This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
What you have been doing is manipulating
WP:USSTATION so that systems within the names of the articles are practically illegal. Considering the true nature of railroad stations within the United States, with a few exceptions, this is an extremely troubling move on your part. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved. This discussion has been around for ages, and nobody seems to be closing it, so I'm going to be
WP:BOLD here and call the consensus for the moves. There's a lot of opposition, certainly, but I don't see a compelling reason as to why
WP:USSTATION should not apply to these stations. Arguments that other former or future stations that don't have articles can be considered primary alongside existing currently used stations don't really cut it with me. Write the article and then have the debate, I'd say. And editor convenience when making links is not a valid reason either. Note that I'm moving the articles as suggested below - if any of these are not the best title per
WP:USSTATION, please advise me on my talk page. One move (Edgewood) will require admin assistance, which I will request. Thanks. (
non-admin closure) —
Amakuru (
talk)
18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)reply
– For
WP:USSTATION consistency, as mentioned above. WP:USSTATION is currently being implemented in parts, with a haphazard naming structure. Also, the new names are shorter and more direct. (The disambiguator "MARC" can be replaced by "Maryland" if needed.)
epicgenius (
talk)
20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose: this is a senseless move. It turns one consistent naming style into two. That means that every time I want to link to one of these stations, I have to look up what the name is, rather than knowing that '(MARC station)' is always the right postfix. It makes the backend templates for s-rail and other functional templates more difficult to understand for editors trying to start working with them. It requires a great deal of technical work to fix all the double redirects and other issues after. It breaks the match with category names on Commons (where USSTATIONS is not policy, and where parenthetical disambiguation is commonly necessary due to former stations of the same name / same site having separate categories but not separate articles). It will require many of these pages to be moved in the future: Seabrook, Edgewood, and several others are also the names of former stations in other states that will have articles at some point. Seabrook also fails the principle of least surprise: most users searching for 'Seabrook station' are looking for
Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and not the MARC station. So this move creates a host of issues for editors for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to editors or readers.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
20:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
This is the last comment, I promise. The links will be updated in {{MARC stations}} as well. Notwithstanding that, redirects are cheap, and anyway, links can be updated in the templates as well.
epicgenius (
talk)
21:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose; per
Pi.1415926535. Additionally, there used to be notable distinctions between each type of station. Those who are championing the current renaming campaign would acknowledge that the use of the system names are unnecessary disambiguations. I disagree, at least about the lack of necessity. The people who have been using USSTATIONS to justify the elimination of systems from the station names have overlooked the portions that justify the use of such a naming convention. And while
epicgenius's use of "(MARC)" as a suffix seems reasonable, there's still the issue of using such parentheticals for other features, structures, etcetera that such a suffix would be better suited for. Back in 2011 many editors tried to standardize CTA station name parenthetical with other rapid transit systems' station name parentheticals, and did the same to Metra stations in 2014. Now all this is being obliterated. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
"railway station" is the
UK naming convention. My understanding is that it is not a term generally used in US English, so I do not believe that title would need to be disambiguated further. I agree that the MARC station title should be disambiguated. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
09:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is still used in US English, and a UK person discussing a US station would use UK English to describe it, so is still ambiguous. Besides that, people from non-UK non-US places also use English, which would use this form for both stations. The nomination was updated to add "(MARC) to Muirkirk in this nomination, so that solves the immediate problem in this nomination. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
07:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Edgewood, Barnesville, Point of Rocks, and Germatown are fixed. Dickerson, Dorsey, and Matin State Airport are all
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but still fixed. Muikirk can be dealt with using a hatnote. Paris's Saint-Denis is different and unlikely to be confused. I fixed all of these.
epicgenius (
talk)
13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, I un-fixed Barnesville because of PRIMARYTOPIC. The former depot is not as notable. Also Dorsey, because the one in Arizona can be disambiguated by saying "Dorsey Lane and Apache Boulevard station", and redirects serve editors, not readers. Finally, while I didn't unfix Muikirk, that term is not at all ambiguous, though if you wanted to, it's "Muirkirk (Scotland) railway station" per
WP:UKSTATION.
epicgenius (
talk)
13:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Just because it's not active, doesn't mean it's not notable. In the past I've actually found
Barnesville (MARC station) incorrectly redirecting to
Barnesville Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Depot. They're both stations on B&O lines, but in two different states. But if somebody specifically wants to look up the historic station in Ohio, they shouldn't have anything put in their way because you or somebody else doesn't find it notable. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
15:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Any "PRIMARYTOPIC" renames should be removed from this nomination, since this is a bulk rename, and cannot discuss PTOPIC issues clearly. Each PTOPIC rename should be a separate nomination, since each PTOPIC is an individual issue, and has nothing to do with other rename. Either, we rename these things in bulk and be completely disambiguous, or the ambiguous renames should be removed for PTOPIC discussions, instead of being lost in the mass of nominated pages. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
07:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Continuing on this IP editor's theme: thus far I've found evidence for the existence for former train stations in towns named Barnesville, Boyds, Edgewood, Frederick, Germantown, Jessup, Laurel, Riverdale, Savage, and Seabrook, plus non-train stations of various types in Dickerson, Point of Rocks, and Seabrook. Per repeated discussions at WP:TRAINS and deletion discussions, with sufficient research enough source material can be found to establish notability for any mainline railroad station, which means every single one of those is a viable (and in some cases very likely) future article. That means over half these articles require a parenthetical disambiguation anyway, many of which will be longer than the current system would impose! The entire goal of USSTATIONS is supposedly to simplify names, yet this is making it vastly more complicated.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support generally per nom, Cuchullain, and sitewide consensus already established through USSTATION RfCs. Exceptions can be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would suggest disambiguation by system (i.e., "X station (MARC)") for the titles noted by an IP editor above. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
09:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I changed them all to (MARC) because so many were easily confused with existing "station"s of other sorts in MD. It doesn't matter; the suffix could either be "Maryland" or "MARC".
epicgenius (
talk)
13:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Normal sane non-geek Wikipedia users cannot tell the difference between the format "Edgewood (MARC station)" and "Edgewood station (MARC)". Most people in the real world will wonder what all the fuss is about.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - So who's deciding the primary topic here. You? Me? Whoever wants to use Wikipedia? Just because you may want to look up Edgewood (MARC station), doesn't mean there isn't somebody else who might be interested in the former
Edgewood (U&D station), or the former
Edgewood (LIRR station). Both of those are in New York State, which further proves how stupid this renaming campaign is. You just pulled the same crap with
North Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Rail station) tonight, and you're basing your primary topic argument on popularity! ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
04:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe all the objections raised above can be met. First, USSTATION is a guideline, which is more than you can say for TWP's previous parenthetical disambiguation practices, which were a form of local consensus and directly contrary to site policy. Second, in almost all cases current train stations will be more important than disused stations. Any exceptions can be addressed individually. Third, the use of service disambiguation was always dubious and ran into problems whenever two services used the same station. We should stop using it wherever possible, and I would favor using state disambiguation instead of service disambiguation. Fourth, Commons categories are a nightmarish mess regardless and category redirects are cheap. This is a problem with a solution and not a basis for objection. Fifth, I have some specific comments:
Laurel (MARC station) →
Laurel station (Maryland). USSTATION says we disambiguate by state first, and service as last resort. If, pacePi.1415926535 (
talk·contribs), we come to write articles about additional stations which could have that name, there are rules in place for disambiguating further. Service disambiguation should be the last resort.
I just discovered another flaw in the manipulation of USSTATION to eliminate services;
Cumberland, Maryland. It has an Amtrak (formerly B&O) station that was recently renamed, and a Western Maryland station used for the
Western Maryland Scenic Railroad. You want to use PRIMARYTOPIC (aka popularity) to justify renaming it? What if the Cumberland WM station suddenly started getting more hits? Technically, that would mean the WM station should be renamed, and the old B&O used by Amtrak should be left alone. The trouble is "Cumberland station" or "Cumberland station (Maryland)" isn't the correct name of that one either. BTW, the Maryland Historic Trust calls the
Point of Rocks (MARC station) "
Point of Rocks Railroad Station, and "Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Station." ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
05:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
All the stations whose proposed names have conflicting uses should all be removed from this bulk nomination and renominated separately. If the revised proposed name is no longer conflicted (ambiguous), then they can stay here. We should not be having PTOPIC discussions as part of a bulk nomination since every PTOPIC has different issues to contend with. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
09:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DanTD: Cumberland, not having MARC service, isn't within the scope of this discussion. If you have a problem with the USSTATION guideline, which was drafted over many years with project-wide participation, then your should start a discussion at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations). Anyways, this isn't hard. Assuming the Amtrak station is the primary topic, which seems logical,
Western Maryland Railway Station (Cumberland, Maryland) could either stay where it is, or move to
Cumberland station (Western Maryland Railway). As an aside, I think the latter serves the reader better. I don't personally put much weight in the names historical societies give to stations inasmuch as they're not rooted in what a station was actually called during its lifetime--they're named for identification purposes. We could hardly start calling all the stations in Maryland the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Station (city), could we?
Mackensen(talk)14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think your example actually proves my point. I don't recall any discussion of the name of the Marshall station. The primary discussion revolved around merging the articles, and we all agreed that having two articles made no sense (there were similar discussions regarding Fort Worth and Deerfield, Florida). Even then, the article can't agree on whether it is the Texas and Pacific Railroad Depot, the Texas and Pacific Railway Depot, the Texas & Pacific Railway Museum, or the Texas and Pacific Railway Depot & Museum. Further, the in-article bolding suggests a belief that the Amtrak station as presently used is in fact still simply Marshall. I suspect anyone looking for information about the Amtrak station in Marshall will start with Marshall, not a previous defunct owner. This is why we have naming conventions which aren't dependent on the parochial concerns of historical societies.
Marshall station or
Marshall station (Texas) (to avoid an actual collision with
Marshall Station, California) would avoid all these problems, while having no affect on the ability of the article to deliver the relevant information about both the station and the museum. This is getting us somewhat far away from Maryland.
Mackensen(talk)16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – And this is why I hate the current
WP:USSTATION guideline: it's a good idea for intercity rail stations naming, but an absolutely awful guideline for rapid transit and light right systems stations naming. Needless to say, I oppose these blanket moves, for all the good it'll do... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 02:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)(Oops. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC))}reply
The thing is, these articles are all about intercity stations; they certainly aren't light rail nor rapid transit. Treating commuter rail separately is what got us into trouble in the first place.
Mackensen(talk)03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, crud, you're right – I got confused between MARC commuter rail and Baltimore Light Rail for a second: I'll strike the above comment. On this general question, I'll simply remain neutral. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Pi, as this would make things a lot harder to link back to and go against the standard naming procedures in the American naming system. I thought the examples I dealt with on the Phoenix rail were bad, but I think this takes the cake.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Edgewood station (MARC). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
What you have been doing is manipulating
WP:USSTATION so that systems within the names of the articles are practically illegal. Considering the true nature of railroad stations within the United States, with a few exceptions, this is an extremely troubling move on your part. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Moved. This discussion has been around for ages, and nobody seems to be closing it, so I'm going to be
WP:BOLD here and call the consensus for the moves. There's a lot of opposition, certainly, but I don't see a compelling reason as to why
WP:USSTATION should not apply to these stations. Arguments that other former or future stations that don't have articles can be considered primary alongside existing currently used stations don't really cut it with me. Write the article and then have the debate, I'd say. And editor convenience when making links is not a valid reason either. Note that I'm moving the articles as suggested below - if any of these are not the best title per
WP:USSTATION, please advise me on my talk page. One move (Edgewood) will require admin assistance, which I will request. Thanks. (
non-admin closure) —
Amakuru (
talk)
18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)reply
– For
WP:USSTATION consistency, as mentioned above. WP:USSTATION is currently being implemented in parts, with a haphazard naming structure. Also, the new names are shorter and more direct. (The disambiguator "MARC" can be replaced by "Maryland" if needed.)
epicgenius (
talk)
20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose: this is a senseless move. It turns one consistent naming style into two. That means that every time I want to link to one of these stations, I have to look up what the name is, rather than knowing that '(MARC station)' is always the right postfix. It makes the backend templates for s-rail and other functional templates more difficult to understand for editors trying to start working with them. It requires a great deal of technical work to fix all the double redirects and other issues after. It breaks the match with category names on Commons (where USSTATIONS is not policy, and where parenthetical disambiguation is commonly necessary due to former stations of the same name / same site having separate categories but not separate articles). It will require many of these pages to be moved in the future: Seabrook, Edgewood, and several others are also the names of former stations in other states that will have articles at some point. Seabrook also fails the principle of least surprise: most users searching for 'Seabrook station' are looking for
Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and not the MARC station. So this move creates a host of issues for editors for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to editors or readers.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
20:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
This is the last comment, I promise. The links will be updated in {{MARC stations}} as well. Notwithstanding that, redirects are cheap, and anyway, links can be updated in the templates as well.
epicgenius (
talk)
21:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose; per
Pi.1415926535. Additionally, there used to be notable distinctions between each type of station. Those who are championing the current renaming campaign would acknowledge that the use of the system names are unnecessary disambiguations. I disagree, at least about the lack of necessity. The people who have been using USSTATIONS to justify the elimination of systems from the station names have overlooked the portions that justify the use of such a naming convention. And while
epicgenius's use of "(MARC)" as a suffix seems reasonable, there's still the issue of using such parentheticals for other features, structures, etcetera that such a suffix would be better suited for. Back in 2011 many editors tried to standardize CTA station name parenthetical with other rapid transit systems' station name parentheticals, and did the same to Metra stations in 2014. Now all this is being obliterated. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
"railway station" is the
UK naming convention. My understanding is that it is not a term generally used in US English, so I do not believe that title would need to be disambiguated further. I agree that the MARC station title should be disambiguated. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
09:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
It is still used in US English, and a UK person discussing a US station would use UK English to describe it, so is still ambiguous. Besides that, people from non-UK non-US places also use English, which would use this form for both stations. The nomination was updated to add "(MARC) to Muirkirk in this nomination, so that solves the immediate problem in this nomination. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
07:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Edgewood, Barnesville, Point of Rocks, and Germatown are fixed. Dickerson, Dorsey, and Matin State Airport are all
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but still fixed. Muikirk can be dealt with using a hatnote. Paris's Saint-Denis is different and unlikely to be confused. I fixed all of these.
epicgenius (
talk)
13:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Actually, I un-fixed Barnesville because of PRIMARYTOPIC. The former depot is not as notable. Also Dorsey, because the one in Arizona can be disambiguated by saying "Dorsey Lane and Apache Boulevard station", and redirects serve editors, not readers. Finally, while I didn't unfix Muikirk, that term is not at all ambiguous, though if you wanted to, it's "Muirkirk (Scotland) railway station" per
WP:UKSTATION.
epicgenius (
talk)
13:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Just because it's not active, doesn't mean it's not notable. In the past I've actually found
Barnesville (MARC station) incorrectly redirecting to
Barnesville Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Depot. They're both stations on B&O lines, but in two different states. But if somebody specifically wants to look up the historic station in Ohio, they shouldn't have anything put in their way because you or somebody else doesn't find it notable. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
15:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Any "PRIMARYTOPIC" renames should be removed from this nomination, since this is a bulk rename, and cannot discuss PTOPIC issues clearly. Each PTOPIC rename should be a separate nomination, since each PTOPIC is an individual issue, and has nothing to do with other rename. Either, we rename these things in bulk and be completely disambiguous, or the ambiguous renames should be removed for PTOPIC discussions, instead of being lost in the mass of nominated pages. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
07:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Continuing on this IP editor's theme: thus far I've found evidence for the existence for former train stations in towns named Barnesville, Boyds, Edgewood, Frederick, Germantown, Jessup, Laurel, Riverdale, Savage, and Seabrook, plus non-train stations of various types in Dickerson, Point of Rocks, and Seabrook. Per repeated discussions at WP:TRAINS and deletion discussions, with sufficient research enough source material can be found to establish notability for any mainline railroad station, which means every single one of those is a viable (and in some cases very likely) future article. That means over half these articles require a parenthetical disambiguation anyway, many of which will be longer than the current system would impose! The entire goal of USSTATIONS is supposedly to simplify names, yet this is making it vastly more complicated.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support generally per nom, Cuchullain, and sitewide consensus already established through USSTATION RfCs. Exceptions can be dealt with on a case by case basis. I would suggest disambiguation by system (i.e., "X station (MARC)") for the titles noted by an IP editor above. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
09:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I changed them all to (MARC) because so many were easily confused with existing "station"s of other sorts in MD. It doesn't matter; the suffix could either be "Maryland" or "MARC".
epicgenius (
talk)
13:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Normal sane non-geek Wikipedia users cannot tell the difference between the format "Edgewood (MARC station)" and "Edgewood station (MARC)". Most people in the real world will wonder what all the fuss is about.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
16:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - So who's deciding the primary topic here. You? Me? Whoever wants to use Wikipedia? Just because you may want to look up Edgewood (MARC station), doesn't mean there isn't somebody else who might be interested in the former
Edgewood (U&D station), or the former
Edgewood (LIRR station). Both of those are in New York State, which further proves how stupid this renaming campaign is. You just pulled the same crap with
North Philadelphia (SEPTA Regional Rail station) tonight, and you're basing your primary topic argument on popularity! ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
04:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Support. I believe all the objections raised above can be met. First, USSTATION is a guideline, which is more than you can say for TWP's previous parenthetical disambiguation practices, which were a form of local consensus and directly contrary to site policy. Second, in almost all cases current train stations will be more important than disused stations. Any exceptions can be addressed individually. Third, the use of service disambiguation was always dubious and ran into problems whenever two services used the same station. We should stop using it wherever possible, and I would favor using state disambiguation instead of service disambiguation. Fourth, Commons categories are a nightmarish mess regardless and category redirects are cheap. This is a problem with a solution and not a basis for objection. Fifth, I have some specific comments:
Laurel (MARC station) →
Laurel station (Maryland). USSTATION says we disambiguate by state first, and service as last resort. If, pacePi.1415926535 (
talk·contribs), we come to write articles about additional stations which could have that name, there are rules in place for disambiguating further. Service disambiguation should be the last resort.
I just discovered another flaw in the manipulation of USSTATION to eliminate services;
Cumberland, Maryland. It has an Amtrak (formerly B&O) station that was recently renamed, and a Western Maryland station used for the
Western Maryland Scenic Railroad. You want to use PRIMARYTOPIC (aka popularity) to justify renaming it? What if the Cumberland WM station suddenly started getting more hits? Technically, that would mean the WM station should be renamed, and the old B&O used by Amtrak should be left alone. The trouble is "Cumberland station" or "Cumberland station (Maryland)" isn't the correct name of that one either. BTW, the Maryland Historic Trust calls the
Point of Rocks (MARC station) "
Point of Rocks Railroad Station, and "Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Station." ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
05:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
All the stations whose proposed names have conflicting uses should all be removed from this bulk nomination and renominated separately. If the revised proposed name is no longer conflicted (ambiguous), then they can stay here. We should not be having PTOPIC discussions as part of a bulk nomination since every PTOPIC has different issues to contend with. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
09:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DanTD: Cumberland, not having MARC service, isn't within the scope of this discussion. If you have a problem with the USSTATION guideline, which was drafted over many years with project-wide participation, then your should start a discussion at
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations). Anyways, this isn't hard. Assuming the Amtrak station is the primary topic, which seems logical,
Western Maryland Railway Station (Cumberland, Maryland) could either stay where it is, or move to
Cumberland station (Western Maryland Railway). As an aside, I think the latter serves the reader better. I don't personally put much weight in the names historical societies give to stations inasmuch as they're not rooted in what a station was actually called during its lifetime--they're named for identification purposes. We could hardly start calling all the stations in Maryland the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Station (city), could we?
Mackensen(talk)14:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think your example actually proves my point. I don't recall any discussion of the name of the Marshall station. The primary discussion revolved around merging the articles, and we all agreed that having two articles made no sense (there were similar discussions regarding Fort Worth and Deerfield, Florida). Even then, the article can't agree on whether it is the Texas and Pacific Railroad Depot, the Texas and Pacific Railway Depot, the Texas & Pacific Railway Museum, or the Texas and Pacific Railway Depot & Museum. Further, the in-article bolding suggests a belief that the Amtrak station as presently used is in fact still simply Marshall. I suspect anyone looking for information about the Amtrak station in Marshall will start with Marshall, not a previous defunct owner. This is why we have naming conventions which aren't dependent on the parochial concerns of historical societies.
Marshall station or
Marshall station (Texas) (to avoid an actual collision with
Marshall Station, California) would avoid all these problems, while having no affect on the ability of the article to deliver the relevant information about both the station and the museum. This is getting us somewhat far away from Maryland.
Mackensen(talk)16:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – And this is why I hate the current
WP:USSTATION guideline: it's a good idea for intercity rail stations naming, but an absolutely awful guideline for rapid transit and light right systems stations naming. Needless to say, I oppose these blanket moves, for all the good it'll do... --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 02:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)(Oops. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC))}reply
The thing is, these articles are all about intercity stations; they certainly aren't light rail nor rapid transit. Treating commuter rail separately is what got us into trouble in the first place.
Mackensen(talk)03:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, crud, you're right – I got confused between MARC commuter rail and Baltimore Light Rail for a second: I'll strike the above comment. On this general question, I'll simply remain neutral. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk)
04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Pi, as this would make things a lot harder to link back to and go against the standard naming procedures in the American naming system. I thought the examples I dealt with on the Phoenix rail were bad, but I think this takes the cake.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk)
17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on
Edgewood station (MARC). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.