Jump to content

Talk:Hinton station (Alberta)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 22 February 2016

[edit]
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to the titles suggested in the alternative proposals. We have a clear consensus that this measure is preferable to either the current or the originally proposed formats. Cúchullain t/c 17:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– No need to add a second comma on railroad stations. All titles should not include a second comma next to railway station, it's not Canadian grammar and it would result as a speedy move. Steam5 (talk) 07:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – First, thank you for replacing your many single RM discussions with this one multi-RM discussion, though doing it by actually deleting sections that contained the comments of other may not have been ideal. I think we can all come back and participate more productively now. On the substance of the proposal, I confess to being baffled by the rationale "No need to add a second comma on railroad stations". What is it about Canadian railroad station grammar that is different from normal English grammar? Dicklyon (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Such usage is standard English orthography. No style guide permits the lack of a following comma. WP:AT does not comment on orthography, and directs one to the MoS, so it must apply in this case. RGloucester — ☎ 14:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even though titles are not complete sentences, they do generally respect the grammar of noun phrases. Whether a specific guideline applies or not, why would one want to leave out the matching comma here? Nobody has suggested a rationale that's applicable to Canadian railway stations or anything else. This proposal is a non-starter. See grammar guides; I picked a few that specifically mention provinces, though the rule is much more general than that: [1], [2], [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MOS:COMMA applies to article titles. All of MOS applies to article titles. That's why WP:AT and the naming conventions pages frequently cross-reference MoS, which is not the "Manual of Style Except for Article Titles".  :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – The second comma is required to close the appositive, per MOS:COMMA. RGloucester — ☎ 14:34, Yesterday (UTC−5)
  • Comment: The Canadian railway station articles should all use one naming convention, and related templates must be fixed to match. Not just the chosen ones above. Dick Lyon changed what had been a long time naming convention (before my time) to add a comma after the province, when that form of disambiguation was required. I understood the reason, went along with it and cleaned up the mess left behind. Steam5 decided that the additional comma was not required, and reverted many of the moves, so again I gave advice on how to do it properly and keep things uniform. Meanwhile Dick Lyon got blocked for some other naughty behaviour, and on his return is again randomly moving some of them without a full discussion. I hope you understand that I don't care what you use, but if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Please leave everything tidy, and close the door behind you on the way out. Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, let's fix them all. I started with stubs, prompted by Steam5's removal of a correct comma, and didn't want to race ahead until we had time for reactions and discussion if needed. I've been advised not to do too many moves in a short time. As far as I know, there has never been any statement of a "convention" here; just editors copying the errors of other editors. Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will you properly explain the second use of a comma as it applies here. Make it simple and specific, so that it can be generally understood. Once people get your point, the debate should be over. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you think of it as an appositive, as RGloucester says, or as a parenthetical aside, if you use one comma to take you away from the main structure, you need another to bring you back. The main structure is Hinton railway station; the province name is extra info. Without the second comma, you have a comma splice between Hinton and Alberta railway station, which has no sensible parse. Dicklyon (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my! Do you really think that "appositive", "parenthetical aside", "comma splice" and "sensible parse" explain it in simple terms? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not simple enough; I may have misjudged my audience. So see the three external guides I linked above; repeating here: [4], [5], [6], which give simple rules about Canadian province names. Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get it. Those links will help others, if they bother to read anything. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bring up that old WP:OR-based canard. The guidelines are clear. The previous title is not acceptable in any variety of English, ever. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many style and grammar guides do specifically note that this error is common; I don't think that makes it a good choice for wikipedia. But I'm wondering where you find professionally edited publications doing this. Are you referring to such railway stations, or Canadian provinces, or just general omission of matching commas? Also, if Canadian rail buffs want to adopt a convention more like WP:USSTATION, such that we'd use Hinton station (Alberta) or such, I would not object; but that's not what this is about; this is just about fixing a simple error within the current style. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of general usage of "City, Province" as an adjective with single commas:
It happens all the time. Do your own search in Google Books; I found about a 50/50 split between single- and double-comma usage where "City, Province" was used as an adjective. Dohn joe (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR, as I've told you more than once now. Just because something appears in print does not mean that it is the correct usage, as opposed to being an error of happenstance. All relevant style guides proclaim such usage as an error. RGloucester — ☎ 20:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just responding to Dicklyon's request for professionally edited publications using the single comma option. Dohn joe (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided evidence that "professionally edited publications" use "the single comma option". You've shown that a single comma appears in some works, but you have no idea whether the publications themselves endorse the single comma in that case, or whether it is merely an error. That's why it is WP:OR. You cannot analyse works in this manner. You need sources that say "we use a single comma" or "a single comma is acceptable". You cannot come to your own conclusion that a single comma is acceptable on the basis of use of a single comma in a work. RGloucester — ☎ 21:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DJ, thanks for those examples. I don't quite get RGloucester's problem with original research here; it's not like we're using it to put content into articles, but rather to gather evidence about styles in use. As I said, however, with style guides pointing it out as a common error, and no guide that I know of saying it's OK, these are perhaps best interpreted in that light. On your second link, for example, the use of comma after Alberta is not consistent; at least one non-adjective use is missing the comma, in exactly the context where others in the same book use it; so it can't be an example of editor's style choice when it's mixed up. When I looked for such examples myself, I did not find any (it's hard to find "British Columbia station" in the right context, with or without comma, since this is not the common way to refer to stations), so I remain skeptical of your 50/50 estimate. Dicklyon (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this solution, which sidesteps the comma issue. RGloucester — ☎ 04:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I'm fine with it, too, if the Canadian railway editors want to go with something like WP:USSTATION (or maybe not quite like it, as it's not universally liked). But it's not something we'd want to do for the current batch; it's a much bigger question. For now, there's no good reason to sidestep the comma issue. Let's just fix it (that is, don't do this move, and continue to fix the others) and decide what to do for a general naming convention separately. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In as much as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I believe that a consensus to apply the parenthetical-style disambiguation to these articles could be applied to other Canadian station articles on the basis of precedent, and would seem to make much more sense than bickering about the commas. I do not think that an official guideline, like USSTATION or UKSTATION, is necessary. Honestly, the parenthetical seems much more natural than the comma-based disambiguation. Whilst I agree that the commas, if used, need to be correct, I do not think we should hesitate to get rid of them if it is possible. Indeed, the MoS advises that we do this. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS also advised getting rid of the commas around "Jr.", but when I worked on doing so we had a lot of pushback, and an RFC that ended up changing that advice. I don't want to invest a lot of work just to have it rolled back due to such reaction again. Dohn Joe, for example, will react with "if it ain't broke don't fix it", even though it is broke. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

[edit]

When disambiguation is required in the title of Canadian railway station articles, the name of the province will be appended in parentheses. In this case, "Hinton railway station (Alberta)" is what is proposed. Note this applies to VIA, CNR and CPR stations, and will not apply to commuter stations where system or other local disambiguation is applied. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done that. RGloucester — ☎ 21:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You missed the project listed at top above; so I copied your note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Dicklyon (talk) 05:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! The original nominator has still to comment. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, right, I missed Steam5. Dicklyon (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We all miss him. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I'm late. I was on a break 24 hours ago. So my decision on the new alternative proposal is a Neutral, So I am going let other users to decide if they support or oppose the alternative proposal. Steam5 (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Hinton railway station (Alberta)" is a cleaner solution, grouping the proper-name part and the "[railway] station" part together, so it will end up being more consistent with stations that have "Station" as part of the proper name. From a policy analysis standpoint I think this is well defensible in other way: While we prefer natural disambiguation over parenthetic, ""Hinton, Alberta, railway station" isn't really natural disambiguation, it's a descriptive disambiguation, which is last-resort. It doesn't really matter exactly where the location disambiguator is placed or how it's bracketed, so we might as well put it in the place that produces the most consistency with other station articles, and produces the least editorial conflict. ("Hinton, Alberta" as a town name is natural disambiguation, because it's how people actually talk/write: "I live in Hinton, Alberta"; if you were telling someone where you were, you probably would not text them that you were at "Hinton, Alberta, railway station" but at "Hinton railway station in Alberta" or "Hinton railway station, Alberta, of which "Hinton railway station (Alberta)" is a slight variant; so, the parenthetic form ends up actually being closer to natural usage in this context.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for consistency with most of the other forms of disambiguation we use, while strongly opposing removal of the second comma should the original wording be retained.—Odysseus1479 05:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the users have spoken, the users support to rename Hinton railway station (Alberta) and for the remaining articles will it be renamed to Paterson, Wivenhoe, Gladstone, Dyce, Dunlop, Bathurst, Leven, Ilford, Brookfield, Windsor and the remaining aricles with commas turn a province in brackets? Like (Nova Scotia) and (Manitoba) for instance. Steam5 (talk) 06:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that we'll do something like that, yes. I'll wait for advice from Secondarywaltz on how to proceed, so we don't cause more chaos than he wants to clean up. Dicklyon (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hinton_station_(Alberta)&oldid=1201500292"