place within the parish of Machynlleth ever having a nameboard. MRFS42 (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rainagar railway station is an article about a station that doesn't have a name. Opolito (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Thinking about this more, we do use "made up" names to refer to unnamed railway features. Here's a good example: Talyllyn Railway#Galltymoelfre Tramway. James Boyd calls the tramway above the Alltwyllt incline the Galltymoelfre Tramway because it runs across the hillside called Galltymoelfre. But the tramway never had a name. We use that name in the TR article because it appears in published sources. The name Machynlleth Town only appears in the MRFS/Quine article as far as I know, but that is because the station has only been discovered in the last year. Per Thryduulf, we should keep the published name rather than make up some other nomenclature from whole cloth. Opolito (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few more examples to consider. The Kettering Ironstone Railway never had a name. The Padarn Railway was again given that name by Boyd, it was really called the Dinorwic Quarry Railway. I believe the Lochaber Narrow Gauge Railway was never named, nor was the Geltsdale Reservoir railway. A substantial proportion of industrial railways and their features didn't have the names we now use to reference them. All of these names came from authors who needed a way to refer to a railway. I don't think Machynlleth Town is any different. Opolito (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, frankly. "Machynlleth Town" has been so named by the people who have researched it. MRFS42 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2024 (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.