Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Tacoma (Amtrak station)

Under USSTATION, what would be a suitable name for this station? Union Station (Tacoma, Washington), former Amtrak station, already exists, so I am reluctant to move this to Tacoma station (Amtrak) or Tacoma station (Washington). epicgenius (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Since the former station is not called "Tacoma", as well as the fact that it now serves a purpose unrelated to rail, my suggestion would be Tacoma station (Amtrak) (in order to disambiguate from Tacoma Dome Station), with a hatnote specifically linking to Union Station (Tacoma, Washington) as well as the dab page, per the recommendation at WP:MULTIDABS. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 22:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'd also suggest Tacoma station (Amtrak). The presence of two other stations in the same city means that "(Washington)" wouldn't be a good bet. As James Allison says, it would be a good idea to link the Union Station and dab page in a hat note to eliminate confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 22:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Why not just call it Tacoma station? There is no other station by that name, so it should not need disambiguating. Tacoma Dome Station is not the same name. You can move the current Tacoma Station to Tacoma station (disambiguation) and add hatnotes as appropriate. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Because WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may be in the way of that. epicgenius (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ultimately, the outcome of this doesn't make a huge difference to me, but what do you propose may be an alternate primary topic for "Tacoma station"? Of everything listed at the DAB page (Tacoma Station), the only article that is actually named "Tacoma" is the Amtrak station. From what is on Wikipedia, there are multiple station names containing the word "Tacoma", but there is only one station using "Tacoma" alone as the name of the station. Thus, I think the Amtrak station is the primary topic for "Tacoma station". All of the other articles/stations have some other words in the name of the title/station. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
While that is true, there is the possibility of confusion with the other stations, so I am going to rename it Tacoma station (Amtrak) for now. We can make a RM if that is not the desired outcome. New problem; see below. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I should note that in 2017, the Amtrak station is closing and being moved to the same spot as the Tacoma Dome Station (which serves commuter rail; the capitalized station is preferred by Sound Transit), so it might pose some new problems. SounderBruce 03:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. If the Amtrak station is being moved to Tacoma Dome Station, maybe the article at Tacoma (Amtrak station) should be disambiguated by year of operation or opening, since it will be closed. epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like this one is going to be a more complicated case than usual. Year of operation would make sense after it closes if there's going to be a new "Tacoma station" serving Amtrak. The same things are sure to happen in other cities as well as the trend has been to move service out of the old "Amshacks". That said, who knows what the names will be when the moves happen, we'd best keep an eye on it. In the meantime, the hat note should serve any confused readers, we just need to make sure it's updated if/when the pages move.--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation in Charlotte, North Carolina

While updating the names of articles in Category:LYNX Blue Line stations, I came across a bit of a problem with the three articles that needed additional disambiguation: 7th Street station (Charlotte, North Carolina), Carson station (Charlotte, North Carolina), and Woodlawn station (Charlotte, North Carolina). Because Charlotte is a relatively well known city and all the stations are located there, I figured disambiguation by city was the way to go here. However, "Charlotte, North Carolina" is pretty long - "North Carolina" makes it three words long and therefore not very WP:CONCISE. However, all the options listed by the guideline have the same and/or additional problems of their own:

  • Disambiguation by state: I contemplated this, but as this is a local system and Charlotte is just one of several fairly prominent cities in North Carolina, it seems insufficiently WP:PRECISE. (North Carolina) also isn't much shorter.
  • Disambiguation by system: The system is Lynx Blue Line, which is a relatively new system and not well known even to people familiar with Charlotte (like me). It also isn't any shorter, and just (Lynx) might be confusing.
  • Disambiguation by line doesn't help us here, there's just the one line.

However, I can think of one thing that would accomplish the goal. The guideline refers people to WP:USPLACE, but is that really necessary? USPLACE is about article titles for cities, not disambiguation. 7th Street station (Charlotte) would serve our purposes just as well as any title. Anyone looking for "7th Street station" will not be baffled by "Charlotte" and more than "Charlotte, North Carolina". Most city-state combinations won't have these problems, so this won't come up very frequently. Could this be an exception?--Cúchullain t/c 16:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Since Charlotte redirects to the city in question, there should be no problem just using that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say there's no "settled law" here. Looking at Category:Buildings and structures in Charlotte, North Carolina and Category:Schools in Charlotte, North Carolina, the disambiguators "Charlotte", "North Carolina", and "Charlotte, North Carolina" have all been used. I think for a city transit system it's fine to use Charlotte, especially as that's more permanent. A re-brand of LYNX isn't inconceivable, witness what happened with the Altamont Corridor Express. Mackensen (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I went ahead and moved them.--Cúchullain t/c 17:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I know I'm a little late to the party, but the current Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)#Disambiguation guideline is crap. Take a look at Brookfield railway station: five stations, five different methods of disambiguation!

The British seem to follow a much simpler method:

The new “improved” system fails to take into account the thousands of tranclusions of {{stnlnk}}/{{rws}} and similar templates. Is anyone who was involved in imposing the new system planning on rewriting the templates to accommodate the change? Useddenim (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

  • @Useddenim: Not only are you late to the party but I'm afraid that you might have come to the wrong address. Only two of those situations are actually subject to this guideline. One of them, Brookfield (Metro-North station), hasn't been moved yet. When it is, it'll move to Brookfield station (Connecticut). This guideline shouldn't be blamed for whatever atrocities may or may not have occurred in Australia or Canada. So far as I know {{Stnlnk}}/{{rws}} has never been used or recommended for US stations, nor were there ever plans to. I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion. Mackensen (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Um, the {{rws}} short-form of {{stnlnk}} is used in many (hundreds?) of US route diagrams, and has been known to crop up in S-link boxes, too... Useddenim (talk) 15:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
News to me. I paged through a couple thousand links in the Template namespace and didn't notice any. Given that rws doesn't support parenthetical disambiguation, I have no idea how it could ever have been useful under the old scheme. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I guesss you didn't bother to look at the documentation, where it says,
Optionally a second parameter can be supplied to distinguish between identically named stations in different locations.

Parenthetical disambiguation isn't specifically stated, because that is the standard method (as noted above), and the text continues with the specific example:

{{stnlnk|Bramley|Hampshire}} expands to [[Bramley (Hampshire) railway station|Bramley]].
Useddenim (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I did, but again, not relevant. US stations never used that scheme. Still waiting for examples of where US articles ever used it. Found them. That template will actually become more useful as system-specific disambiguation falls away. Mixing that with system-specific templates seems likely to cause confusion. Mackensen (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the British version is a similar, but worse, way of dealing with the same thing. The only difference is using "railway station"/"tram stop" instead of station, and cramming it in the middle of the phrase. I've also never understood the complaint about breaking templates, that can be fixed. We don't write articles to suit templates, we write them for readers.--Cúchullain t/c 14:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Xxx tram stop seems to be being phased out in favour of the simpler Xxx stop. Useddenim (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Bleh. The British method with interstitial parenthetical disambiguation is a horror. Defeats ability to use the WP:Pipe trick and is at odds with how most titles are disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 16:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
It may be antithetical to you, but the WP:Pipe trick only shortens Xxx railway station, Yyy to Xxx railway station, not the desired Xxx. Useddenim (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
For most purposes, I'd consider Xxx railway station to be the desired form, and the current form for British stations is still at odds with how most article titles are disambiguated. older ≠ wiser 14:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there an active proposal here? Mackensen (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are we adding Xxx railway station when Xxx station will suffice? Unlike the British, the Americans don't put "railway" in the names of their stations. epicgenius (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are no less than four countries represented at Brookfield railway station (disambiguation):

  • XXX railway station, YYY – (Australia)
  • XXX, YYY railway station – (Canada)
  • XXX (YYY) railway station – (UK)
  • XXX (ZZZ station) – where ZZZ is the system name, not the locality name (US, old)
  • XXX (YYY) – (US, new)

– epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The method used for British stations is indeed awful. I suppose it's an attempt to mix two types of disambiguation, parentheses and natural disambiguation, but it's totally contrary to the way this is handled in the vast majority of Wikipedia.
I doubt this problem will be solved by a discussion at this guideline, but it is worth discussing the issue with the "xxx railway station" convention. It results in British stations titled "xxx railway station" being the de facto primary topic even when they're not. For a recent example, Haverhill railway station is a defunct minor station that's certainly not the primary topic of train stations named "Haverhill", but sits at that title due to this loophole.--Cúchullain t/c 05:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment: Identification of train or railway stations in the lead. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Expand to BRT stations?

I think this guideline should include bus rapid transit stations in the United States (see Van Nuys (Los Angeles Metro station) for an example). BRT stations look like light rail stations, they're named like light rail stations, they use the same templates as light rail stations. BRT stations are treated like train stations at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sigourney Street (CDOT station). They're also, at least in Los Angeles and Hartford, named like the articles this guideline covers (that is, with preemptive parenthetical disambiguation). I would update the lead of this guideline to explicitly include bus rapid transit. Mackensen (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.--Cúchullain t/c 18:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I see no need for this. BRT stations do not necessarily have the de facto notability that rail stations have. Avoiding instruction creep, the general naming guidelines suffice in this case. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 19:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Whether they get kept or not is irrelevant. They have to be named according to some guideline. Right now they're not named according to the general naming guidelines. They're named according to the old unofficial, undocumented, and contrary-to-policy TWP practice which this guideline abolished. Why not bring them in out of the cold? Your objection solves nothing. Mackensen (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that there is a pair of templates, {{trs}} and {{TRS}}, that will automatically format a name of any type of transit stop as "x stop" or "x Stop", respectively. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Are they actually used? I see that other templates refer to them, but I don't see article space transclusions. The "stop" convention isn't currently used in the US; though it could be. I did ping the Bus project in case they had views. Mackensen (talk) 20:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, I misunderstood your earlier comment and I apologize. If a BRT naming guideline is necessary, it should be proposed on its own, not simply having the rail guideline extended to BRT. The disambiguation-by-state section of USSTATION almost certainly is not relevant to BRT systems, and there may be other BRT-specific naming concerns that would be better addressed by a separate guideline. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I think this guideline makes sense for BRT stations. I don't think all BRT stations are notable, but the ones that are would benefit from this guideline. By the same token, I don't think all rail stations are notable, but that's another matter.--Cúchullain t/c 00:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
By "stations," are we assuming rail stations? I do not see any wikiprojects on top of this page. However, I think moving the BRT station makes sense, as long as the title clarifies that it is a BRT station if the disambiguator is added. epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the guideline specifically states "rail stations in the United States, including intercity, commuter, subway, and light rail." BRT is out of scope. We didn't have many articles on BRT stations/stops when this guideline was formulated; I wrote the first draft and I don't recall thinking about them at all. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems like BRT in the United States is becoming more popular, though. Unless we want a guideline like WP:BRTSTATION, I think US BRT stations should be covered by USSTATION. epicgenius (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. Although this naming convention was conceived with rail stations in mind, the title of this page is simply "US stations". How about just modifying the first line to read "This is a standard naming convention for mass transit stations in the United States, including intercity rail, commuter rail, subway, light rail, and bus." --Scott Alter (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It appears we have consensus here. I added Scott's wording here but it was reverted. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
It would be better worded as "This is a standard naming convention for mass transit stations and stops in the United States, including intercity rail, commuter rail, rapid transit, light rail, and bus rapid transit systems." This clearly implies that ordinary, non-BRT bus stops are not noteworthy enough for their own article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. We want to specify BRT, lest people try to add every curbside stop with a small shelter. Major intercity bus hubs likely have common names that would be outside the convention any way (like the Port Authority Bus Terminal). So we should be more specific. oknazevad (talk) 19:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
That sounds fine to me. Ultimately I'd like to see major (non-BRT) bus stations at least mentioned here for guidance. All it really says for any station that has a common name is to use the common name, which shouldn't conflict with any other advice. I also don't see this guideline as weighing in on whether any article, rail or otherwise, is actually notable. It's just a naming convention for articles that already exist, which is a separate issue.--Cúchullain t/c 20:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Major bus stations do not have the "station" presumption (for example, they may use terms like "terminal" or "depot"), so simply extending this guideline to those topics may not be appropriate. Using the common name is already covered by UCRN. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 16:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Rail stations default to the common name as well when it's different than the "xxx station" formula. A number of them are "Terminal", "Depot", "Transit Center", etc. But my point is, conceivably editors are already coming to the naming convention for "US stations" looking for guidance on transit stations that don't happen to have rail, so we ought to at least point them in the right direction.--Cúchullain t/c 17:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) The point of this guideline is for stations that do not have a presumption - thus the need for naming convention guidelines. I would argue that on Wikipedia at least, there is a presumption that a bus "stop" notable enough to have an article is presumed to be a "station", as evidenced by the category structure named Category:Bus stations in the United States. Take a look at all categories that start with Bus too. Except for bus places with common names containing "terminal", "depot", or "transit center", they are pretty much all stations (and yes, I realize that many articles in these categories are actually train stations with an attached bus station). If a major bus station uses a term like "terminal" or "depot", then that is likely its common name, which is mentioned in, and would supersede this convention. And as mentioned before, this convention is not meant to give notability to small bus stops. Notability is a separate issue with separate guidelines. So let's include all bus stations here. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the objection to extending this to all bus stations (that is, bus stations that are WP:NOTABLE)?--Cúchullain t/c 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The point of this guideline is for stations that do not have a presumption

By "presumption", I referred to this convention's requirement on the use of "station" in article names. Extending this naming convention to notable bus stops assumes that the common, worldwide, English-language name for every single bus stop without a formal name is "X station" (not, say, "X depot" or "X terminal"), and I have seen no evidence presented or cited that this is the case. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical stations

Is there any reason not to include historical stations with the same naming conventions? Why limit to "active" only? Should "historical" stations have a different naming scheme? --Scott Alter (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, and in practice they don't. We've now moved dozens of former stations that were at the previous unwritten TWP convention, without any objection. Others have apparent common names, for example Michigan Central Railroad Depot (Battle Creek, Michigan) and Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center.--Cúchullain t/c 20:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding the lead and infobox for legacy titles of "Union Station", "Penn Station", "Burlington Station"

What should we do with the infoboxes and lead sections in instances where stations share the same name due to being operated by the same company (such as "Union Station (X City)", "Penn Station (X City)", and "Burlington Station (X City)"). Should the infobox and lead read X City Union Station or just Union Station?

I ask this because some cities, like Chicago Union Station, Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), and Union Station (Washington, D.C.) include the city name in the infobox title, but some cities, like Union Station (Erie, Pennsylvania), don't. epicgenius (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I've always thought that infoboxes should reflect whatever the subject is commonly called, with variants if there are any listed below. They should usually follow the article title minus disambiguation. So "Chicago Union Station" but just "Union Station" for Washington, D.C.--Cúchullain t/c 21:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) My understanding is that the city name is the disambiguation that is used to clarify which station, and "Union Station" or "Penn Station" etc. is the official name of the building unless WP:COMMONNAME says otherwise. I don't think there will ever be a one-size-fits-all naming convention, rather on case-by-case basis. This situation is similar to any post office or church. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 21:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. OK, I'll not make any more "X City Union Station"/"X City Penn Station" changes for now. However, there are articles where the titles don't really match up to infoboxes/bolded lead sections. epicgenius (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Nobody in their home city is going to call their "Union Station" anything other than "Union Station". The disambiguation in the title is, in most cases, only for Wikipedia usage. The common name is simply "Union Station". Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
And nobody outside their home city will think of calling that station "Union Station"; they'll almost always say "X City Union Station". epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Exactly! Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Clearly there's not going to be one size fits all solution here. Tampa Union Station is more commonly known by that name than just "Union Station", but there are other cases where they're generally called just "Union Station" and the city is just there for natural disambiguation. In others, like Union Station (Washington, D.C.) and Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi), the city isn't even used commonly enough to serve as natural disambiguation and we have to use parentheses instead. I think as a rule of thumb, though, using whatever the article title says minus disambiguation is probably reasonable.--Cúchullain t/c 05:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
This kind of problem is part of the reason why I've been trying to keep the names as they were, while you change them on the alleged grounds of unnecessary disambiguation. The Union Station near me more than likely has nothing to do with the Union Station near you, and vice versa. The same goes for the Penn Station, the Burlington Station, the Santa Fe Station, etcetera. They also have nothing to do with the New Jersey Transit station in Union, New Jersey, the former Southern Railway station now served by Amtrak in Burlington, North Carolina, any railroad station in Pennsylvania not associated with Pennsylvania Railroad, or any Santa Fe stations that are not in Santa Fe, New Mexico, or for that matter Atchison, Kansas or Topeka, Kansas. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, doesn't wash. "Union Stations" are always disambiguated either with parentheses or natural disambiguation, and always have been.--Cúchullain t/c 16:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not saying they don't. I'm just saying they don't have anything to do with non Union Stations in places with the name "Union" in them. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
You're not making a lot of sense here.--Cúchullain t/c 12:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

RFC notification

There is a request for comment at the Villiage Pump that may be of interest to editors who have worked on this guideline. Please comment at the discussion. oknazevad (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical stations

Historic stations listed on the National Register of Historic Places are, in current practice, typically titled according to whatever name they were listed in the National Register under. The trouble is, the National Park Service doesn't use any sort of consistent naming convention when listing stations; this results in disambiguation messes like this and this, where there are seven or eight different naming variations for the same railroad and it's unclear that any of the names are actually common names. This came up as part of a broader discussion about standardizing titles on the National Register, but since there's already a naming convention for stations we wanted to ask about this specific piece here.

Should we apply USSTATION to historical stations too if there's not a better common name than whatever the National Park Service uses? Should we keep using the names on the National Register, but standardize the names of railroads? Should we change nothing? I'd probably be in favor of the first option, since I doubt many people who aren't involved with the NRHP program will use the name on the National Register as a common name. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

TheCatalyst31: I'd say USSTATION ought to apply. As with a lot of more prominent stations, there's likely a common name in a lot of cases. I'd consider the NRHP form when deciding the name, but only in light of how other sources discuss the station.--Cúchullain t/c 13:29, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I'm not sure what the solution is, but I agree that it's a clear problem. The NRHP listings are usually descriptive, and often do not reflect the actual names used commonly. The one that always jumps out at me, and the one that lead me to believe there is a problem, is Pennsylvania Railroad Station (Hobart, Indiana), which is the NRHP name, but not what the Pennsy Depot was usually called. I think that we ought to apply the station naming convention, because first and foremost these are train stations, just ones that happen to be on the NRHP. Being on the NRHP does speak to notability, but nothing on the list is defined by being on the NRHP. In fact, nothing makes the NRHP unless it is already notable, so it can easily become a cart-before-the-horse situation anytime the NRHP is involved. (Plus, train stations are already presumed notable anyway already). In short, conforming to the descriptive name used by NRHP should be very low in the discussion regarding the name of an article. There's almost always sufficient sources to determine a COMMONNAME before the NRHP name. oknazevad (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. If there is a COMMONNAME, then use that. If not, use USSTATION guidelines. But the NRHP name should not be used just because that's what it is listed under. If the NRHP actually is the COMMONNAME, then great. If not, fall back to USSTATION. And I think USSTATION should cover all historical stations - not just ones on NRHP. --Scott Alter (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that all historical stations should be covered. And as the guideline already says to use a common name if one exists, it shouldn't even be a conflict. The only conflict would be if the articles are at names that aren't common or in line with the other recommendations here.--Cúchullain t/c 14:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
At WP:NRHP, we really have two naming conventions: (1) Lists need to be "National Register of Historic Places listings in PLACE". (2) Ambiguous titles need to be disambiguated with (City, State) if no other naming convention is relevant. In all other cases, we try to bow to other naming conventions, both because (as Oknazevad notes) NR-listed places are notable for reasons beyond being on the NR, and because our scope is so large that we're bound to conflict with other projects if we try to set up something for ourselves. This being the case, I see no reason for WP:USSTATION not to cover historical stations. Saying that it covers current ones, but not former ones, would seem rather silly; if Burlington station (Iowa), an active Amtrak station, were to close, would we suddenly move the article to the NR name, Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Station (Burlington, Iowa)? And if it covers current and recently closed former ones, what's the dividing line between "recently" and "not recently"? Let's just cover everything, with exceptions to be decided here; perhaps ones now used as something other than a station could be exempted (e.g. Burlington and Missouri River Railroad Passenger Station, which hasn't been a station in more than 130 years, and it doesn't even look like one), but at least something that's recognisably a station should be named as such, regardless of current use. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If anything we should've leave well enough alone. It's bad enough this crusade to eliminate more specific names and system names is taking place. Instead of wasting our energy on this, we should spend it fixing problem links, like the S-line links to State Street Subway (CTA) leading to the Red Line (CTA) and the Milwaukee–Dearborn subway leading to the Blue Line (CTA). And a bit of a reminder; Between the "Burlington station (Iowa)" and "Burlington station (North Carolina)" only the Iowa one would apply to "Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Station (Burlington, Iowa)." -----------User:DanTD (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@DanTD: I'd be happy to fix anything if you'd actually link to the problem. I have literally no idea from your post which articles have broken links which makes it rather difficult to fix them. In any event, a broken link in a template has no bearing on a policy discussion. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that at least. A prime example of what I'm talking about is "Washington station (CTA Red Line)." Click on the State Street Subway and Milwaukee-Dearborn Subway links in the S-Lines, and you won't go directly to those branches. I tried to fix those myself, but nothing I tried worked. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I've encountered some issues with the templates in moves, although we've managed to fix all or most of them. At any rate, that's an argument for fixing the templates, not for obstructing further changes.--Cúchullain t/c 15:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
@DanTD: Fixed this problem with the CTA s-line links. Many of these are easy fixes, but if no one knows there's a problem, then no one looks in to fixing them. And I agree that naming conventions have nothing to do with fixing templates. --Scott Alter (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I never suggested that it was relevant. I'm saying issues like these are more worthy of focusing our attention on. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I also agree that all historical stations should be covered, and (as I've said elsewhere) the NRHP names shouldn't be treated as OFFICIALNAMES or COMMONNAMES unless there's specific evidence supporting them. As oknazevad rightly says, the names are descriptive. Mackensen (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't mind covering the stations. I just hate screwing up the names, which is happening now. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Scotland station disambiguation RM

I've started a discussion on Scotland station disambiguation here to try and find consensus for making disambiguation methods more consistent. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on WP:UKSTATION disambiguation

I've started an RfC on making disambiguation consistent in the WP:UKSTATION guideline. It's located here. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable.--Cúchullain t/c 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

NYC subway station naming convention

There is a discussion about the NYC subway station naming convention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention#Unnecessary and overlong "disambiguation" parentheticals to station complexes. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambigious names

When some station is named after a street or avenue, as opposed to a landmark, neighborhood, or city, the title should be treated as ambigious and distinguished by system, or by system and line. Theoallen1 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

When a Station is used for Amtrak or commuter rail, a disambigious by state name is best. When a Station is ambiguous with use between Amtrak/commuter rail and local transportation, system should be used instead of by Station.
Naming a city is best with names such as Penn Station (Baltimore) or Union Station (Washington DC).
Disambigious by System. This should be the preferred disambigious for non commuter or intercity transportation. If two stations may be ambiguous, such a use is best. However, if Amtrak or commuter rail, use Amtrak.
Disambigious by Line. When two stations in the same system are ambiguous, distinguish by System and Line. For systems with interlining, such as the NYC Subway, local consensus should govern here.
Stations named after roads are ambiguous. For example, 49th St Station on the NYC Subway is ambigious even though that may be the only station named after that street.

Theoallen1 (talk) 04:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

LIRR station naming convention

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I would like to propose renaming the LIRR station articles. Nearly all of them are titled "xxx (LIRR station)". This also applies to the former stations. That disambiguation is deprecated per WP:USSTATION. I know the LIRR is a very old railroad, so there might be some where the parenthetical disambiguation is necessary, but otherwise I propose they should be renamed to "xxx station". I was going to post a move request on Jamaica (LIRR station), but since there are so many pages I thought I'd put it here instead. Please discuss below! Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • They're within the scope of this guideline as heavy rail stations. Individual use cases can and should be handled by move request if the names are actually ambiguous, as I'm sure some are. Going forward, (New York) would be a natural disambiguation. If that doesn't suffice, then (LIRR) is of course available. Mackensen (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Just kill this campaign now! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Exceedingly unhelpful. We get it, you disagree with the consensus. You have also shown a persistent misunderstanding of parenthetical disambiguation over the years (see previous move discussions at South Shore Line, Atlantic Terminal, and Penn Line among others). Article titles are not for details, that's the article's purpose. If you can finally understand that, maybe you can finally understand why these titles have unnecessary disambiguation and can stop badgering every discussion with obnoxious comments like this. oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Mackensen - the majority of these are obvious procedural moves that should not be controversial given the hundreds of successful USSTATION moves. There are a handful of station names that were duplicated on different branches. If one station is current or closed much more recently, it should take precedence; otherwise, they can probably either be disambiguated by line or by municipality. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree that for commuter rail, the current system of USSTATION works. The USStation procedure for the LIRR (as opposed to the subway) works. Theoallen1 (talk) 15:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree as well. However, I think the "XXX station (LIRR)" disambiguators should also redirect to each "XXX station". I don't know why the state disambiguator should take precedence since there are many LIRR stations whose names are duplicated by subway or other stations (e.g. Woodside (LIRR station), Jamaica (LIRR station), Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station)). epicgenius (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree. What do you mean that they should redirect though? –Daybeers (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
      • He's talking about a bunch of cheap redirects with LIRR routing to the unambiguous station name. It'll help with templates and discovery. I see no problem with that. Mackensen (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Gotcha. Should I create a move request then? I was thinking one on Jamaica (LIRR station) for the current stations and one on Woodhaven Junction (LIRR station) for the former stations, since they are each have the highest page views in their categories, respectively. –Daybeers (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I don't have objection to that, as long as you include all the stations of each category in the move request. This is just so we can have the titles standardized, rather than having some "XXX (LIRR station)" titles and some "XXX station" titles. epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
            • Wait, are you saying all the titles should follow "xxx station" (LIRR)" instead of "xxx station", with the parenthetical disambiguation added only when needed? –Daybeers (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks, that's what I meant. To clarify what I said above, although I don't have a problem redirecting most "XXX station (New York)" articles to those titled "XXX station (LIRR)" or "XXX station", or even redirecting "XXX station (LIRR)" articles to "XXX station (New York)", I wouldn't prefer using (New York). This would add another level of disambiguation where both LIRR and New York disambiguators are used, and this applies especially for the examples I mentioned above, where the titles are ambiguous with other stations in the city/state. For instance, having Long Beach station (New York) instead of Long Beach station (LIRR) (for Long Beach (LIRR station)), versus the future title of Nostrand Avenue station (LIRR) (for Nostrand Avenue (LIRR station), which we can't change to "Nostrand Avenue station (New York)" because there are several Nostrand Avenue stations in the NYC subway). epicgenius (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please move forward with this. I'd agree that "Xxx station (LIRR)" would be the best dab for stations that need it, as so many of them will share names with stations for other systems. It's what we've usually been using for commuter rail lines anyway. No need for a move discussion - this isn't a controversial move.--Cúchullain t/c 19:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I agree with the removal of the incorrect "disambiguators" where no ambiguity exists. And I'd be happy to help with the clean up effort if one is organized. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
  • This move has the potential to be controversial, so I created a move request here. I also made one for MBTA stations, which can be found here. –Daybeers (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The bolded phrase should match the article title, minus disambiguation. There was an RFC to that effect. When I do them (and I do a lot), I do “Xxx station is a [type or system name] station in [city]. Hence, “Convention Center station is a Jacksonville Skyway monorail station in Jacksonville, Florida.” Something like “Jacksonville is a railroad station in Jacksonville, Florida” is awkward, much more so than “Jacksonville station”.—Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: Did this comment belong in the discussion below? It looks like it... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Name in lead

Based on this edit by Ɱ, I realized there should be a discussion on what to use for the bolded section of the first sentence where the article name is stated. Though the user cited being consistent with other Metro-North Railroad station articles, there is hardly consistency between them, not to mention all United States station articles. Some use "xxx station is a train station...", some use "xxx is a train station...", and some use "The xxx station is a train station..." with 'xxx' being the station name. I do think that these should be changed to be consistent. My personal opinion is to use "xxx is a train station..." This of course excludes nonstandard names such as Penn Station or Stamford Transportation Center. Thoughts? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for bringing this to talk. I agree some standard should be formed. I extremely dislike "xxx is a train station...", seeing as I do not believe anyone refers to a station solely by the city name. They'll call this article's subject "the Poughkeepsie station", not "Poughkeepsie". "Poughkeepsie" refers to the town or city the station is located in. And yes, for stations with official names, like Grand Central Terminal, that should be used for the first sentence. So, so far, my preference is "The xxx station is a train station...", unless an official name beyond that of the municipality name can be found. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure considering the linguistic usage gets us very far. If you're in Poughkeepsie, you'd probably refer to "the station". If you're traveling to Poughkeepsie, you'd probably say "Poughkeepsie", as in "I'll get to Poughkeepsie at X time". You might also just say "the station", as in "I'll see you at the station", where it's already established contextually that you're talking about Poughkeepsie. The purpose of the naming convention is to consistently identify the subject, which in this case is the train station in Poughkeepsie. The important part of the name is Poughkeepsie, and that's the part I would bold. Mackensen (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
The linguistic usage is the predominant point when discussing how to refer to things! And if you say you're traveling to Poughkeepsie, people will assume you're going to the city, whether by car, bike, train, boat, etc. They would specify "the Poughkeepsie train station" to mention that they're traveling to the station, whether by train or by car, etc. As for what to make bold, we're not discussing that here, and to me it's not too significant. I just know that no residents of any municipality would call their station by simply the municipality name. People from Ossining won't call the station Ossining, people from Greenwich won't call the station Greenwich, people from New Haven won't call the station New Haven. Same also goes for really anyone else anywhere... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Depends on context. If you're embarking on a train trip, and say you're getting off at Poughkeepsie, people will know which station you mean, because that's its name. Of course you're right that Poughkeepsie is ambiguous, and that's why we put "station" in the title. In the context of a lead sentence under that title, "Poughkeepsie is a station" is not ambiguous. As to whether a resident would refer to their station by just the ambiguous name, it again depends entirely on the context; a friend planning to visit asking where to get off might just be told the name that he'll see on the platform. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with Mackensen. I personally prefer XXX is a station of the ZZZ railroad on the YYY Line because the station name is the only thing that distinguishes XXX station from XYZ station. Since it is obvious that this is a station, so we don't have to repeat "station" twice as in XXX station is a station. This applies 99% of the time, except for obvious big-name stations like Pennsylvania Station or Union Station. Or if we're going with the article name, The XXX station serves YYY Line of the ZZZ railroad, but were this to be a guideline, I would not use that as the primary wording. epicgenius (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Poughkeepsie?
or Poughkeepsie?
Apparently this is what Yonkers looks like
People can figure out how best to word it to sound right to their preferences (I mostly prefer your last suggestion), but I cannot believe you'd call this "Poughkeepsie", this "Yonkers", or this "Greenwich". I don't get it! ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
In railroad terminology, if you drop "station" from a proper name, it's still assumed you're talking about a station. That is why the signs at railroad stations say "Forest Hills" and not "Forest Hills Station". Well, most stations, anyway.
Both are correct. In the context of the station being part of a railroad, it makes sense to say "XXX is a station of the ZZZ railroad." By that reasoning, I can travel on the LIRR from Forest Hills to Penn Station (even though it costs 3 times as much as if I'd taken the subway). In the context of the station name being part of a town, it makes sense to say "The XXX station of the ZZZ railroad serves the town of XXX". So technically I traveled from the Forest Hills station to Penn Station. However, it is also correct that I traveled from Forest Hills, the locality in which the station is situated, to Penn Station. epicgenius (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I find that the informal context you're referring to both in your writing and photo caption are informal enough and context-dependent that it makes just saying "Forest Hills" okay, but in an encyclopedia introducing a term, I think it is best to be as specific and exacting as possible. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't the fact that the sentence would say "XXX is a station..." provide enough context? I also agree with Epicgenius that it's silly to repeat the word station twice in the opening sentence. –Daybeers (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't repeat – title XXX station and lead "XXX is a station ..." is plenty unambiguous, clear, and fluid. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
You can still word it to avoid saying station twice, which really isn't a big deal anyway. What matters is wording it to not sound awkward, informal, or incorrect, like calling a station "Greenwich" could be. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The bolded phrase should match the article title, minus disambiguation. There was an RFC to that effect. When I do them (and I do a lot), I do “Xxx station is a [type or system name] station in [city]. Hence, “Convention Center station is a Jacksonville Skyway monorail station in Jacksonville, Florida.” Something like “Jacksonville is a railroad station in Jacksonville, Florida” is awkward, much more so than “Jacksonville station”.—Cúchullain t/c 19:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
    Where's this RFC? MOS:BOLDTITLE says "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." If we treat "station" as a disambiguator, then we can drop it, and keep for formal name part. Dicklyon (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • For encyclopedic lede, "X is a Y" is definitional. Repeat or don't repeat the word station as suits you, but keep the encyclopedic style of starting with what it is, not what it serves. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Any other thoughts on this? –Daybeers (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to give us another option: In many cases you could resolve issue by focusing the lead sentence on the station as a BUILDING (as in: “XYZ Station is a historic building located in City, State.”) and go into the info regarding the rail line in subsequent sentences. Blueboar (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    Just drop the unneeded "located". :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I have moved this discussion over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Informal RFC for opening sentence format. –Daybeers (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This already had a formal RfC here where consensus was to include “station” in the lead. It shouldn’t be changed without another formal consensus.—Cúchullain t/c 11:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
As there are obviously a lot of thoughts on this, it may serve us to start another formal RfC. This should be back at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section where the first was held, as we need to make sure this guideline is in line with the manual of style and Wikipedia-wide practice. In the meantime I've added a line on this guideline citing the RfC and MOS:FIRST so editors can be clearer what the present consensus is. Of course, if the consensus changes, we'll update the wording here accordingly.--Cúchullain t/c 14:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Arriving late. The article should be named by the common name of the place, as established in sources, and then the issue here goes away. The article was created long ago with no sources, originally, with New Rochelle in bold as if that is the name of the railway station there, when obviously "New Rochelle" is the name of the town or city, New Rochelle, New York, instead. I see that the station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as "New Rochelle Railroad Station", and unless there are more numerous/better sources establishing some other name, it should be moved to that name, and then the lede can be revised accordingly.
Also, by the way, I don't get the purpose of this naming convention page, which seems to be about how to assign names for places that do not have common names in any sources, i.e. for which there is no sourcing, i.e. which should not have Wikipedia articles at all. --Doncram (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)/Archive_3&oldid=1045676163"