Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations): Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:01, 23 April 2015

Previous discussions

(23 total)

Current discussion

I've listed prior discussions (helpfully compiled by JHunterJ) above. Mackensen (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think one important question is how to handle a case like Union Station (Chicago). The convention with European stations is City Name station, such as Berlin Bornholmer Straße station and Berlin Botanischer Garten station. That would produce Chicago Union station, which isn't inaccurate. The other possibility would be Union station (Chicago) (decapitalizing station) or Union Station (Chicago) (current name). My sense is that Chicago Union station flows better with the convention and more importantly matches the rest of the world. Mackensen (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Station" must be capitalized. Period. These are proper nouns, and must be capitalized in English. So Chicago Union Station is not just simply preferable, to recapitalize the word station is utterly incorrect. oknazevad (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me whether you're talking about Chicago in particular or stations in general; I will assume the latter. It's not though unless it's actually part of the name. It's by no means clear in the vast majority of these cases that this is the case, and for articles about stations not in the United States station is not capitalized. For all that, it's generally not capitalized for existing articles about stations in the United States, although practice isn't uniform. Station would only be a proper noun if part of a station's official name, and per official names it would be preferable to lower-case it anyway for consistency. Mackensen (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is largely a good idea. "xx station" (or "xx Station") should be a reasonable title for the vast majority of these articles. I'd say there are a few things we need to hammer out, though:

First, the capitalization of "station" does need to be sorted. I'd tend to prefer caps, as these are proper nouns, however you frequently find sources where "station" is in lower case. Either way is preferable to the current setup.
In cases where parenthetical disambiguation is needed, it may be helpful to suggest what should go in it. We need to keep in mind what's most beneficial to readers. We could say "use (city) unless there's more than one in the same city, then try (system), if there's more than one in the system, then try (line)."
Third, the "official name" section and "common name" material needs an overhaul. For instance, in some cases, the common and/or official names may include "station" already, in other cases a subject may have a common name that doesn't use "station" at all, for example Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center. It needs to be clear that WP:COMMONNAME is always going to trump the guidelines and naming conventions.

Overall, though, a good start.--Cúchullain ^t/c 05:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input; it's much appreciated I think there needs to be some pragmatism in implementing this; readers and editors both will be confused by inconsistent application of "Station" vs "station." I think we should be internally consistent with the UK articles since they represent a substantial and coherent set of articles. They don't capitalize station but they do include it in all names. I think in that example Rosa Parks Hempstead station would be preferred; Transit Center being an "official" synonym of sorts and unwieldy. It would be one thing if that were a term of art within the Long Island Rail Road, but it's not. Mackensen (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to sort out the capitalization, but that's really a style issue. Again, I'd personally prefer station capitalized, as they're used as proper nouns, but I'm fine with either. On the Rosa Parks Hempstead... article, the problem is that "Rosa Parks Hempstead station" is never used. We can't make up our own names just to force consistency. "Rosa Parks Hempstead Transit Center" seems to be the only name that's in use (or "Hempstead Transit Center" before it was renamed). In those cases, we need to defer to COMMONNAME.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know huge amounts about US station namings, but this looks a hell of a lot better than the mess there currently is. In British English, "station" is not used as a proper noun so it is consistently uncapitalised. "Transit Center" explains what it is without station and so should be handled as an exception like "Interchange" is in the UK guidelines (e.g. Gateshead Interchange), but there needs to be a redirect from the form with "station". As noted above the official names and disambiguation sections of this proposal need fleshing out, but its a good start. Thryduulf (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a semi-aside I've just created Newark station as as disambig between three stations in New Jersey, one in Delaware and two in the UK. This clearly shows how unpredictable US station names currently are and it should be updated once naming conventions are agreed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that Station should be capitalized when it's part of the station's name (Union Station (Chicago)), and left lowercase when the station's name does not include "Station" (Durham–UNH station). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this discussion here. I agree with general idea that in most cases it should be sufficient to use a simple descriptor suffix of "station", or similar. Note that in the UK articles mentioned above, more specific terms like "railway station", "tube station", "subway station" etc. are used. When a proper name, which is also the common name, like "Name Union Station" or "Name Transit Center" exists it should not be changed to something made up. That goes against the basics of article naming. Names like "Parkside Avenue" require "station" to clarify that the subject matter is not the street that the station is named for. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter and Waltz better state what I meant. For some stations, particularly the main stations in large cities, the word "station" (or "terminal", where applicable) is fully part of the proper name and must be capitalized. It was Pennsylvania Station that caught my eye in the proposal the most, as the name of the place is capitalized in all uses, and "Pennsylvania station", uncapitalized, is just wrong. (I thiink I've raised this objection before, actually.)

As a side note, and no offense intended to everybody's desire to see this mess made clearer, it seems that there has not been a lot of input yet from North American based editors yet.

I do know this has been prompted in part by the New York City Subway naming conventions, so I think a brief explanation as to why they are what they are is in order. The NYC Subway is a very complex system in which numerous branch lines mostly feed into a series of near parallel trunk lines that run north-south through Manhattan. Also, many (in fact most) subway stations are named for the cross street that pass below or above. In Manhattan, that means that there are numerous subway stations on different lines that are just a couple of blocks over from other stations under the same cross street. The same is true in other parts of the system, like south Brooklyn and the Bronx. Typically, these have the same short name. To disambiguate, the line name is used, albeit the physical line name and not the service route letter or number, as a trunk line carries multiple routes, and routes aren't permanent and do change occasionally. Because of this, it actually turns out the majority of subway station articles require disambiguation. So the decision made long ago by the interested and involved editors was to use disambiguation on all articles by default. The result has been a system that is highly systematic, but can be difficult for those unfamiliar with it. Clearly it is not ideal, but frankly it does work.

As for commuter stations, it appears that the use of parentheticals was an effort to respect WP:COMMONNAME, as it is quite common to just say the town name without "station" when referring to destinations and such. But that's informal spoken speech, and not written, do I don't know if it's the right model to follow. Calling it "X station" and using the system as a disambiguation when needed probably makes more sense. So for example, moving Woodcliff Lake (NJT station) to Woodcliff Lake station for one not needing disambiguation. For the next station, though, Hillsdale (NJT station) would need to be at Hillsdale station (NJ Transit), as there are at least two other Hillsdale stations in existence. That is a system that might just work. Again, though, for many major stations, the word "Station", capitalized, is part of the proper name and should remain capitalized. oknazevad (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think we're basically saying some of the same things here. Mackensen, would it be cool if other folks edit the page? I just don't want to step on your toes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sorry, please refactor and edit as appropriate. For all that, it probably doesn't need to live in my userspace if it's gaining traction. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with oknazevad, except for the disambiguation of Hillsdale (NJT station). Since there are multiple Hillsdale stations, Hillsdale station should be a disambiguation page (which Hillsdale Station is). The 3 articles should be disambiguated by state, and not system. So the articles would be at Hillsdale station (New Jersey), Hillsdale station (New York), and Hillsdale station (California), rather than Hillsdale (NJT station), Hillsdale (NYCRR station), and Hillsdale (Caltrain station). I believe there should be an order to determining disambiguation. If the stations are in different states, then disambiguate by state. If they are in the same state, then disambiguate by city. If in the same city, disambiguate by system. If in the same city and system, disambiguate by line. Readers looking for an article on a specific station are most likely to know it by city and state. Less likely are readers to know the system, and least likely are readers going to know the exact line the station is on. (How many NYCS passengers actually know which IND/IRT/BMT line they are on - which is why this should only be used if there is no other way to disambiguate.) I'm going to make a few modifications to fit this, but feel free to modify or revert. --Scott Alter (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just made these changes, and have thought of 2 ongoing issues:

First, how should we handle station names that are used in multiple countries. For instance, Exton (SEPTA station) is located in Pennsylvania. Per our guidelines, the article should be at Exton station. However, there also exists Exton railway station in England. This seems potentially confusing, so I would recommend disambiguating the PA station to Exton station (Pennsylvania), and the UK station to something following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations).
Second, the document is currently contradictory regarding Chicago Union Station/Union Station (Chicago). Which one should it be? I don't have a preference, but think Pennsylvania Station should follow the same convention. Yes, the word station should be capitalized in these cases (when the station is named after the railroad), but should natural disambiguation be used (ex Chicago Union Station, New York Pennsylvania Station), or parenthetical disambiguation (ex Union Station (Chicago), Pennsylvania Station (New York))? --Scott Alter (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with some of those changes. I don't think there is or should be a preference for disambiguation by state. For example, we have College Avenue (Metra) and College Avenue (MBTA station). They both should be "College Avenue station", but I don't think (Illinois) and (Massachusetts) are better ways to distinguish them than (Metra) and (MBTA). Similarly, I think Convention Center Station (DART) and Convention Center Station (Jacksonville Skyway) are better titles than Convention Center Station (Texas) and Convention Center Station (Florida). In other cases, though, the state is better, for instance Jackson station (Michigan) (an Amtrak station) distinguishes the article from the Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi), which is also called "Jackson station" and also serves Amtrak. However, stations that serve multiple systems (whether trains or other things) tend to be better distinguished by city. For instance Chicago Union Station should not be at Union Station (Illinois) even if it were available.

Perhaps there should be a distinction between stations for Amtrak and other nationwide systems (where the state or city is often better), those that only serve one city/metro area (where the city or system is often better) and multimodal stations (where the city is almost always the best option). But I don't think there should be a specific hierarchy, especially as we'll frequently have to disambiguate from stations in other countries and items that aren't train stations at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cúchullain. Strict hierarchy isn't necessarily a good idea, as major city stations are better known for being in a given city than the corresponding state. Again, it would fall into the trap of forcing an article to have a less natural title for the sake of conforming to a convention, which is what we're trying to get away from in the first place.

To that end, the use of natural disambiguators may be better, but the problem with that is for those who use the stations in question the most, those who are in those metro areas, rarely would the form "Chicago Union Station" or "New York Pennsylvania Station" be used. They're most likely to use the name without the city attached at all (and that goes for the media as well as the passengers). Meanwhile, people traveling to the given city would likely just use the city name, and then name the station specifically as one would name any notable landmark building. The form "City Big Station" is really only used in specific comparison to other stations by railfans, and isn't natural enough for an article title. Chicago Union Station should never have been moved to that title, because it isn't called that by the majority of people, and the parenthetical disambiguator is a better choice. oknazevad (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought; I think Cúchullain is also quite correct in noting a distinction between major stations that serve intercity trains and purely local ones that serve commuter systems. In the case of the latter, system is preferable, because that's more likely to be looked up in many ways. Using the Hillsdale Caltrain and New Jersey Transit stations as an example is better than the Passaic ones, because the current NJT Passaic station was also used by the Erie Railroad, so the disambiguator isn't actually all that accurate. oknazevad (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using the system as the primary disambiguation is senseless for readers. Amtrack does have service to Las Vegas, NV, albeit by bus. However the only current station Las Vegas (Amtrak station) is not in Nevada. Primary should be by state unless there is a valid reason to not do that. Not confusing readers is a primary goal! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas, again, I'd tend to agree with you in the case of Amtrak. However, for local systems I don't think that's the case. As I said, I think Convention Center Station (Jacksonville Skyway) is much better disambiguation than Convention Center Station (Florida). For a lot of local systems the city wouldn't even be all that useful as stations may be out in outlying communities that would be less familiar for readers than the system name.

Oknazevad- thanks, I think we're mostly getting to the same page. I don't know enough about Chicago's Union Station to have a strong opinion, however, "Chicago Union Station" does appear to be in relatively wide use (for isntance it gets 492k Google Books hits and appears in any number of local publications). To me it seems to be in common enough use to serve as natural disambiguation; even in Chicago I doubt it would sound off. But that's not always the case, when I was rewriting Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi) I couldn't find any references calling it "Jackson Union Station", so the parentheses was necessary. The decision to chose between natural disambiguation and a parentheses may be better decided on a case by case basis.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to know what system the station is to find it? I'm looking for the Convention Center station, which is more important, the location or the system? Remember that buildings are generally categorized and organized by city and in some cases, even sorted by city in the categories! So if you look at Convention Center Station which probably should be renamed to Convention Center station, here are some observations. Convention Center Station (DART) should be renamed to Dallas Convention Center (some disambiguation maybe) since that is the name of the station. Dallas lets most know where it is so if we need disambiguation DART is fine. Convention Center Station (Jacksonville Skyway), at least this lets people know what the city is so it is probably OK. Las Vegas Convention Center (LV Monorail station) can be simply the Las Vegas Convention Center (station) unless someone makes a case that all of the stations needs to have the system. Convention Center (MAX station) is ambiguous at least 4 areas have MAX systems and most of them also have convention centers, so by city/state is more precise and clearer. Convention Center (VTA), works for disambiguation, but does not identify where the building is so a city or state would address that following the normal building disambiguation used everywhere else. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus has been to add "station" to most articles if it's not in the official title already; that immediately solves most disambiguation issues. When they need further disambiguation (typically from other stations), I agree it can get complicated. For local stations, I just don't think the state does much good. College Avenue station (Illinois) tells me only that the station is somewhere in the very populous state of Illinois. Even using the city can get complicated for systems that serve outlying municipalities, since sometimes those towns are less familiar than the transit system. For instance, College Avenue station (Wheaton, Illinois) would be fine in a pinch, but to me, Metra is far more familiar than the small Chicago suburb of Wheaton. College Avenue station (Metra) is more recognizable to me, and I doubt I'm alone. I don't think any one option is going to be the best in every case.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a station like Beacon, just about everyone simply calls it Beacon. It serves only one service, unlike others on that line that service multiple train companies. So if someone is looking for the train station in Beacon why should they have to know what the name of the rail service is? Beacon station or Beacon (New York station) actually are more informative names and named following the existing guidelines for all other articles. Given that Beacon is still the common name, it should follow naming for all buildings since that is what the readers expect. When two like named stations are in the same area or town, then maybe you need the like to disambiguate by line like discussed in the NYC example above. Which brings up another problem with your naming. Take Poughkeepsie (Metro-North station). How would anyone know from that name that it also services Amtrak? Clearly a name like Poughkeepsie station does not have that problem. Naming should be for an encyclopedia and not a travel guide. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing something here. Both those problems would be immediately solved by moves to Beacon station and Poughkeepsie station, they wouldn't need any additional disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we seem to be in agreement when the station name is unique. The issue is what to use if additional disambiguation is needed. For me the line is the last option to use and you seem to be more inclined to use it early in the process. So Poughkeepsie station and Beacon station (with hat notes for Beacon Hill (Link station) and Beacon Falls (Metro-North station)) work but Las Vegas station and Hillsdale station do not and should be dab pages. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

State-based disambiguation

Jackson, Michigan (Amtrak station) appears to be called "Jackson" (per its lede), so it should be titled Jackson station. Since that title is ambiguous, it should be qualified. Jackson, Michigan station doesn't work well, IMO. I don't think that's a natural disambiguation (that is, I don't think people or reliable sources actually use it), and if they did, it would be the more unwieldy Jackson, Michigan, station. Jackson station (Michigan) would be preferable, to distinguish it from Jackson station (Mississippi), both of which would be listed on a disambiguation page at Jackson station, if neither station was primary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is used should probably align with the ongoing comma discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). older ≠ wiser 12:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Bkonrad said, that depends on the comma discussion ongoing. That said, using "City, State," as a disambiguation is quite natural in American English, and would work fine. Then again, so would the parenthetical. That would be in line with say Pennsylvania Station (New York City) vs Pennsylvania Station (Baltimore), as they are currently done. oknazevad (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems both the current title and "Jackson, Michigan station" are problematic. "Jackson, Michigan station" Amtrak returns only 214 hits on Google, and nothing at all on Google Books or Google News. Similarly, "Jackson, Mississippi station" Amtrak turns up basically nothing. The former is usually known as "Jackson station".[1] The latter is known as "Union Station"[2] or sometimes "Jackson station."[3] The Mississippi issue is even more confused in that it's not just an Amtrak station, though you wouldn't know it from the (uncited) article.

I'd suggest Jackson station (Michigan) would be a better title for the Michigan station, and Union Station (Jackson, Mississippi) (or possibly Jackson Union Station) for the Mississippi station.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NYC versus other systems

Other US systems also use naming conventions similar to the NYC Subway's naming convention of station name (without "station" appended to it), then system name and line name if applicable. So, Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) can be moved to Parkside Avenue (New York City Subway) because this is the only NYC Subway station with this name. The title is still concise, yet it retains the information that this station is on the NYC subway. Church Avenue (New York City Subway), however, is shared by 3 stations, so the current naming method (e.g. Church Avenue (IND Culver Line)) would be fine.

Any thoughts? Epicgenius (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are (a) that the title "Parkside Avenue" indicates the subject is a street -- the title apparently needs to indicate that it's a station; and (b) there is no ambiguity on any of the titles "Parkside Avenue", "Parkside Avenue station", "Parkside Avenue Station", or "Parkside Avenue New York City Subway station", so the parenthetical should not be there (see WP:PRECISION). Note from WP:PRECISION that the title does not need to fully describe all the aspects of the subject that are going to be covered in the article lede (such as that the station is on the NYC subway), but if for whatever reason that information is needed in the title, necessary title information doesn't go in parentheses. Parentheses are for information that isn't necessary in the title but only necessary because of the technical limitations that Wikipedia can't have two articles at the same title. (Titled works whose titles include parentheticals are treated separately.)-- JHunterJ (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with JHunterJ. At least in this case, simply adding "station", as is common in the sources, removes the need for a parentheses entirely. There's simply nothing else to distinguish it from, and there's a whole article under the title to give further information on it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there is a disambiguation for Sox–35th (CTA station), even though Sox–35th does not exist as a separate article. Epicgenius (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no disambiguation. You've pointed out another instance of the problem where there's unnecessary precision in Sox–35th (CTA station), and it should be moved. It lacks the "both" needed for disambiguation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

…so shouldn't it be moved? Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You must have missed the "and it should be moved" clause. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They why hasn't it been moved? Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a riddle? Allow me to make a prediction: at any given instant, there will be some article on Wikipedia that should be moved. The reason it hasn't been moved before is going to be that it was created with the wrong title (or that it was moved to the wrong title, or that the consensus on what the right title should be changed) and no one has yet made that particular incremental improvement to the encyclopedia yet. In no case is the existence of an article at the wrong title a reason not to move a different article to its own correct title. See also WP:OSE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this however the only truly unambiguous titles are "Parkside Avenue station", "Parkside Avenue Station", or "Parkside Avenue New York City Subway station". With these, the last is overly wordy however it makes it very clear what this is and where it is located. Something, that I have argued for in the past. The second is incorrect as it is not named as such. The first is short and accurate and probably what any naming convention for stations should encourage as the default name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use the second, as it is used in many Asian station naming conventions (e.g. "xxx Station"). Also, so I can use the Template:Ja-stalink, like {{Ja-stalink|Parkside Avenue}} for Parkside Avenue Station. Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has come up before. Naming conventions aren't driven by the way templates are coded. Templates are coded (or fixed, if they're miscoded) based on the way the encyclopedia is set up, including its naming conventions. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now we know what you want. However does that follow the established naming conventions? I think not. The one that does is "Parkside Avenue station" adding disambiguation as needed. So the third would be "Parkside Avenue station (New York City Subway)" to follow a convention like this if disambiguation were needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter whether "Station" is capitalised or not? On the station signs, it is always "Parkside Avenue Station" or "Parkside Avenue Subway Station" depending on where you enter/exit the system. So the current title will be fine for now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it matters. We only capitalize if it is a formal name. So if there are sources that show "Parkside Avenue Station" or "Parkside Avenue Subway Station" are the common names, then either of those could well be the common name dictating the article name. The final answer depends on the sources which are going to vary based on individual stations. Note that reading Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) as currently written, there is no indication in the article that station is actually a part of the name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this disagreement is the reason why the Rm should be declined. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's next for this?

What's next for this, or for otherwise ending the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS of naming stations? -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as it's been hammered out, I'd be willing to endorse its implimentation as it stands. oknazevad (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's move this to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) and begin the implementation, one system at a time. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions should probably be reformatted from an inactive/failed proposal to a set index-like page with links to the Polish, UK, and US pages. --Scott Alter (talk) 08:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggesting marking it as a guideline after moving it to the correct namespace and getting some wider feedback. Although there's agreement here this is still a pretty small group of people; I would be concerned about trading one LOCALCONSENSUS for another. I would then suggest moving small sets of articles which are more or less self-contained, taking care to not disrupt associated templates (no, templates don't dictate practice, but there's no time limit either so there's no rush). Articles related to the rail systems in Texas or the Nashville commuter rail line would be good candidates as opposed to anything in the Northeast. Mackensen (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And exactly what has been hammered out? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst the group that has been engaged here, the proposed guidelines at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) seem to be our consensus. Vegaswikian, your previous concerns seem to have been addressed and the current document as written is I believe what you were looking to have. I think Mackensen should move this out of his namespace to possibly obtain a larger audience, and then trial this in a small system as a start. --Scott Alter (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Station naming conventions have again come up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Naming convention for SAS stations. I forgot where this page was located, and had to do some searching. Any comments as to moving this to the Wikipedia namespace as a proposal in its current state? If there is no opposition, I'll move this in a few days. I think this is a good starting point to be used on a smaller (or uncomplicated) system within the US and just needs better visibility. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a clear. well-thought-out explanation with useful examples, worth rolling out more broadly. Reify-tech (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page has now been moved. Any thoughts on a system to try this naming scheme out on? --Scott Alter (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation

I've started a new bulk move request regarding this guideline and the consensus behind it; see Talk:Adrienne Arsht Center (Metromover station)#Requested move 15 December 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuchullain (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 December 2014‎

Another is at Talk:Greenbelt (WMATA station)#Requested move. --BDD (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: That one closed with moves to uppercase Station, even though it was originally supported as a proposal to move to lowercase station, which would probably have been more in line with the new naming conventions. I've asked for a review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station, especially since it's now being cited as a precedent for capitalizing all the Stations, which is contrary to the conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are a lot of RMs going on, all with similar discussions, here's a list of them all:

--Scott Alter (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the list. Those were all proposed with capitalized "Station", but "Station" does not appear to be part of the official or commonly used names of the stations, so they should generally be amend to lowercase I think. See subsection below. If we could work this out here in one place, we could update all the RMs at once, perhaps. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Determining official station name

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Adrienne Arsht Center (Metromover station)#Requested move 15 December_2014 about whether or not "station" should be capitalized in the article title if the word is capitalized on station signage. This issue has not previously been discussed with regards to these guidelines, and needs to be addressed. It has been decided here (above) that capitalizing "Station" is appropriate if the word is part of the official name. But how is the official name determined? Does official signage at the station indicate the official station name? What if official literature does not include the word station after the station names? Does one then presume that "station" is not part of the official name, so "station" should be in lowercase despite signs at the station having it capitalized? Is there previous precedent on Wikipedia for this type of issue? This needs to be clarified and added to the guidelines. --Scott Alter (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signage is a primary source, and scrutinising whether "station" being capitalised on a sign means that "station" is part of the station's proper name is essentially original research. Please go by reliable sources. "Station" should be lowercased unless it is explicitly part of the proper name. The capitalisation done in that move was at the last minute, defied this USSTATION guideline, and was not supported by the majority of participants. Please see the move review. RGloucester — ☎ 03:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just bringing it to everyone's attention, and think the titles should be mostly lowercase - except when part of the official title. In cases of stations, what is a reliable secondary source in determining official titles? I don't think using something put out by the transit agencies (even signage) constitutes WP:OR, but it is a primary source and a reliable source...and that same primary source may conflict with itself in publishing station names differently in different places. Though I admit signage is less reliable than other printed publications from a primary source. So if you move on to secondary sources in determining official names, what if they all conflict with each other? Doing a quick search for adrienne arsht center station does show a good mix of uppercase and lowercase. That's why it might be good to look to the primary source in determining official names. (And yes, I know common names as cited by secondary sources are preferred titles anyway.) My point of bringing this up is for notification purposes and to show the current lack of clarity. Something will need to be added to the guidelines addressing this for future guidance. --Scott Alter (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's right—you're talking about primary sources like using them is ipso facto research, and we're talking about subjects that aren't covered a great deal in secondary sources (Google Books hits are often from travel guides). That said, I do see the capitalization issue as of lesser importance. As I told Dicklyon on my talk page, it seems silly to lowercase when actual names use uppercase, but this is all a good step forward from the mandatory-disambiguation approach of the past. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This aspect of the new USSTATION naming convention has become a big problem. See Talk:Greenbelt_Station#Requested_move where signage was invoked as evidence of a proper name, after the RM had collected support for the lowercase station move; it was closed with uppercase, with few editors looking or noticing, it appears, and is now being cited to support a bunch of other RMs including uppercase Station even though few or no sources list them that way. I have asked for a review of that close at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station. I don't see how these various RMs can proceed until the closder gets back from his holiday break and tells us whether this uppercased close was intentional or inadvertent. Dicklyon (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: Now User:Epicgenius has gone ahead and moved a bunch of station pages, with capitalized "Station", citing the Greenbelt RM as reason, without waiting for the resolution of the case question or the various open RM discussions involving the pages he moved. Mostly likely these will all need to be moved to lowercase "station", since there has been no evidence of offical names including "Station". Dicklyon (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Can an admin revert all the moves I just made, in that case? Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably hold off on any further renaming until all of the current RMs are closed. Another move might make things even more confusing. --Scott Alter (talk) 03:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's an argument to be made for always capitalizing Station. These are proper nouns. Pentagon Station is about a specific transit station that serves the Pentagon. There are several "Pentagon station"s, such as bus stations. We rely on external sources for facts, but we have an in-house MOS for style questions. The first sentence of WP:NCCAPS is "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper noun." And we're definitely talking about proper nouns here. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I could definitely see the merit in that. The current wording was attempting to be broad enough to get a consensus, but determining house style would certainly reduce confusion. They're definitely proper names.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think some are proper names, but others may not be. Sometimes referring to the actual "Station" building with a capital S is proper, while the actual train stop might not be - and I think the WP articles generally refer to the entire stop, rather than just the station building. When there is no clear answer, here's a rule of thumb that might work, going back to signage at the station:

If the word "Station" is not written on the signs, then "Station" is probably not part of the proper name and "station" should be in lowercase.
If the word "Station" is written on some signs, but not others, then it is unlikely that "Station" is part of the proper name and "station" should be in lowercase.
If the word "Station" is written and capitalized on all signs, then "Station" might be part of the proper name and "Station" can be capitalized.
If the word "station" is written on all signs and is in lowercase, then "station" should be in lowercase.

This could be considered WP:SYNTH, but lacking any other sources or ways to distinguish the proper station name, I'm not sure where else to turn. What are you're thoughts on something like this to serve as general style guidelines (which could always be broken)? --Scott Alter (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think "station" should only be capitalized when the name doesn't make sense/is never formally used without it and therefore clearly is part of the proper name or common name. Many stations aren't unique entities ("proper" places) themselves but instead are pieces of the overall rail system they're on (as in "X is the next station") and/or of the place they serve (as in "X's station") and have names that are really descriptions of where they're at ("the station at X").

Regarding "Pentagon Station", "station" is not used on the platform pylon or on WMATA's Web site. Jason McHuff (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it time for a new RFC on USSTATION to see if we really meant it, or are we going to just say that whenever one appends "Station" to a station name that becomes part of a proper name, even if it's not actually part of the official station name, and contrary to typical usage in travel guides that use "station"? A whole bunch of WMATA moves just closed with uppercase Station, with apparently no close look at the question, over the objections of those of us who would prefer to follow what was decided here as the new USSTATION guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of an RFC, maybe this new move discussion will be a place we can reach consensus: Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move 7 February 2015. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking convergence on any broader consensus, I will work on simply fixing to lowercase those that do not include "Station" as part of the name stated in the article. If anyone wants to add "Station" as part of the name, with a source, to any of these, I will have no objection to them moving back to uppercase. And if anyone wants to revert to names used before this new convention was adopted, or change the convention, I will also have no objection to that. My only objection is to see the erroneous implementation of what appeared to be consensus conventions. Anyone want to help fix, in any of these directions? Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I specifically did NOT move any that mentioned "XXX Station" in the lead, but EpicGenius has gone ahead and done more including at least one of those. I appreciate the help, as it's probably right that Station is not part of the name, having been added just to reflect the erroneous article title, but it's more likely to get an argument on that basis, an argument that might be better deferred until we see what people want to do with the simpler cases. Dicklyon (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing these conventions

As a long time Wikipedia editor, the lack of standardized naming conventions for US stations has bothered me for quite a while. I just recently noticed that this page exists, but it doesn't seem to be in practice. Each transit system seems to have its own naming convention style, which is not acceptable under Wikipedia standards. Ideally, we need to start enforcing these conventions, and eliminating the parenthetical disambiguations in each station article name (unless there is an identical station name elsewhere).

Here are some examples I propose:

System	Proposed format	Proposed example	Current example
New York City Subway	XXX subway station (XXX Line) ←if necessary	96th Street subway station (IND Eighth Avenue Line)	96th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line)
New York City Subway	XXX subway station	Parkside Avenue subway station	Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)
Chicago 'L'	XXX 'L' station	Clark/Lake 'L' station	Clark/Lake (CTA station)
Bay Area Rapid Transit	XXX BART station	Fruitvale BART station	Fruitvale (BART station)

How can we go forward to get these naming conventions in place across the board? –Dream out loud (talk) 18:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a standard for what we're going to use for the system portion of the name for other systems? Should it be "'L' station" or "CTA station"? Jason McHuff (talk) 06:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"'L' station" makes more sense than "CTA station", because the CTA is the agency that operates the system, but the system itself is the "'L'". I like the naming conventions of the London Underground stations, such as Tower Hill tube station. I don't know if there is a standard for other systems, but there definitely should be, since I've yet to find one US transit system that is following these naming conventions. –Dream out loud (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "CTA station" makes more sense than "'L' station" because the Chicago Transit Authority isn't the only mass transit system to have L's. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D, see the section above. First steps to implement the new conventions are stalled on apathy and confused by a misguided attempt to interpret words on signs as official names. I don't understand why so many who seemed to care about the conventions are so uninterested in seeing them sensibly implemented. Maybe we should just say they're null and void, and do whatever we want? Or start over and see if people are willing to sign up for conventions that will actually put at least a little effort into implementing? Dicklyon (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These conventions are new, and the implementation/enforcement process is beginning with the move discussions noted in the above section. That is why you have not found any system following them yet. If you read through all of the previous discussions leading up to the creation of these conventions, there has previously been discussion regarding system names. The decision was made to not include them in the article title because multiple systems often serve a station. Placing a system name in the article title implies that the station serves only that one system, but it can be confusing if the article is titled with one system, and mentions that the station serves other systems as well. Additionally, by introducing variability for each system (what the system name should be), this goes against consistency for all US station article titles. Previous discussion formed consensus that the system can be used as a disambiguator, if needed. But in most cases, "X station" is sufficient and not ambiguous. Per WP:AT, article titles should have recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The current format "X (system station)" is not natural, precise, or concise, and is less consistent across all US station articles because of the variability of system. The guidelines format "X station" is natural, precise, concise, and consistent. "X system station" is natural, but is less concise and less consistent across all US station articles. It may provide some more precision, but that is usually not needed, which is why system can be used as a disambiguator to add precision when there are multiple stations with the same name. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that these conventions do not need to be enforced. They are not policy, merely suggestions, and since the titles under the current naming conventions are WP:NOTBROKEN, changing these titles does nothing other than removing parenthetical disambiguators, which are present for east of linking. Epic Genius (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes the titles more natural and more concise, which is one of the reasons this guideline was adopted. Disambiguation should only be appended when necessary, not for the sake of it. These guidelines are being implemented, and Wikipedia will be the better for it. RGloucester — ☎ 00:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the single quote marks on 'L'. WP style normally uses double quote marks when quote marks are needed; and they are common that way in sources, so why not? Dicklyon (talk) 03:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chicago 'L' is conventionally named with single quotes. See the section on the system's nickname. In short, this is not a case where default Wikipedia styling overrules a proper noun. We must accurately use the name for factual correctness. oknazevad (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. The cited sources all use the double quotes, not single. Why are you thinking single is "conventional", if most sources use double? Dicklyon (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a move: Talk:Chicago_'L'#Requested_move_4_March_2015. Dicklyon (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the above suggestions generally mesh with the guideline. According to the current wording, the way to distinguish the above articles would be 96th Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line), Parkside Avenue station (no further disambiguation required), Clark/Lake station (no further disambiguation required), and Fruitvale station (BART) (assuming it's not the primary topic over the film Fruitvale Station). Unless there's evidence that, for example, "Clark/Lake 'L' station" is a more common name than simply "Clark/Lake station", the current guideline better fits Wikipedia's usual disambiguation procedures.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) isn't as significant enough of a station to stand on it's own with that name. Furthermore, we use the parentheses for more than just disambiguation, or at least we did until you started renaming every station article in Florida, and a few beyond. I just had to rename another one of the ones you messed up. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline contradicts policy

WP:USSTATION currently states:

Generally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by "station" if not already part of the name.

What is the justification for adding a word to a title if it's not part of the name and not necessary for disambiguation? This is contrary to policy which states that the common name should be preferred. --В²C ☎ 17:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear that the article is about a station. Omnedon (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think adding the word "station" is "contrary" to WP:AT. Remember that COMMONNAME is not the be-all-and-end-all of entitling an article. It is the mechanism for how we determine what titles will best achieve the criteria of Recognizability and Naturalness. However, there are also other criteria to think about. We have to balance all of these criteria to find the best titles.

Adding "station" to the titles of articles about stations seems to be a simple common sense provision, aimed at ensuring the goal of Precision. In most cases adding it will be necessary for disambiguation... an overwhelming number of rail/commuter stations in the US are named after the towns (or streets) where they are located. Without the word "station", the reader will not know whether the article is about the town/street, or the station that is located in that town or on that street... simply from looking at the title. This is going to happen often enough that the goal of Consistency comes into play... enough station names are going to have to be disambiguated by adding "station" that doing so becomes the norm. The few cases where adding station would be silly (for example, Grand Central Terminal) can be unwritten exceptions that "prove the rule". If there is a good reason not to add "station" in a specific title, we can always reach a consensus to make an exception and not do so... But as a general "rule of thumb", it makes sense to do so.

As for why sources usually do not include the word "station"... remember that in sources, context usually makes it clear whether the source is talking about the town/street or the station... so, in the text of the source the word "station" is often not necessary. Unfortunately, an article title does not convey any context, and so we have to provide it. It isn't that we are ignoring the COMMONNAME... it's more that we are adding an extra word onto the COMMONNAME... in order to achieve better precision. Blueboar (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In virtually every case I've seen, it's already part of the name, or at least needed as natural disambiguation/a neutral descriptive title. The wording is like that on the off chance that in some city they really do call their stations "Foo" instead of "Foo Station" (even in those cases, it would typically be needed for disambiguation). Hence the "generally".--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except the if not already part of the name clause explicitly indicates "station" should be added to the title in such a case, Cuchullain. --В²C ☎ 16:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly: on the off chance that some city calls its train stations "xxx" instead of "xxx station", the station should be added. I doubt there are very many cases like that, however. Clearly if there was a major common name issue it could be handled as the case came up, hence the "generally".--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think we should go back to using the parenthetical disambiguators. That way, the system could be in the article title. Epic Genius (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines specifically allow for using the system for disambiguation. However, one of the various issues with the previous unwritten conventions was that parentheticals were being added to all articles, even when they weren't needed for disambiguation.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a new RFC then?

It seems like we have at least 4 choices:

. Leave the recently decided guideline and try to implement it as stated.
. Roll it back and go back to old titles.
. Modify it say use capitalized Station always, even when it's not part of the station name and is commonly lowercase in books.
. Leave the recently decided guideline but ignore it and do whatever chaotic thing happens.

I can formulate an RFC if people want, or someone else with a more neutral interest in this can do it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Since the previous RfC closed as no consensus, that must mean we need more opinions. In the meantime, I suggest to move all the titles back to what they were before, since the recent moves are breaking links everywhere. Epic Genius (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that needs to be decided is when we should capitalize "Station". This is more a matter of what evidence we should consider as different cities do things differently. In the meantime it's fine to just proceed how we're doing it. Under no circumstances should we go back to the old titles, as they were totally out of step with the guidelines, and rarely had the appropriate redirects and dab pages in place.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, prefer the old, parenthetical naming format because it is always consistent, with the name of the system always appended to the end of the article title instead of to the stations that need to be disambiguated. But if that isn't feasible, I would like the "Station" in the titles of these articles to be capitalized again. Epic Genius (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was only consistent because editors made it that way. The current guideline can be as well, and it has the benefit of not being out of step with the WP:AT policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the only thing we needed to decide was whether to capitalize station, I think the RM would have closed as move to lowercase. But there were a lot of conflicting ideas there that prevented that consensus from emerging. But Epic, moving them back at this point only makes matters worse, in terms of number of editors and guidelines satisfied. So let's work on deciding, not thrashing. Dicklyon (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with any naming convention as long as it is consistent, and not with some articles with uppercase "Station" in the title, others with lowercase "station", and yet others with "(WMATA station)", "(Washington, D.C.)", etc. Epic Genius (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your templates impose a stronger consistency requirement than we usually see. I've never seen that problem before. That is, making article titles work for the simple progammatic manipulation by templates such as your Template:WMATA stations has never been among the WP:CRITERIA for choosing article titles. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all need to do some proper talkin'. Not just system by system nominations for renaming. Recent moves have left us with the awkward Crystal City (Washington Metrorail station) because of the Crystal City (VRE station). With a properly established naming convention, we could simply have Crystal City metro station and Crystal City railroad station, with existing dablinks. A naming convention like that (loosely based on London/England) would allow the same community to have Crystal City bus station, Crystal City monorail station, Crystal City cablecar station, etc. This also removes any regular stations from claiming an upper case "proper name", with the exception of obvious titles like Grand Central Terminal, Union Station and Transit Center named after some political figure. But, if the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, you are all nuts! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Don't keep moving articles around before you fix on a national station naming convention. That just is just childish petulance. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe UK naming conventions do work. Just give it a year or three. Epic Genius (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia style and naming

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should WP:USSTATION be amended? Or should we try to follow its advice per the previous consensus? or neither? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A review of discussion sections above may be useful. The recently enacted station titling guideline hasn't worked out so great between those who don't like it and those who like it but want to capitalize anyway where it says not to. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected link from WP:STATION, the notability essay, to WP:USSTATION, the naming guideline. ansh 666 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More correctly, should the naming convention be changed to "Foo Station", "Foo station", "Foo (Foobar station)", or something else? Epic Genius (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think that station names should end in uppercase "Station", because the "Station" is used as a proper noun here. For example, Greenbelt Station is not properly named Greenbelt; it needs "Station" to clarify that it's a station, and "Greenbelt" is a proper noun. Epic Genius (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. This is not about one station, but is a naming convention to cover every station and every option in the USofA. You say that we need "to clarify that it's a station", which means that the suffixed "station" is a descriptor and not part of the proper name. But! But if the transportation system calls and signs their facility "XXX Station" or "XXX Transit Center", that is a proper name. Unfortunately there is no simple answer. Round and round and round we go. Perhaps "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" might apply here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to every single station that I am talking about, which is the thousands of articles that I will not list here. Epic Genius (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This RFC, as presented, is ambiguous, because it doesn't state that the question is whether Station should be in upper case. Editors shouldn't have to read the tedious talk page archives to know what they are being asked, although it is useful for them, after they know, to read what the background is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I purposely kept it more open than that, since several who objected to fixing the case per the advice of WP:USSTATION did so on the basis of objecting the general naming scheme itself, saying the names should be rolled back before the moves intending to implement WP:USSTATION. Others objected on the basis of wanting to ignore what it says about capitalization, like Epicgenius and Secondarywaltz above; still others want to implement it, and respect its intended consistency with MOS:CAPS. Would you prefer that I make several binary RFCs about this? Or can we just collect comments and see where we are? Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I object to the usage of either of the new naming formats using "Station"/"station". "Station" is the more feasible of the two ideas, but both are still equally pointless. Epic Genius (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, that is not what I said. That was a response to a specific comment. If you look back at my previous comments, which inspired the naming of this discussion, you will see that I support a standard lower case descriptive suffix which "removes any regular stations from claiming an upper case proper name". But the reality is that there will be a large number of editors who are invested in the status quo of using the system name as a suffix. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But you've basically said that if Station appears on a sign, capitalize it, whether it's part of the official name or not. Every sign that identifies a station from the outside is going to capitalize Station, so this nullifies what the guideline says. If you look on the official station lists, or on the platform signs, you find only Union Station includes Station in its name (in the Washington Metro system; see pictures). But you've made us capitalize them all. Do you still not want to fix that and follow WP:USSTATION; should we just revise it then to say to always capitalize? Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines on the capitals were written as they were to accommodate difference in local use: in some cases, the locality may capitalize "Station" (making that its common name) and in others they may not. We need to determine if we'd rather force consistency to one or the other. If not, all we really need to figure out is what types of evidence we accept to make the determination. Signage? Use in local publications? etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. Do you have any examples to illustrate the kind of local variation you're thinking of? And are you saying that a capital on a sign is evidence of proper name status (like Nurse Station, Police Station, Eye Wash Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, and Train Station in these signs)? Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uninvolved editor - so from what I can tell, there are two questions being asked here: 1) should the word "station" be part of the title (outside of the parenthetical disambiguation), and 2) if so, should it be capitalized? Am I parsing the discussion correctly? If so, it would be useful to just write it out plainly like this, and rewrite the guideline to match consensus if necessary once the RfC is resolved. ansh666 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The choices are "Foo Station", "Foo station", "Foo (Foobar station)", or something else. Epic Genius (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's approximately right. The previous consensus for "Foo station" when "station" is not part of the station name seems to be broadly reviled, both by the over-capitalizers and by those who see the word station there as an inappropriate way to do disambiguation. So we should fix it one way or another. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Use "Foo station" in absence of unambiguous reliable sources that "Station" is part of the formal name of the station, as is the case with Union Station (NY), but not Greenbelt station (MD). Per WP:NATURAL policy, do not use parenthetic disambiguation except where necessary, e.g. for "Central station (Transit_system_name_here)". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler questions / concise survey

OK, that was too subtle or complicated or something. Here are two binary questions we can address instead:

Should we (A) keep the recent USSTATION convention to use "Station" or "station" as natural disambiguation, as in Anacostia Station or Anacostia station, or (B) go back to the previous convention of using the system name as part of a parenthetical disambiguator, as in Anacostia (WMATA station)? Or (X) don't care.

Should we (C) interpret capitalized "Station" on a pylon outside a station as meaning that this pylon is a reliable source for the interpretation that the station's official name includes the word "Station", or should we (D) go back to using official station name lists, which for example in the WMATA system show that only "Union Station (WMATA station)" has Station in its name? Or (Y) don't care.

Added after my vote and some of the discussion below: To simplify matters, suppose these opinions have no particular impact on the WMATA naming, which is in a unique mess from having attempted to implement the new USSTATION guidelines. What would you prefer for other systems not yet stirred up?

You may make concise answers, as for example BY or AD or whatever. Or gush (if you are tempted to respond at length about how it doesn't matter, you don't care, it's a waste of time, etc., don't say I didn't give you a quick time-saving way to register that opinion). Of course, I realize some will provide alternatives other than the ones that were obvious to me; they can just spell them out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD. Also, I'd like to apply this to Sacramento RT, MAX Light Rail, MUNI Metro, TECO Line Streetcar System stations. -------User:DanTD (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A[C,Y] USSTATION made a great leap forward in putting mandatory unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation to bed. Do whatever you want with capitalization, but please don't erase this very important progress. --BDD (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BZ In which Z is we should look to independent secondary sources wherever possible, and if such secondary sources are unavailable or conflicting, then give preference to D over C. While I don't in general favor unnecessary disambiguation, if there is systemic consistency, especially where the terms are not particularly obvious, that is preferable to one-off inconsistencies. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A, which is really a non-starter. The old unwritten conventions aren't an acceptable option as they're entirely out of step with WP:AT. Any local naming convention needs to be inline with WP:COMMONNAME and the titles criteria (for instance, we don't add parentheses to titles when it's not needed for disambiguation, per WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE). The capitalization question is really separate; I'm fine either way, so long as we're really looking at what the available reliable sources use rather than just forcing a consistency for the sake of it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NONE OF THE ABOVE. Every case should be considered independently. If natural disambiguation (A) is commonly used in reliable sources for a given station, then go with it, otherwise use parenthetic. But even if you go with parenthetic we should be looking at other uses of that particular name to decide what disambiguator to use to best distinguish from the other uses.
As to the second question, the existence of a sign with the (proper) name of the station is certainly evidence supporting usage of that name. --В²C ☎ 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AC sounds like what you're saying, since writing "station" or "Station" after a station name is very common (for every station name I've looked up at least). Can you explain how capitalization on a sign is evidence of proper name status, in light of such signs as Nurse Station, Eye Wash Station, Police Station, and Fingernail Glamming Station that I showed pictures of? Since signs with common and generic terms are almost always in Title Case when not ALL CAPS, I don't see that as informative in the least. I was wondering if anyone would seriously support option C; now you and BDD (whose change of RM target after consensus for lower case led to the present mess) have. I am baffled. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
B and D. (Also see my comment below.) Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AD – Per my comment below. Nothing is broken. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you say nothing is broken, given that you twice supported my attempts to fix the capitalization that went against the closest thing we ever had to a consensus on the Station vs station question. Let me know if you'd like links to your statements in support of fixing it, or to the original near-consensus for station; or show a link to any place where you think there has ever been a plurality in favor of capitalized Station, which is the current broken state. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said below, the GUIDELINE is not broken. Yes, the community has decided to keep those particular articles at the capitalised titles. That's fine, as it doesn't matter to the reader anyway. The guideline says to consult RS, and the community consultation of RS in the move review and in the second move request resulted in them remaining at the capitalised title. I may well disagree with that assessment for divers reasons, but that has nothing to do with the guidelines themselves. USSTATION guidelines cannot determine what sources are reliable or not. That's outside of the purview of the guidelines, and there is no way that such a change would be acceptable. If there is a question of reliability of certain sources, take it to WP:RS/N. If you want to move the article, file a new RM or a move review. The guidelines functioned as they should've done. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be absurd! Every indication of the community on the case question favors lowercase. The lack of consensus to move, in spite of more favoring lowercase, cannot be taken as a community decision in favor of uppercase, even if it is enough for you to change your own opinion for reasons unfathomable. And don't forget that that in the original RM to implement USSTATION, the response was originally unanimous for lowercase here before the pylon theory came along and BDD corrupted that support and make it go uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were two supports. Scottalter and Cuchullain both supported because of USSTATION, which goes back to the move request in a circular loop in this case... Epic Genius (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. So file a new RM, or a move review. I'll happily support a move. Once again, that has nothing to do with the guidelines themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question is really about whether to follow the guidelines (thank you for suggesting that you support that), or to change them to reflect what people would prefer to do. I'm happy either way, but unless we decide that here, it seems silly to repeat the RM process which has been shown to be so impossible. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines were followed, in the minds of those who supported the capitalisation. According to them, those "stations" are capitalised per what they deem sources. The fact that both you and I deem analysing pictures of station pylons as the worst kind of WP:OR imaginable is irrelevant if others do not support that position. Wikipedia is based on consensus. Again, the problem here isn't the guidelines, which suggest consulting sources to determine whether a station name is a proper name. The problem is that there are conflicting points of view on what is a reliable source, as there are across Wikipedia. I suggest that a new RM be filed, which is the way to remedy this situation. Messing with guidelines will not accomplish anything, as this has nothing to do with the guidelines. A new thread at WP:RS/N might also be useful, as I imagine station pylons would be quickly discredited there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's just crazy talk. There's nothing unreliable about the signs; but it is silly to interpret them as giving an opinion as to what the official station name is. A sign that says "Eye Wash Station" is prefectly reliable for those who want to know whether a funny looking fountain is for washing out eyes or not, but who would suspect it of supporting the opinion that that's a proper name? Nobody would. The existence of the other signs, on the platforms, without station on them, tells one something; the fact that they agree with what's in reliable official station name lists tells you something. The pylons don't mean squat for this issue. BDD half admits it sometimes, and B2C is just being stubborn. So we're almost there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AD. Nothing wrong with the guideline; just follow it. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@73.222.28.191: We are asking about whether to change the guideline. There are good reasons being presented for all of the arguments. Epic Genius (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD (rapid transit & light rail); AD (commuter and innercity rail). But, outside of opposing capitalized "Station" in the vast majority of cases, I can probably live with most outcomes here... --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AD. This guideline is sound and makes sense. It is not rigid and gives flexibility for disambiguation when needed. These guidelines were carefully constructed over years and are consistent with other guidelines. Going back to parenthetical disambiguation for all articles is not needed and goes against WP:AT. Regarding capitalization, using the official station list makes sense. If the official station list does not include "Station", then it is probably not part of the name. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
BD. Seems the most logical and least grammatically offensive solution. I don't have strong opinions on this matter, except that spurious capital letters are evil. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AD. B has WP:AT problems (e.g. WP:NATURAL policy). C is just irrational, and has WP:RS problems. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative formulations and discussion outside the numbered survey on two binary questions

Oppose everything, leave well alone – I see no problem with things as they are, and do not understand the purpose of the RfC. There is nothing wrong with USSTATION. That yours and my personal interpretation of the RS presented in certain cases was not approved by consensus is not a problem with the guideline. Consensus has determined that those should have the uppercase, and that's where they should remain. The guideline is fine, and working as intended. What's more, I find that your attempt at introducing proscriptions into the guidelines as being WP:CREEP, aimed at getting the result that you want certain discussions. We don't determine what sources are and are not reliable here. That must be determined in individual cases at various article talk pages. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit fewer than half of respondents expressed a preference for upper case at the recent RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use interpretation (A) for any systems that have already adopted the convention, and for future instances, use (B) to avoid a naming mess like this—we keep the system name in the title and the title still has "station" in it.
Interpretation (E), which is, entrances aren't necessarily reliable sources because they may be abbreviated. So, we should go by the full station names they use on the map (or the full station names on the entrances), with all abbreviations expanded and without the "Station", et al. disambiguator appended to it; then, we use whatever naming convention is in place for that project. For example, if it's NYC Subway, we use NYC Subway naming conventions, which cover a smaller scope than US naming conventions Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I appreciate your opinion, Epicgenius, I think we have to realise that the present mess was not caused by the guidelines, but by the vehemence of a certain editor. There was no fundamental problem with the articles, whether they were at the capitalised titles or the lowercased titles. Capitalisation, as with all matters on Wikipedia, is subject to consensus in various discussions. It just so happens that in this case consensus resulted in these articles being placed at the capitalised titles. That's fine. There is no problem with that. It's just how the RS were interpreted by certain people. That's how all discussions involving RS occur on Wikipedia. The guidelines say to consult RS, and the consensus was that RS supported the uppercased titles. If a certain editor was not part of the equation, the articles would've likely remained where they were, and a lot of headaches could've been avoided. There is no benefit to modifying the guidelines for his sake, given the mess he's caused. Having two separate systems for different sets of articles defeats the consensus that originally established these guidelines, and makes more of a mess. Let's stick to the programme we have. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that works. In the meantime, we should also not make rash decisions, like mass-moving pages against non-consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester, I'm guessing that you mean me as "a certain editor", even though I had no part in the current titles except to try to get them fixed to agree with sources and guidelines. I am somewhat perplexed at your opposition, given your twice previous support for fixing the capitalization error that was caused by an RM discussion gone awry. I can only interpret your opposition here as opposition to me personally. If anyone can show some other plausible interpretation, I'm all ears. But lacking some other interpretation, I'll have to just ignore it as a change of mind designed to frustrate my attempts to fix the problem. It's only half expected of you; I'm presuming your God told you to do this, as you say with all your edits, so who am I to object? Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, I appreciate how frustrating it must be to deal with people who deny facts and logic and clear evidence. But please be more measured in your posts ("I'm presuming your God told you to do this"). Tony (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Measured"? Seems like you're planning for a war. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Regardless, in those cases, I did support the lowercased titles, and thought that the Greenbelt move was flawed procedurally. However, that was never a problem with the guidelines, but with the specific procedure in that instance. It is also true that others interpreted the sources different. I accept that Wikipedia processes have determined that the uppercase is to be used in those cases, as allowed for my USSTATION. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Epic, I think you're saying BD or BY, at least for systems other than the WMATA one that was the guinea pig that attempted to implement USSTATION. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding your B and D above. Looks like we agree for a change (though why you worked so hard to implement C will never be clear to me). Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2015 (UTCJ

I would like to remind everybody that I think the New York City Subway naming convention should stay as it is. I still remember when Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) was abruptly renamed, and how that completely disrupted everything, and the editor who did so used WP:PRECISION as justification. Besides the arguments I had for keeping it with the NYCS naming convention, there's something else to consider; What makes Parkside Avenue station stand out that it could live on that name alone? It's not Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, or 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, or even South Station in Boston. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the NYC Subway conventions, but why don't you go ahead and add it to the conventions as an exception if that's what it is, per WP:BRD, and see if anyone disagrees; perhaps it's not relevant here, or perhaps it is; I don't know. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous comment, I support (in order) ~~choice B or~~ "(Foo station)", then uppercase "Station", and finally lowercase "station". Epic Genius (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (This would be choice B, then A. I support D throughout. Epic Genius (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You are now saying BC? Before you agreed that BD was your position. Just sayin' ... Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am still saying BD. ~~I support choice D first, then choice C.~~ Epic Genius (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for "clarifying?". Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something is clearly wrong here. I thought BD was simply Foo (Amtrak station)/(Metro-North station)/(Tri-Rail station), etcetera. I see a lot of stations names being changed into something really weird, and in many cases being reverted into vague, dab names right now. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B would be that. The C/D question was intended to apply if we keep the current guideline statement (A), but I suppose C would also suggest titles like "Foo Station (Amtrak station)" or "Foo Station (Amtrak)". Please do say what weird changes you are seeing so we can look at them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly I'm seeing a lot of "Foo station (Amtrak)" and "Foo station (Florida), Foo station (Michigan), etcetera, but on some occasions (to be more specific) I've been seeing "Delray Beach (Tri-Rail station)" converted to "Delray Beach station", even though another "Delray Beach station" exists as Delray Beach Seaboard Air Line Railway Station." While I'm here, I'd also like to remind the rest of you that the Washington Metro stations should be reverted to the name Foo (WMATA station). The use of "Washington Metro" would be better suited for the services of WMATA, such as the Red Line, Blue, Line, Silver Line, Metrobus, and the like. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE -- The "Delray Beach station" issue seems to have been solved. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to follow up on these and see who is doing what, not knowing the bindings of Foo to search for. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to interpret your reminder, either. Did some discussion already decide to revert from the USSTATION guidance on the WMATA stations? Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry. I meant BD, then AD (not BC). Epic Genius (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry my formulation is still too complicated to follow, but if you could go back and strike or correct your previous statements, and try to leave us with your first-choice letter pair and statement of ordered preferences consistent with it, that would be better than yet another confusing contradiction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary / conclusions

It appears that we're 5–5 on the A/B question of whether to use WP:USSTATION or revert to the previous (unwritten) naming conventions for stations (or maybe 6–4 in favor of rolling back the USSTATION guideline and go back to parenthetical system disambiguators, depending on how Epicgenius's next clarification comes out).
There's little to no support for the scheme (AC) with capitalized Station as inflicted on the WMATA titles. A weak support or don't much care from BDD, and feeble statement of caps being OK by B2C.
A clear majority (looks to me like 7 or 8 D of 10) would prefer to go with reliable sources such as official station lists, rather than capitalize per pylons as the current mess does on the WMATA stations.

Does anyone disagree with these summary points?

Would it be reasonable to apply this sentiment to the WMATA article titles, or do we have more than RGloucester and BDD and B2C who want to maintain that the articles based on pylons are NOTBROKEN? If we can agree that they are broken, perhaps we can agree on asking the binary question of whether to fix them by going back to the parenthetical disambiguator and scrapping USSTATION, or fixing the case to lowercase station per USSTATION. I would be willing to abstain on the latter question, if we can agree that's the key point. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could do another question, or a new RFC, with those two WMATA fix options; or a three-way with notbroken as an option; or a four-way that would let me say that either fix is OK by me, but that notbroken is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We could do another !vote or a question about whether or not NOTBROKEN is OK, and whether or not to support one of the three naming conventions being proposed. Personally, I want to move back to the parenthetical disambiguators. Epic Genius (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to policy/guidance, having only 10 people !vote is definitely not enough. Whether you try a new question, or ask the same question... I would suggest that you advertize the hell out of it to get comments from a much wider audience. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking project naming conventions were considerable lighter weight than either policies or guidelines, but I'd sure welcome more input here. Would you be able to help advertise it if you know a good way? Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is more heavily weighted than guidelines because policy must be followed, while guidelines are just suggestions. Epic Genius (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Guidelines are more than "just suggestions". I just noticed that naming conventions are indeed guidelines; that's why following them is generally respected over not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, an RfC on deprecating these guidelines would have to be widely advertised. It would have to have a clear yes or no question, unlike this RfC, and it should take place in a public locale, preferably the WP:VP/P. As far as I can see it, this RfC is merely advisory, positing a direction to go in. It has none of the necessary features to deprecate a community guideline (not a "project" convention). Keep in mind that RfCs run for thirty days. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't actually care about fixing this, do you? You just like tying me up in knots; I get that. But do stop going on about it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related move review now at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_April#2015 April; this could be the valid shortcut around the mess that RG wants to continue to drag me through. Those of you who said "D" can probably see how you might help fix things there. And if you said "C" you should just forget I said anything about it. And if you prefer "B" like me, don't let that dissuade you from helping. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far nobody disagrees with my summary, which suggests a pretty good consensus for lowercase station, and a big division on whether to use USSTATION at all versus roll it back. That's about what I expected, given the comments in the recent Greenbelt Station RM discussion. It doesn't really resolve anything, though, unless people speak up and help resolve it, over the objections of RGloucester, who does his best to keep it from being resolved even though he favors the obvious fix of lowercasing station where it's not part of the station name. He has pilloried me plenty on process issues, and doesn't seem willing to let up or to encourage any way forward. So I guess we're stuck. Dicklyon (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've opened the move review, we need to wait for that to finish. Patience. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. We can continue to collect comments and work on how we want to proceed. This RFC is not about the WMATA articles so much as about the general conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dick, you may want to see WP:DEADLINE. You don't need to file a MR a week after opening an RfC, nor do you need to make 500 moves per month. You don't have any quota to fulfill. Epic Genius (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up if you have nothing useful to say, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think suggesting that we could go slower and more deliberately is useful. However, telling someone to "shut up" isn't very useful (nor helpful). Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But his hypothetical accusations get tedious. Have I ever approached 500 moves per month, or acted like I have a quota to fulfull? No, I have not. Have I opened a move review as an alternative approach to try to get some resolution on the mess here? Yes, I have. Why is he picking on that? He has nothing useful to say, so he should shut up. It seems clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The utility of my comments to you isn't relevant here. Epic Genius (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, you should read WP:NPA, Dick. Epic Genius (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Are you suggesting that I attacked you by suggesting that you shut up? The suggestion still stands. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) bears no resemblance to how articles were actually named. One side dogmatically preaches that text and the other side points out that it has never been done that way. This discussion still remains unfocused, with a shotgun approach to comments, with a wide scatter. Anarchy rules when random moves are made to whatever pleases you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one thing worth remembering is that WP:USSTATION is a "guideline", so it's not as if it has the "force of law" or anything. On my end, I just wish that USSTATION would be revised to something more rational, including not treating urban rail systems and commuter & innercity rail systems the same, because they're not... --IJBall (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline, which means it ought to be followed as much as is reasonable. At any rate, virtually every point is consistent with the WP:AT policy, which can't be said about the unofficial conventions used before. And the guideline doesn't treat everything the same; in fact, there are different, flexible recommendations for different articles and situations.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a way to get anything useful out of Secondarywaltz's "The problem appears to be" comment. Has he no actual opinion to express about which way to move the guidelines, if at all? Does he not understand that his proposal to capitalize based on pylons is what led to the present mess, and he has no desire to help find a way out of it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have started two simple binary RFCs below to see if we can answer either question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I invite you all to advertise it wherever appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone object to a withdrawal or early close of this RFC, in light of the two below? Are those adequate to capture all relevant options and opinions on how to proceed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It appears that we're 5–5 on the A/B question" – That's basically irrelevant, because B violates WP:AT policy. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia style and naming

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the open RFC #RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions above, it appears that half or more of respondents would prefer to roll back the new US station article naming conventions that have been so hard to implement sensibly, and go back to using system name as parenthetical disambiguator. That is, Greenbelt (WMATA station) rather than Greenbelt station as WP:USSTATION recommends or Greenbelt Station as we have now.

Proposition: Roll back the USSTATION guideline; roll back the WMATA station article titles to use parenthetical (WMATA station) as disambiguator. Please SUPPORT or OPPOSE with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ – the old convention of using the system name as disambiguator was better in several ways. It made titles that were recognizable, precise, consistent, and informative; it avoided the invitation to guess wrong about whether station should be capitalized or not; it was pretty stable for a long time. I'm not sure if we had a written set of conventions before, but the new convention does not seem to be well accepted; going back seems better in many ways. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the so-far-unanimouse support for a more sensible interpretation of the USSTATION guideline in the next RFC below, I withdraw my support for rolling it back. Of course, if that second RFC fails, then I'll be back here supporting a rollback. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partially support – what you propose is how I think rapid transit and light rail station articles should be named (there are more of them, or more stations sharing the same name among different RT and LR systems, so the additional disambiguation is needed and desirable); but the "new" (i.e. current) naming scheme in USSTATION – namely "{Something} station" – is how commuter rail and intercity rail stations' naming should be handled (there are fewer of them, and they generally don't need the additional disambiguation...). --IJBall (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What would you do for San Antonio (Caltrain station), my local commuter station? Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That one would probably need the additional disambiguation, to avoid confusion with San Antonio Station in San Antonio – so doing it the first way will be needed even for some intercity, etc. rail stations. But most intercity, etc. rail stations are probably not going to need the extra disambiguation. --IJBall (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: But I think my preferred way to diambiguate that would probably be San Antonio station (Caltrain), as I really prefer "{place} station" as the "base naming format" for commuter and intercity rail stations. --IJBall (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, and either way, there's no way to go back to the previous unofficial conventions. Preemptive disambiguation and failure to use common names for article titles don't jive with the WP:AT policy. "Rolling back" the guideline would just mean going by WP:AT, which is effectively the same thing as the guideline.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This guideline has been needed for years, and now that there is one, it needs to be kept and implemented. Consensus was hard to achieve on it, but after concessions from all involved, this document reflects consensus. (Just look at the previous discussions on this talk page, as well as the 23 linked "previous discussions" at the top of the page.) This guideline is sound and makes sense. It is not rigid and gives flexibility for disambiguation when needed. This guideline was carefully constructed over years and is consistent with other guidelines (WP:AT, WP:DAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:COMMONNAME). Going back to parenthetical disambiguation for all articles is not needed and goes against these policies. Most arguments being made for going back are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and other points at WP:ATA. Plus, there is no guideline to roll back to. This is the first guideline on the topic. The intent was to roll it out system-by-system, and possibly amend the guidelines for larger more complex systems if scenarios came up that were not already addressed. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Scottalter – This guideline is a great move forward, and any reversion would be both idiotic and absurd. One little capitalisation error does not warrant such a catastrophic mess. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose I suspect all of this will cool down with Dicklyon gone, but this would represent a massive step back all over a disagreement on a minor point. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation (not targeted at BDD, this is just a convenient place to insert it, and it's about a broad pattern of multi-editor behavior across many talk pages): I've edited with Dicklyon for years and agree with him about 95% of the time on style and naming matters, and frankly we're both usually right about them. In reading the above, and related/similar discussions on other pages, it's clear to me that certain editors take great delight in baiting Dicklyon and picking verbal fights with him. It's actually difficult to goad him into intemperate, dismissive responses, so when they happen, it's generally because the other parties have worked very hard at procuring such a reaction, probably for the dual purposes of trying to make his arguments look weaker through a roundabout form of the fallacy ad hominem and the argument to emotion fallacy (i.e., "Dicklyon is just a hothead, so we can ignore him"), and of gathering "evidence" to use against him in future proceedings, to make a case of habitual incivility. If you actually look at his long-term contributions here, he's remarkably civil, rational, and patient. His input and the amount of work he goes into sourcing it and providing precise, logical rationales, is a major asset in these deliberations. The "shut up" comment above that someone finally elicited out of him was not only out of character, it was in direct response to ad homimen personal criticism, i.e. argument to the editor not the edits. Given that, I'm going to take the time to formally remind all concerned here of the discretionary sanctions panopticon looming over style and naming discussions on Wikipedia: See WP:ARBATC for details. No one here can pretend later that they don't know that it's essentially verboten to pick personal fights in article title and style debates. I think we've all had way more than enough of that for several lifetimes. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Scottalter, also. I think he covered all the reasons why "rolling back" would not be practical. The conflicts with WP:AT policy in particular are especially important. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the USSTATION capitalization advice be adhered to, using reliable sources for what is an official station name?

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia style and naming

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

In the open RFC #RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions above, it appears that a clear majority of respondents would prefer to not treat the appearance of "Station" on a pylon or station sign as a reliable indication that "Station" is a part of the official station name. That is, Greenbelt station would be the advice of WP:USSTATION, since in official station lists (and platform signs) the station name is "Greenbelt", not "Greenbelt Station".

Proposition: Treat the USSTATION guideline on capitalization literally, only capitalizing station when a reliable source shows that it is part of the official station name; default to using offical station name lists for this purpose, except where better sources can be found. Please SUPPORT or OPPOSE with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The current advice of USSTATION makes sense, had consensus when enacted, and is consistent with the advice of MOS:CAPS to avoid unnecessary capitalization. Capitalizing Station in Greenbelt Station sends the message that Station is part of the official station name, which it is not, according to official lists (and [4]) and unofficial sources such as Frommers, Elliott, for Dummies, Brown&Dickey, ACRP, signs on platforms, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose... Support. In general, it should be lowercase "station", unless significant sourcing can show that the word "station" should be capitalized (which will likely be the case for a lot of the "Union Stations" around the U.S.). --IJBall (talk) 05:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Union Station is the only one in the WMATA list that includes the word Station in its name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From time to time, I've actually considered merging Union Station (WMATA station) into Union Station (Washington, D.C.), and the issue over the naming convention seems to be the best reason for doing so at this point. However, that proposal has been shot down in the past, because many in the DC area don't see it as being one in the same, as seen in this discussion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support because the reliable source shows that "Station" is a proper noun in this case. Epic Genius (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this – what "source" shows that this station should have "Station" capitalized. (If we're talking a pylon sign, I agree with Dick that that's probably "not enough"...). --IJBall (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where "Station" is mentioned on the system's website, etc. (not WMATA), that would be a reliable source. Epic Genius (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an example? What about with the WMATA stations that have been the subject of so much confusion? Do you agree that "Union Station" is the only WMATA one with "Station" in its name, per the official station lists, or are you suggesting that maybe there's a web page somewhere that overrides this by mentioning "Station", perhaps even in a title or heading or something that would be conventionally capitalized like a sign is? Or would you want to invoke something like this page as supporting capitalized "Greenbelt Station"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you revert to the parenthetical disambiguator naming convention, if you think that? Why do you have to incessantly persist on not using parentheses or the system name in the title? What is the point of that? Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a nonsequitur. Did you mean to address someone else and just misplaced your response? I had just asked you to clarify what you meant by "mentioned on the system's website" and where you stand on the WMATA system. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reliable sources should be used in determining the official names, as well as for capitalization. Published lists from the transit agencies should be considered reliable sources. Signage alone should not be considered reliable when determining official station name. This clarification should be explicitly added to the guidelines to prevent future confusion again. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; if this passes, I suggest we add something to that effect. Can you draft a sentence and clause and present it in a section below, or per WP:BRD go ahead and add it and see if anyone disagrees? Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly. This is all that really needs deciding here: what kind of sources should be accepted for capitalization. "Official" use shouldn't trump third-party sources, but will do in a pinch. In cases where both capitalizations are used in the sources, it may be worthwhile to specify which should normally be used.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's already specified in MOS:CAPS; we default to avoiding unnecessary capitalization, and always have; nothing in USSTATION suggests to change that, right? Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – based on all three of these RFCs, it looks like there should be no problem recognizing a consensus to fix the WMATA station titles to lowercase "station"; am I wrong? Every way I've tried to do that before has led to failure (though there's a move review open at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015 April#Greenbelt Station where people can support my recommendation if they think I've read this right). Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like that is the consensus, though you should let the RfC run for 30 days, until May 7, to implement said consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support, obviously. The idea that capitalization on signs is somehow a reliable source for anything is nonsense. Many signs capitalize everything: "Stay Behind Yellow Line", etc. It's just "signese". It's also a variant of the WP:Specialist style fallacy, closely related to the equally silly idea that everything some government document or label capitalizes is a proper name. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 408: / Line 408: @@
 *'''Oppose per Scottalter''' – This guideline is a great move forward, and any reversion would be both idiotic and absurd. One little capitalisation error does not warrant such a catastrophic mess. [[User:RGloucester|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:12pt;color:#000000">RGloucester </span>]] — [[User talk:RGloucester|☎]] 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Strong oppose''' I suspect all of this will cool down with Dicklyon gone, but this would represent a massive step back all over a disagreement on a minor point. --[[User:BDD|BDD]] ([[User talk:BDD|talk]]) 13:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
+**'''Observation''' (not targeted at BDD, this is just a convenient place to insert it, and it's about a broad pattern of multi-editor behavior across many talk pages): I've edited with Dicklyon for years and agree with him about 95% of the time on style and naming matters, and frankly we're both usually right about them. In reading the above, and related/similar discussions on other pages, it's clear to me that certain editors take great delight in baiting Dicklyon and picking verbal fights with him.  It's actually {{em|difficult}} to goad him into intemperate, dismissive responses, so when they happen, it's generally because the other parties have worked very hard at procuring such a reaction, probably for the dual purposes of trying to make his arguments look weaker through a roundabout form of the fallacy ''[[ad hominem]]'' and the [[argument to emotion]] fallacy (i.e., "Dicklyon is just a hothead, so we can ignore him"), and of gathering "evidence" to use against him in future proceedings, to make a case of habitual incivility.  If you actually look at his long-term contributions here, he's remarkably civil, rational, and patient. His input and the amount of work he goes into sourcing it and providing precise, logical rationales, is a major asset in these deliberations.  The "shut up" comment above that someone finally elicited out of him was not only out of character, it was in direct response to ''ad homimen'' personal criticism, i.e. argument to the editor not the edits.  Given that, I'm going to take the time to formally remind all concerned here of the discretionary sanctions panopticon looming over style and naming discussions on Wikipedia: See [[WP:ARBATC]] for details.  No one here can pretend later that they don't know that it's essentially ''verboten'' to pick personal fights in article title and style debates. I think we've all had way more than enough of that for several lifetimes. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 *'''Oppose per Scottalter''', also. I think he covered all the reasons why "rolling back" would not be practical. The conflicts with [[WP:AT]] policy in particular are especially important. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''' ☺]] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼ </span> 14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)