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 part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Consensus has already been established in the USSTATION RfCs. If you have an objection to the convention, you should open a discussion there. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
02:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
OK. The naming convention for these stations is "Name (NJT station)" whereas the naming convention in
WP:USSTATION would simply be "Name station", with state or other disambiguation as required. As I see it, since NJT usage predates the current consensus, if you want to change from one to the other you must change them all. The entire system. Not just a random choice. I think that would require discussion.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with moving them one at a time. In fact it's inevitable when dealing with ambiguous stations that are often not near each other, as with the
Orange stations. However, now that it's been brought up it a bulk RM should probably be the way to handle it. To be fair, it does appear that the New York City Subway WikiProject does have written conventions, but I don't know if
New Jersey Transit does, and at any way the conventions are out of step with the article titles policy and
WP:USSTATION.--
Cúchullaint/
c18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oh! I agree with your naming. The problem is that some editors who work on articles which use those entrenched system naming conventions are going to fight to maintain the status quo. Since they already have disambiguation, there is no harm in us keeping those the way they are - for now. We can choose when we want to fight that fight. I'll be in your corner!
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
19:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved; the number of "conditional" support votes, in the absence of a discussion evincing support for the mass move on which they are conditioned, makes it impossible to find a consensus in this discussion. I would suggest having the mass move discussion.
bd2412T04:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support – There are merits to the changes to USSTATION; however, America is a much more complex situation than much of the world when it comes to railway stations. Many railroads had many stations in the same municipality. At some point, we're going to have to conform, but I think that each station in NJ, NY, PA, etc should be considered on their own merits. Mitch32(
I can have oodles of charmwhen I want to.)21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, but only as part of a mass move. If every single NJT station cannot be moved, it is pointless to disambiguate just a single station. However, and I say this very lightly, there isn't really a need to move the article just this second. We can't move all the articles as once, either, so I suggest moving other articles to comply with USSTATION first.
epicgenius (
talk)
23:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support if you choose to raname all with the (NJT station) suffix. If you don't want to do the work required to change all of them to the current US station naming convention, at least amend your nomination and other people will do it for you.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The current use of simply "NJT" as a suffix applies to other features within New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, most notably things features like the
West Trenton Line (NJ Transit). As
User:Mitchazenia pointed out, many railroads had many stations in the same municipalities, and some still do, which is another reason why this rampant renaming campaign should not only not be carried out, but should be completely reverted. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
18:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just thought of one other problem this rampant renaming crusade is going to screw up for New Jersey;
Union (NJT station). If we go along with
Cúchullain's plan, it'll turn into something like
Union station (New Jersey), which will give the incorrect impression that it either is or was an actual
Union Station. There used to be some distinction between these types of errors. This campaign is destroying that distinction. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think lowercase "station" implies that "station" is not part of the proper name; i.e. it isn't a proper noun in this instance, but a common noun.
epicgenius (
talk)
17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Whatever confusion exists with that title comes from the fact that the subject is literally named the Union station.
[1] This is not a problem started by the Wikipedia article, but by the subject itself. And that confusion is likely to be minimal and will be cleared up as soon as the reader sees the disambiguation or reads the article.--
Cúchullaint/
c18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Regardless of this, since the
Union (NJT station) isn't an actual union station, it shouldn't be given that name, especially since we already have qualifiers for real Union Station in the cities they're located in. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Initials are fine IF they're
recognizable to readers. That's often something to decide on a case by case basis. For Atlanta, the system is always referred to as
MARTA, meaning "(MARTA)" is the best disambiguator, but I imagine that "(CTA)" confuses a lot of people reading about stations of what's better known as the
Chicago "L". Perhaps we could see some evidence about how common or uncommon "NJT" is for New Jersey Transit.--
Cúchullaint/
c21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I would think MARTA is fairly easy to recognize, as well as CTA, which controls the Chicago L. You do realize that in places like Chicago and Boston there are stations with the same names on the same line that are on different branches, don't you? You have three different "Harlem Stations," two of which are on the CTA Blue Line. In Boston, you have two "St. Paul Street stations" on the Green Line trolleys, one on the Green Line "B" Branch," and the other on the "C" Branch." They should be left alone, and the ones you messed up shouldn't have been tampered with. The current names are pretty cumbersome, but at least they're precise. As for the renaming of Hunter station, I would've chosen "U&D station" for
Ulster and Delaware Railroad myself, but New York Central is good enough. Speaking of former New York Central stations, I spotted station links on the
Boston and Albany Railroad and the
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad both of which contained redlinks for
State Line (NYC station). I had to fix those redlinks so that in the event somebody were to try to make articles on those station, the one for the B&A wouldn't show up on the LS&MS list. I'm really glad you weren't around to take any action against me when I tried to keep an old
Louisville and Nashville Railroad depot in Florida from showing up on the NRHP lists in Illinois. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Obviously, Mitch is talking about articles that currently disambiguate by "NJT", not ones that use the line. According to
WP:USSTATION, if there are multiple stations of the same name in the same system, disambiguation by line is preferred.--
Cúchullaint/
c23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm glad. I'd also like to remind everybody that New Jersey Transit also falls under the scope of
WT:NYCPT. Something I want to make clear to
Mitchazenia; I was never against his use of NYC as a qualifier. I just mentioned what I would've chose, in spite of the NYC acquisition of U&D. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
One thing to keep in mind is that New Yorkers and railbuffs are basically the only people who know what "LIRR" stands for. I'd much rather be content with having all reasonable names spelled out because people aren't going to know NYC, CNJ, PRR, etc without violating COMMONNAME, arguably. Mitch32(
I can have oodles of charmwhen I want to.)04:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DanTD: No one changed the s-line templates in the individual articles to use the dabbed templates, though the templates themselves were updated to handle the renames. For all that,
Cold Brook Railroad Station had been broken for months, if not years. I've fixed it all up.
Mackensen(talk)13:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I count two supports (plus the nominator), two conditional supports if all other articles are renamed, one support (me) for
Orange station (New Jersey), which might well be acceptable to the other supports, and one oppose (DanTD) which isn't grounded in policy and didn't demonstrate an actual problem with the proposed name. If everyone's having second thoughts about the name of
New Jersey Transit and the use of abbreviations then that discussion probably needs to happen first.
Mackensen(talk)21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
There's clear consensus for a move at this point; it's less clear what the move should be. (New Jersey) may be the simplest way forward for whatever articles need disambiguation. I agree that all the articles ought to be moved at once.--
Cúchullaint/
c22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree, too. Who's going to move the articles, though? If we leave some articles at the old naming format and move others, then we'd have an "Amtrak"-style situation where every other article is at the old name. We need to move them as quickly and uniformly as possible, at least for the NJT stations.
epicgenius (
talk)
02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
A third party closer will come by and close the RM, eventually. After that, the closer, nominator, or the rest of us can move the rest of the articles. In the future, it would probably be best to do a multi-move for all the related articles so the RM closer can take care of them all.--
Cúchullaint/
c15:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Although it doesn't reflect colloquial usage, it does make it easier to search for the article. I think "Orange station (New Jersey)" works fine. If towns have more than one station, it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
8bitW (
talk)
03:54, 1 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
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 part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S.
historic sites listed on the
National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Consensus has already been established in the USSTATION RfCs. If you have an objection to the convention, you should open a discussion there. --Regards,
James(talk/contribs)
02:18, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
OK. The naming convention for these stations is "Name (NJT station)" whereas the naming convention in
WP:USSTATION would simply be "Name station", with state or other disambiguation as required. As I see it, since NJT usage predates the current consensus, if you want to change from one to the other you must change them all. The entire system. Not just a random choice. I think that would require discussion.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
04:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see a problem with moving them one at a time. In fact it's inevitable when dealing with ambiguous stations that are often not near each other, as with the
Orange stations. However, now that it's been brought up it a bulk RM should probably be the way to handle it. To be fair, it does appear that the New York City Subway WikiProject does have written conventions, but I don't know if
New Jersey Transit does, and at any way the conventions are out of step with the article titles policy and
WP:USSTATION.--
Cúchullaint/
c18:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oh! I agree with your naming. The problem is that some editors who work on articles which use those entrenched system naming conventions are going to fight to maintain the status quo. Since they already have disambiguation, there is no harm in us keeping those the way they are - for now. We can choose when we want to fight that fight. I'll be in your corner!
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
19:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not moved; the number of "conditional" support votes, in the absence of a discussion evincing support for the mass move on which they are conditioned, makes it impossible to find a consensus in this discussion. I would suggest having the mass move discussion.
bd2412T04:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support – There are merits to the changes to USSTATION; however, America is a much more complex situation than much of the world when it comes to railway stations. Many railroads had many stations in the same municipality. At some point, we're going to have to conform, but I think that each station in NJ, NY, PA, etc should be considered on their own merits. Mitch32(
I can have oodles of charmwhen I want to.)21:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support, but only as part of a mass move. If every single NJT station cannot be moved, it is pointless to disambiguate just a single station. However, and I say this very lightly, there isn't really a need to move the article just this second. We can't move all the articles as once, either, so I suggest moving other articles to comply with USSTATION first.
epicgenius (
talk)
23:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Conditional support if you choose to raname all with the (NJT station) suffix. If you don't want to do the work required to change all of them to the current US station naming convention, at least amend your nomination and other people will do it for you.
Secondarywaltz (
talk)
23:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The current use of simply "NJT" as a suffix applies to other features within New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, most notably things features like the
West Trenton Line (NJ Transit). As
User:Mitchazenia pointed out, many railroads had many stations in the same municipalities, and some still do, which is another reason why this rampant renaming campaign should not only not be carried out, but should be completely reverted. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
18:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I just thought of one other problem this rampant renaming crusade is going to screw up for New Jersey;
Union (NJT station). If we go along with
Cúchullain's plan, it'll turn into something like
Union station (New Jersey), which will give the incorrect impression that it either is or was an actual
Union Station. There used to be some distinction between these types of errors. This campaign is destroying that distinction. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
19:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I think lowercase "station" implies that "station" is not part of the proper name; i.e. it isn't a proper noun in this instance, but a common noun.
epicgenius (
talk)
17:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Whatever confusion exists with that title comes from the fact that the subject is literally named the Union station.
[1] This is not a problem started by the Wikipedia article, but by the subject itself. And that confusion is likely to be minimal and will be cleared up as soon as the reader sees the disambiguation or reads the article.--
Cúchullaint/
c18:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Regardless of this, since the
Union (NJT station) isn't an actual union station, it shouldn't be given that name, especially since we already have qualifiers for real Union Station in the cities they're located in. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Initials are fine IF they're
recognizable to readers. That's often something to decide on a case by case basis. For Atlanta, the system is always referred to as
MARTA, meaning "(MARTA)" is the best disambiguator, but I imagine that "(CTA)" confuses a lot of people reading about stations of what's better known as the
Chicago "L". Perhaps we could see some evidence about how common or uncommon "NJT" is for New Jersey Transit.--
Cúchullaint/
c21:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I would think MARTA is fairly easy to recognize, as well as CTA, which controls the Chicago L. You do realize that in places like Chicago and Boston there are stations with the same names on the same line that are on different branches, don't you? You have three different "Harlem Stations," two of which are on the CTA Blue Line. In Boston, you have two "St. Paul Street stations" on the Green Line trolleys, one on the Green Line "B" Branch," and the other on the "C" Branch." They should be left alone, and the ones you messed up shouldn't have been tampered with. The current names are pretty cumbersome, but at least they're precise. As for the renaming of Hunter station, I would've chosen "U&D station" for
Ulster and Delaware Railroad myself, but New York Central is good enough. Speaking of former New York Central stations, I spotted station links on the
Boston and Albany Railroad and the
Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railroad both of which contained redlinks for
State Line (NYC station). I had to fix those redlinks so that in the event somebody were to try to make articles on those station, the one for the B&A wouldn't show up on the LS&MS list. I'm really glad you weren't around to take any action against me when I tried to keep an old
Louisville and Nashville Railroad depot in Florida from showing up on the NRHP lists in Illinois. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
22:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Obviously, Mitch is talking about articles that currently disambiguate by "NJT", not ones that use the line. According to
WP:USSTATION, if there are multiple stations of the same name in the same system, disambiguation by line is preferred.--
Cúchullaint/
c23:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm glad. I'd also like to remind everybody that New Jersey Transit also falls under the scope of
WT:NYCPT. Something I want to make clear to
Mitchazenia; I was never against his use of NYC as a qualifier. I just mentioned what I would've chose, in spite of the NYC acquisition of U&D. ---------
User:DanTD (
talk)
16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)reply
One thing to keep in mind is that New Yorkers and railbuffs are basically the only people who know what "LIRR" stands for. I'd much rather be content with having all reasonable names spelled out because people aren't going to know NYC, CNJ, PRR, etc without violating COMMONNAME, arguably. Mitch32(
I can have oodles of charmwhen I want to.)04:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DanTD: No one changed the s-line templates in the individual articles to use the dabbed templates, though the templates themselves were updated to handle the renames. For all that,
Cold Brook Railroad Station had been broken for months, if not years. I've fixed it all up.
Mackensen(talk)13:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I count two supports (plus the nominator), two conditional supports if all other articles are renamed, one support (me) for
Orange station (New Jersey), which might well be acceptable to the other supports, and one oppose (DanTD) which isn't grounded in policy and didn't demonstrate an actual problem with the proposed name. If everyone's having second thoughts about the name of
New Jersey Transit and the use of abbreviations then that discussion probably needs to happen first.
Mackensen(talk)21:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
There's clear consensus for a move at this point; it's less clear what the move should be. (New Jersey) may be the simplest way forward for whatever articles need disambiguation. I agree that all the articles ought to be moved at once.--
Cúchullaint/
c22:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree, too. Who's going to move the articles, though? If we leave some articles at the old naming format and move others, then we'd have an "Amtrak"-style situation where every other article is at the old name. We need to move them as quickly and uniformly as possible, at least for the NJT stations.
epicgenius (
talk)
02:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
A third party closer will come by and close the RM, eventually. After that, the closer, nominator, or the rest of us can move the rest of the articles. In the future, it would probably be best to do a multi-move for all the related articles so the RM closer can take care of them all.--
Cúchullaint/
c15:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. Although it doesn't reflect colloquial usage, it does make it easier to search for the article. I think "Orange station (New Jersey)" works fine. If towns have more than one station, it can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
8bitW (
talk)
03:54, 1 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. No further edits should be made to this section.