Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 1

< Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)
Latest comment: 9 years ago by DanTD in topic State-based disambiguation
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Current discussion

Latest comment: 10 years ago26 comments8 people in discussion

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

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)

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)

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)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

NYC versus other systems

Latest comment: 10 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
…so shouldn't it be moved? Epicgenius (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You must have missed the "and it should be moved" clause. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
They why hasn't it been moved? Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
And this disagreement is the reason why the Rm should be declined. Epicgenius (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

What's next for this?

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

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

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

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Implementation

Latest comment: 9 years ago20 comments7 people in discussion

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

Apologies. Can an admin revert all the moves I just made, in that case? Epicgenius (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
 
We use Newark Broad Street station as an example, in the new WP:USSTATION naming conventions, of lowercase station when "station" is not part of the official name. Are we going to let signs like this override lists of official station names? Or just acknowledge that when one adds "station" to a sign one typically capitalizes it?
 
Station platforms use just the station name, without adding "Station", like here at McLean station.
 
Here's another typical platform sign, at Potomac Ave station.

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)

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)

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)
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)

This guideline contradicts policy

Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

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)

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

Do we need a new RFC then?

It seems like we have at least 4 choices:

  1. . Leave the recently decided guideline and try to implement it as stated.
  2. . Roll it back and go back to old titles.
  3. . Modify it say use capitalized Station always, even when it's not part of the station name and is commonly lowercase in books.
  4. . 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)

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

Enforcing these conventions

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

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)
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)

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)
"'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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)

State-based disambiguation

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
This is all wrong, just like the rest of your renaming crusade. This note in the "examples" chapter is one of the reasons why:

Burlington Stations in Nebraska are capitalized, as they are named for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad; whereas Burlington stations in Iowa and North Carolina are not capitalized, as they are named after the town the train stops in.

It's precisely because of this, that the previous naming convention should've been left alone. The "Burlington Station" in North Carolina has nothing to do with the CB&Q. With Iowa, it's a mix of both. And that's only a single example of why your knee-jerk anti-parentheses crusade is wrong. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)/Archive_1&oldid=711832120"