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.

The result of the move request was No consensus.
— V = I * R ( talk to Ω) 09:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Texarkana (Amtrak station) → Texarkana Union Station — Use name of station as given in article, which is also the NRHP program name for the station. Texarkana is the name of a town or other community; "Texarkana Union Station" is a proper noun name available for this station and should be used. See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Historic or otherwise named stations. doncram ( talk) 01:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

See above. ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I invited DanTD to comment, but that comment is too cryptic for me to understand! Yes, there was a previous Requested Move discussion, above. doncram ( talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

There's nothing "cryptic" about what I'm writing, Doncram. The current guidelines require naming stations for current use, rather than former use. In this case it's "Texarkana (Amtrak station)," and in the other you've mentioned it's "Waterbury (Metro-North station)," and the Union Station names should redirect to both of them. ---- DanTD ( talk) 01:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, i didn't know whether you meant you supported a move or not, based on just "See above", which refers to your making a different proposal previously. I think in both these cases there is a proper noun name of the station, supported by references (the NRHP references), and that those are the names of the stations. Texarkana and Waterbury are cities. Where a station has a specific name, that should be used, I think. Also, an older historic name can sometimes be the appropriate wikipedia name for a place or entity...just because a stadium is given a new sponsor's name, the wikipedia article name should not immediately change from the widely known common name for a place. So I think there are several principles involved here and on balance I personally think Texarkana Union Station is best for this one, barring other development of sources for the article. doncram ( talk) 03:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

When I said "See Above" I was referring to the reasons why the move shouldn't be supported. There are plenty of other former Union Stations that should not be renamed, like Walpole (MBTA station), or Worcester (MBTA station), or Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center, or Palatka (Amtrak station). ---- DanTD ( talk) 11:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually i still don't see reasons stated by you further above, and the other person commenting before referred to a guideline that I think was never accepted. The webpage for it, unless i am finding the wrong place, mainly reflects that there was a lot of controversy in the past. But whether what you said originally was cryptic or not, is irrelevant. I get that you oppose changing this name. But then I don't see why. The principle which I think is relevant here is that names like Prime F. Osborn III Convention Center and the Texarkana Union Station, which are documented common names, should be used as names for articles. If you're for the Prime F. Osborn one, why not be for the Texarkana Union Station one? doncram ( talk) 00:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

• Support — per referenced guideline and similar articles.
  — V = I * R ( talk) 01:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply

  OK, I see what the debate is now... regardless of anything else, WP:TITLE comes first, WP:PLACE comes next, and then any more specific naming conventions need to fit within those two guidelines in order to be in compliance (wherever a lesser convention is directly contradictory, the parent "wins" by virture of it's having an implied wider consensus). WP:PLACE says "1. The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." As with all fo these debates the question of the article title ultimately comes down to the references in the article. What is currently referenced is clearly the historic name, so based on that I still Support the proposed move.
  — V = I * R ( talk) 02:00, 20 August 2009 (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.

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. Number 5 7 14:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Texarkana (Amtrak station) → Texarkana Union Station – Per the common names and natural disambiguation policies and the WP:USSTATION guideline. This Amtrak source and the National Register of Historic Places say the station is known as "Texarkana Union Station", and the name returns 1960 Google Books hits. The station is also known as simply "Union Station", but Union Station (Texarkana, Arkansas) should be avoided as the station is also in Texarkana, Texas; "Texarkana Union Station" is well established natural disambiguation. Either way, the present title isn't widely used and is deprecated by WP:USSTATION. Cúchullain ^t/ c 16:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Support "Texarkana Union Station" because the article is about the station and its history, and not just about once a day Amtrak service. The facility was purchased in 2003 by Jeff Sandefur and the tracks and platforms are owned by Union Pacific Railroad, so "Amtrak" has no place in the title. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Weak Support - Regardless of the ownership, it only serves Amtrak now, which does justify the name in the title. Furthermore I have been looking for previous disputes about the use of the name "Texarkana Union Station" and the preference of the current name in the past. Nevertheless the station was a Union Station and it's history as such should be recognized, and the redlinks Union Station (Texarkana, Arkansas) and Union Station (Texarkana, Texas) should be redirected here. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support Texarkana Union Station properly reflects place better than current title. Djflem ( talk) 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support per the naming convention; I disagree with the decision to go with the current names instead of the old ones, but we shouldn't argue with naming conventions. Nyttend ( talk) 02:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Um, what's wrong with simply Texarkana station, or Texarkana station (Arkansas)?! There's no other "Texarkana station" article that I can see, and most sourcing just refers to it as "Texarkana station". The "Union Station" part does not appear to be commonly used, and appears to be superfluous in this case. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I understand what you are saying, but transportation companies usually refer to the destination by the name of the town. There might be more train stations in any given city, but if Amtrak only services one they will call that one simply by the name of the city. Amtrak in it's "Great American Stations" series starts by saying "The Amtrak Texarkana stop is located at the east end of Texarkana Union Station". That seems pretty definitive. Secondarywaltz ( talk) 18:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Perhaps. But I'm really starting to wonder if we're still "overthinking" disambiguation on the USSTATIONS end, and making it more complicated than it needs to be. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 19:05, 3 January 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.