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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester 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.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
– These three railway stations have been closed for several years for conversion to become part of the Manchester Metrolink. They are due to open early tomorrow morning (UK time) so they should be updated to reflect their new use. Sections in the articles can be made to detail the stations' past uses for heavy rail. Del♉sion23(talk)17:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, but wait for the reopening to occur - the reason that these have not yet been moved is given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations): "Where a railway station is closed for conversion x Metrolink station will redirect to the former railway station name until the Metrolink station opens at which time the article name will be changed to reflect its current use and the redirect will be reversed e.g. presently [Chorlton Metrolink station] → [Chorlton-cum-Hardy railway station]." - it's therefore on the to-do list for tomorrow. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - they are historical and should be left with the relevant content moved and restored to the Metrolink articles. Simply south......always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years18:32, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By that argument, we would need to split out the articles for all the converted stations, even those converted long before Wikipedia began. I think there are almost 20 of these, mainly on the Bury and Altrincham lines, and these articles have always covered both the Metrolink and pre-Metrolink histories. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately yes, although a brief history could be mentioned in each article. 20:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Simply south......always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years
This convention was discussed and agreed several years ago and followed similar discussion about whether there should be seperate or combined articles on Man Vic and Man Pic stations. A simple redirect picks up those looking for former station names and the history is just as relevant for modern users so theres no point duplicating content. WatcherZero (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as Sf07 (talk·contribs) has not done anything about it, and created the artilces before consensus was reached, I've reverted their edits so that this discussion can continue. I think that the railway stations articles should simply be placed into the history section of the respective new Metrolink articles. Del♉sion23(talk)11:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
It is pretty clear that the two things are separate, as they are in different locations, and on different stretches of track, and carry a different transport mode. The only commonality between them is that the modern tram stop carries the name of the former train station. It seems a bit odd for two separate things to be squeezed into one article like this. Any thoughts? 18:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)