The station naming convention seems like a good idea, but it wouldn't work for some systems where there are multiple stations with the identical name on different lines, which may or may not be at the same physical location. Strangest example (perhaps) is on the B train in New York City, where the train stops at two different stations, both signed "Seventh Avenue". One is on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn and the other at 53rd Street in Manhattan. There are no fewer than four 125th Street stations, three on the IRT Division, one on the IND Division. You also have a number of transfer station where the station has a different name on different lines. Same deal in Chicago, which has very long avenues. Cecropia 01:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; since my experience is limited to the Washington Metro and the London Tube, I didn't know about such issues with New York's. In which case, it would seem that mentioning more defining information is appropriate; for the above, you would get "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Brooklyn)" and "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Manhattan)" and disambiguate further as needed, maybe even mentinoning the intersection. A disambiguation page could exist at "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway)".
Okay, after reading the rest of your post, I'm growing to hate New York. ;) In which case, it would seem the best way to do it is go to the least ambiguous fashion necessary, that is:
Personally, I prefer the first format - better to describe them by lines, I think. I must again reiterate my distaste for New York's system, it looks absolutely horrid to navigate, yet millions manage. ;)
As for the Chicago example of having the SAME station having a DIFFERENT name on different lines, can you give an example, since I'm not familiar with their system?
I also need to point out that I think this should be a format for other forms of transportation too, including passenger (and possibly cargo? is that logical?) rail, ferries and perhaps bus, if not local then perhaps national/Greyhound. -- Golbez 03:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To answer the easiest part first, "Chicago L" or "CTA" are the most common usages. Only some more recent systems in the U.S. use "Metro."
The least ambiguous way to describe New York stations would be by station name, system, traditional division, tradtional line name"
and
Of course, even that doesn't explain that the first two are nowhere near each other, but the last three are at the same location (three different physical structures).
and
Mind you, there's also a Broadway and Fulton Street in Manhattan, and a subway station nearby. Confused? Sorry, but NYC is complex and I could entertain (or annoy) you with lots more examples and anomolies. Cecropia 03:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm banning New York from this project. ;) Let's see here... I think the best solution would be to go with the most ambiguous title that still maintains unique names. In other words, so long as the first listings of 7th Ave and Broadway Jct give unique results, I don't think we need any more unique stuff in the name. -- Golbez 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
D'oh... this page is typoed. It's supposed to be "Naming conventions (stations)". Worth changing? -- Golbez 05:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oy, now ya tell me. ;) OK, let's see... Well, really, the only difference is the parentheses. I figured that since the words "tube station" aren't in the actual name, they should be separated, but that's a minor issue.
OKAY then, we get back to the original issue. Let each line dictate the necessary amount of disambiguation (Which would seem to be a much larger problem for New York and Chicago than for London) and have the line outside parentheses, but the disambiguation inside. Using the above examples:
See, this lets the London stations stay as-is. Fortunately, "tube" is pretty unique, and I don't think any other system uses that. DLR is unique as well. Metro, unfortunately, isn't, so the city must be there. There may be a problem with "railway station" but we'll get into that as more railways are added. I suppose we should work on the Railway naming conventions, though that wouldn't seem to be such a major problem...mentioned.
Any comment on this from the non-Tube folks? --- Golbez 08:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please tell the other city wikiprojects as well. Wikiproject London people have only found out about this via word of mouth. Your proposals will affect all city wikiprojects. Secretlondon 18:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shall we abandon this convention then? If no one objects, I'll just put that on the main page and be done with it. -- Golbez 22:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think I've got a compromise, after looking at the stations for Paris Metro.
So, this lets London stay the same, AND lets Paris stay the same, and still provides enough disambiguation. The only difference is, there are some tube pages (like Rayners Lane tube station) that have no generic counterpart (i.e. there is no Rayners Lane). This is easily repaired with a redirect, though. The question is, in a case like this, which should redirect to which - the "with tube station" to the regular, or the regular to the "with tube station"?
Eithr way, congratulations me. You've come back to right where we started. If I owned this site, I'd nuke this page, but let it remain as a testament to my lack of vision. :P -- Golbez 08:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What should be done for stations that are on multiple systems, or not on any current system? I'm thinking of stuff like Amtrak stations that are also used by commuter lines. -- SPUI 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are 3 Wilmington stations which Amtrak passes thru if you include Wilmington MA (on the Downeaster route. KevinCuddeback 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The station is primarily Amtrak. Why did you change its name to Septa? It should be changed back.
Amtrak also stops in Wilmington, North Carolina. SEPTA only stops at one Wilmington. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After some discussion in Talk:Wilmington (SEPTA station) and other places, I'd like to throw up the following set of guidelines for discussion and revision. Bold indicates article name, italic indicates optional disambiguation. Guidelines are listed in rough order of precedence.
Articles on major stations should simply be Name (city). This includes all stations named Union Station. Current examples include Pennsylvania Station (New York), South Station (Boston), Union Station (Chicago), 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania Station (Newark).
Articles on metro, subway, and other rapid transit stations should be naed according to the guidelines established by the relevant competent (city) WikiProject or talk page consensus.
"Station" should only be capitalized if it is part of the station's proper name. Stations with "Terminal" as part of their name can omit "station" if it is called for in a guideline.
Articles on stations should be of the form Name, State station. Disambiguation should be enough to distinguish it from other currently operating stations; disambig from defunct stations is unneccessary. Examples include Back Bay Station, Route 128 Station, Wilmington station (no active collisions), Trenton Rail Station, Ardmore, Oklahoma station (resolves collision with Ardmore, Pennsylvania station), Newark, Delaware station (disambig from Newark Penn Station et. al.).
Articles on defunct stations should be of the form Name, State station (system), where system is the most prominent owner or tenant; abbreviations/AAR reporting marks are usually appropriate, e.g. PRR, SAL, UP, MBTA, NJT, Amtrak. Examples include Manayunk station (PRR), Philadelphia Broad Street Station (apologies for my limited knowledge of defunct stations; this is the guideline I feel least strongly about and would encourage its revision.)
-- CComMack 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page has been dormant for the last six months, while repeated move/edit wars over station article naming have broken out. I think it's time we at least try to establish a convention here, before there is more confusion and unpleasantness.
My latest thought on the matter is to have a three-layered convention.
Firstly, rapid transit is again excluded.
Secondly, stations with no name other than a city should be of the form City, State station (system) where system is an optional disambig for he most prominent owner or tenant's AAR marks. For example, White Plains, New York station or Manayunk, Pennsylvania station (PRR).
Thirdly, stations with a name should be of the form Name, City or Name, City, State (subject to consensus). For example, South Station, Boston or South Station, Boston, Massachusetts
Mainly I'm posting this proposal to spark discussion, but I really think we should move on this.
I close with the following note: Wikipedia is written for the ease of its readers, not its editors. Please keep this in mind in these discussions.
-- CComMack 20:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As there still appears to be discussion in various places about the aprorpiate name of UK railway stations outside London I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The french stations could be STATION NAME (REGION) for regional stations and STATION NAME (TGV LIGNE) for TGV trains Chris5897 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that there is already consensus to use lower case in railway station in titles, but am trying to convince User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#More (qv) of this. Could you have a look at this - maybe post at the discussion already existing, unless a controversial debate breaks out in which case probably best to continue here. Thanks. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that per this discussion, articles on non-metro stations in France have been left at "Gare de X" rather than moved to "X railway station" as was discussed there, and that's what the Manual of Style says to use. I had also thought that stations in the Paris RER that do not have other rail service were to be consistently at "X (Paris RER)". That's what I see in almost all cases at List of stations of the Paris RER. However, someone has just moved two such stations on my watchlist to the "Gare de" form using an argument of consistency. I'm not a member here and don't feel very competent to judge between the two or three options: railway station, Gare de, or differential usage for RER-only, although I can see the editor's point with regards to consistency, particularly since some of the currently RER-only stations are slated to also be served by the Tangentielle Nord. And I'm not sure many English-only readers understand the significance of the word Gare. So I'm putting it to you for discussion so that we can have consistency either by undoing that editor's two article moves and any other anomalous names or by changing what's been done up to now. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand Yngvadottir ( talk · contribs) noticed a station article name change and I hear some of the comments above. I understand some contributors feel RER station article could be named with the RER station suffix. Regarding this I would like to mention the many station that are operated by both the RATP and SNCF and have both main line, suburban and RER rail services. Since the mass creation for station articles some six years ago the consensus has, for French railway stations, to have them named 'Gare de n'. If some, if not many, stations that carry the RER also serve main line rail services, doesn't it make, to maintain consistency, to have all Berne gauge rail stations named as such? An exception are Metro and some tram stops (I am still reticent to have tram stop article, considering the lack of content in most of them) that cannot, in virtue of gauge and rolling stock used, connect with the national railway, to continue being named 'n (Paris Metro)'.
Example: Gare de Sartrouville, on the Réseau Ouest, has through main line rail services, regional services and the RER A. Surely its current name is the most appropriate, despite RER services stopping there. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Azylber, if I understand correctly, the project does it the other way around; see this by Useddenim above:
[M]ain-line stations use the form "X railway station", (sub)urban networks "X (System)", and modal interchanges simply "X station" (no railway)
So it's the multi-system stations that use the simple name Wien Mitte railway station should be just Wien Mitte station, and that goes also for stations that have S-Bahn as well as U-Bahn (or in the French case, RER as well as mainline), but purely U-Bahn, purely RER, or purely S-Bahn should have the disambiguator (I think partly because they generally share a name with a square, street, or other location) and mainline stations have "railway station" (or in France "Gare de"). That seems logical to me; it's just the reverse of what you and Captain scarlet have started implementing. DanTD, as you see from the specifics, yes, Vienna also has S-Bahn and mainline stations, and combinations. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Earlier on this page there was discussion that this convention of naming railway stations in France is supposed to be standard. However, a quick look at Category:Île-de-France railway station stubs and I instantly see several other conventions being used, for example:
With all this inconsistency for no particular reason, should a naming convention be agreed upon as has happened to the UK, US, and other countries? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
A whole bunch have been named "X Station", capped thus, which is divergent from all other conventions. If we can actually decide on a convention, it will be easier to respect it, but for now I'm doing some case fixing. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 4#American transportation naming conventions
I'd like to raise the matter of current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and Rome Railroad Station are two examples of this.
I propose that we simplify the naming conventions for all stations served by heavy rail in the United States. Off the top of my head, these would include the following:
I would suggest the following conventions: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by either "railway station" or "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo rail(road|way) station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union rail(road|way) station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street rail(road|way) station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. Articles which deal with mixed-mode stations (heavy rail & metro), could perhaps drop the road/way part and simply be "X station." Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So are there any objections to switching to the "Foo railway station, region" format (where the region part is included as needed for disambiguation) as discussed above? It appears that articles about stations in Australia already follow this format too. I can easily move articles that I run across in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations for further input. If there aren't any objections in the next few days, I'd think we could start moving them. Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As this is a subject that crops up regularly, I propose that this guideline is reintroduced. As as start, here are my suggestions for the standard:
Any thoughts? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i come here to comment that the application of naming conventions outlined here seem to work badly for buildings that are architecturally or otherwise significant and specifically named stations. Any naming convention for stations needs to explicitly take into account the necessity to use widely known common names for a specific station, and perhaps the appropriateness of using a less-known but somehow-official name such as the NRHP program name for a given historic station.
It's as if this naming convention proposal, as written, might apply okay for the merely directory-type listings. But in the case of significant buildings that are wikipedia-notable on their own, the directory-type listing should be ignored or it should be just a redirect to the name of the main station. Such as Grand Central Station in New York City is a named place, and naming its article "42nd Street (IRT line)" or "New York (Metro-North Station)" or any of numerous other possibilities based on the proposed naming convention is would not be sensible.
For another example, " Waterbury (Metro-North station)" in Waterbury, Connecticut, is not better than "Waterbury Union Station", which seems to be the historic, common name for the place, and which was used in the National Register of Historic Places listing for it. I have put this up for requested move. Also I am working my way through the disambiguation list of Union Station (disambiguation) and renaming many others. I am happy to discuss further here, will give notice elsewhere. doncram ( talk) 16:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This proposal hearkens back to the failed attempt I made at getting people to not put in articles for every station stop that has ever been since the dawn of time. Really notable station buildings would generally get identified the way that other notable buildings get identified: by name and place. One can quibble about the name a bit, because people goof up on NHRP submissions and the like, but the convention is obvious and deals with buildings past and present. Likewise, when talking about transit stations, the "stop (system)" convention is in practice the only workable solution, and never mind whether subway stops are all notable.
The real problem, it seems to me, is the same one I saw before: it's easy to make articles for station stops (just dump the schedule data into your article template), and therefore they tend proliferate. So when you look at the all the "platform and a parking lot" MARC stations, do you enter them as "place Station (MARC)" or "MARC Station (place)"? If it were up to me, I'd say "neither"; I'd just put a table of stations in the MARC article and leave it at that, because the only real information is all directory stuff.
When we're talking about buildings, the system qualifier doesn't really work, because buildings exist whether or not they are part of any existing system. They should stick with the "building (place)" convention. Subways are a completely different kettle of fish and should follow their own rules. Articles about other "stations" which aren't about structures shouldn't exist at all. Mangoe ( talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I'm looking at perhaps the most extreme case, and I see that we have separate articles for Izaak Walton Inn and Essex (Amtrak station) even though the former is the station building for the latter. Of course, before the latter there was Essex (Great Northern station). And before Kensington (MARC Station) there was Kensington (Amtrak station) and before that, Kensington (Baltimore and Ohio station). And for a while it was just a building.
It is purely incidental that MARC uses the station in Kensington, just as is the case for pretty much all of the older buildings at MARC stops. In a number of cases the building sat there for a while before being used again for ticketing or waiting; I don't think there is a single case where MARC actually owns the building. As the Essex example shows, we could simply maintain separate articles since they are really about two different things. I'm not particularly happy about having to rename the building article every time the state/city renames its commuter services. Mangoe ( talk) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There are other problems with changing current named to the historic names. Consider Tallahassee (Amtrak station), which is historically named Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad Company Freight Depot. It's not located in either Jacksonville or Pensacola, Florida, or Mobile, Alabama. Or Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station), which is historically named Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot. It's neither in Hartford nor New Haven, Connecticut, and in all honesty "Hartford & New Haven Depot" ought to be a name for a dab page. Otherwise, we're really better off redirecting old names to newer ones. ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having read through the above discussion, it seems to me that the central issue here is between two different naming conventions, the one for historical places, which favors using NRHP-listing names where available, and the one for stations, which disambiguates the often-generically named stations with the current system name, if applicable, unless it's served by multiple carriers.
The issue with the former, to me anyway, are that, as noted above, the NRHP listings aren't always accurate to either the WP:COMMONNAME of the station or its current relevance, as they are, by definition, historical, which may mean their listings reflect former usage, but not current ones.
Which brings me to my second thought, that current usage should take precedence, at least for currently active stations, as the fact that they are train stations is the more defining characteristic of them, compared to any listing they may have on something like the NRHP. While it is excellent for preservationists, both railfan and non-railfan, that so many stations are on the NRHP, the listings are simply secondary to their function as rail stations. Indeed, it's the importance of the places as rail stations that likely heavily contributed to their listing in the first place. oknazevad ( talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved Durham–UNH back to Durham-UNH (Amtrak station). Transit system station names are a weird exception to WP:PRECISION. Because station names are usually based on a) a town/city, b) a street, or c) a landmark, they almost always need to be disambiguated. Most systems, including Amtrak, use the parenthetical on all stations to make linking easier; even those like New London Union Station where it's unambiguous have New London (Amtrak station) as a redirect.
Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ, the point we are all trying to make is that the move you made was not an improvement and was in fact the opposite. It was a reasonable mistake to make, but you are trying to defend a move that goes against project consensus. The issue of postfixes has been discussed to death on WP:Trains and every single time the consensus is to keep them. The (Amtrak station) postfix is unambiguous - it identifies any Amtrak station in a way that a shorter name does not. As DanTD pointed out, "Durham-UNH" could just as easily refer to the college. Repetitively citing WP:PRECISION is a poor substitute for considering the opinions of the editors who work with train station articles on a regular basis. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we're going in circles here, and I'm not sure why it is that one person gets to demand that everyone else prove they're right. There's no such thing as a consensus of one. Let's break down the statement in WP:PRECISION, making full allowance for the subtleties of the English language:
Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles.
The key here is consensus. What is Wikipedia:Consensus? Well, that's complicated. The policy page is actually silent on how many people you need since consensus is ultimately an iterative and collaborative process, which requires not numbers but discussion. The current naming convention stems from long-standing practice, beginning in probably 2004 or so when station articles began to be created in large numbers. If the convention stems mostly from people involved in WP:TRAINS that's no accident but rather a reflection of interested parties. I was heavily involved in one of the exceptions explicitly noted above, the naming of royals and nobles, and I can tell you that it was a very small group which crafted that guideline. Most people neither knew nor care, yet it has consensus because in the main it is not challenged. You're also wrong to rely on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I think: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You cannot reasonably describe thousands of articles over half the life of the project as "one place and time." WP:CONSENSUS says something else: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept." These article titles are all stable. You're proposing a change, which is fine. You need to get consensus for that change, and baldly asserting that the existing convention is invalid because you don't like it (I sympathize) or because it somehow doesn't have consensus (untrue) isn't the right approach. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 2#Parentheticals again
The issue of (XYZ station) after station names has come up once again. Please see Talk:Durham–UNH. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Dan, for those who weren't around for the previous discussions could you please expand on your argument and explain what those problems would be? I'd like to respond to "you've got names of railroad stations that look like something altogether different" but I'm not sure what you meant by that. Most articles would be named as they are now, save losing the somewhat meaningless parenthetical disambiguation and picking up the far more useful "station" or "railway station" or "railroad station" (I have no opinion on which of the three is superior). I would note the the railway station articles for every other country follow this convention. It makes very little sense to me for the US articles to be named different, and arguably all these articles fall under this WikiProject. I would further note that the existing disambiguation produces odd outcomes when applied to stations with multiple service providers. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Foo railway station
to Foo Station
) it pretty quickly gets moved back; if the log entry for the reverting move includes a link to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), they tend not to do it again. There are a few situations which are not covered, such as
the problem of disambiguation when the station names are identical - do we use locality (e.g.
Ashton (Devon) railway station) or railway company (e.g.
Ammanford (GWR) railway station); should the disambiguator go before the word "railway" (e.g.
Ammanford (GWR) railway station), or after the word "station" (e.g.
Brentford railway station (GWR))? But by and large it works. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)There is no reason why stations (any kind) should get standard parenthesised disambiguators. Having the "XX station" naming is sufficient for probably 95% of all stations. The minority that would be ambiguous even then should get a disambiguator, but there is no reason to give many articles a non-standard name to match the few that need it. The argument that otherwise, the name may refer to something else than a station is not convincing, since that applies to all Wikipedia articles. You are free to start an RfC to disambiguate all Wikipedia articles by default to make them more descriptive, but until you get consensus for that, there is no reason why stations shouldn't follow the standard naming procedures which work fine for most other articles on Wikipedia. E.g. Littleton/Route 495 (MBTA station) should be at either Littleton/Route 495 or Littleton/Route 495 station, and Prides Crossing (MBTA station) should simply be at Prides Crossing station. And if you want clarity: it is not clear that Dune Park (NICTD) is a station either, it's a for most people meaningless disambiguator. Dune Park station works perfectly allright. Fram ( talk) 14:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
So I ask the question "Any reason why this should be different for train stations?", and the reply I get is "because they're stations"? Anyone want to provide a better answer? Why are all other articles normally at a non-descriptive title, which gives no indication of what kind of subject the article is about, but is this somehow unacceptable for train stations? Why is a title like Cinder Road acceptable for a band, and Reservation Road acceptable for a movie, but such names would be suddenly unacceptable for a station? Fram ( talk) 07:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That is one thing that has been standardized on - when multiple agencies serve a station, the parenthetical is the owner. See Providence (Amtrak station) for another example. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 2#Penrose railway station
We have articles at Penrose railway station and Penrose Railway Station currently, each describing different stations. They need to be more clearly named; does this project have a standard convention for disambiguating similarly named stations? - TB ( talk) 13:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit#Station naming convention
Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit/Station naming convention
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013#Station names being messed up again
Once again, some editor, and sadly an administrator has decided to trash the naming convention for stations, this time it's the Jacksonville Transportation Authority's JTA Skyway stations. I've tried to explain the reason for the naming convention, but this person refuses to budge. And to make matters worse, the slasher of Sacramento RT and Max Light Rail stations has joined up. ------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
I've had a quick check through the archives, and I've noticed that the subject of station naming has popped up numerous times. I was just wondering whether someone could explain why this WikiProject has been unable to decide on a standard for naming stations. The discrepancy that attracted my attention was the naming of Thai railway station articles ( Ayutthaya Station, Yommarat Halt and Hua Lamphong Railway Station). I don't know whether to rename the two articles 'X Railway Station', to bring it line with the rest of Thai stations, to leave them as they are (because there is no standard convention) or to rename all the stations in the region 'X railway station' as is the standard with UK railway stations (which I have previously worked on). Either way, surely it's time that we agreed on a global standard? I can't see a reason why stations should have a different format depending on their country.
Here are another two instances that I noticed while going through the archives: #Penrose railway station, #Station names being messed up again. Jr8825 • Talk 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Does anyone else think that Las Vegas (Amtrak station) is misleading or confusing? I think this may be in compliance with the naming conventions, unless you want to argue that Las Vegas, New Mexico (Amtrak station) is correct. Note that Amtrack does service Las Vegas, Nevada via bus from the nearest rail line with a stop. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it Las Vegas (Amtrak station) but Las Vegas Union Pacific Station? It's called "Las Vegas Amtrak station" in the lead, but is it really just called "Las Vegas station"? I'm also annoyed that the article doesn't use the word "train" once and presumes that the reader—who may not be American(!)—knows that Amtrak (which is not wikilinked either) is a rail operator. — sroc 💬 04:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that "Las Vegas" is the name of the railway station, not a geographical reference, although the two happen to coincide. In any case, there is form for others:
but:
— sroc 💬 04:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And most of those use the "natural" (non-parenthetical) form "X Amtrak station" in their leads. Should do that here, too; or just Las Vegas station, since it existed long before Amtrak. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
|
{{
historical}}
, tends to be ignored. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Just from skimming the “Amtrak stations in …” categories (so if anyone’s done more extensive research, take mine with a grain of salt), “[Name] (Amtrak station)” does appear to be a common convention. But since any use of Las Vegas not referring to the one in Nevada is confusing, the title should probably have the state name in it. I vote “Las Vegas, Nevada (Amtrak station)”, per e.g. Washington, Missouri (Amtrak station). However, I would be for an effort to remove parentheses from “(Amtrak station)” in all such names. — Frungi ( talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
“not referring to the one in Nevada”. Sorry if I was confusing; I meant that when “Las Vegas” is used to refer to anything but the primary topic of Las Vegas, Nevada—if it’s used without qualification to refer to Las Vegas, New Mexico—it’s confusing, since “Las Vegas” alone almost invariably refers to the city notorious for gambling. — Frungi ( talk) 06:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
{{Amtrak|Baltimore}}
expands to [[Baltimore (Amtrak station)|Baltimore]]
.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)I've already brought up my reasons for keeping the qualifiers attached to the station names of Sacramento RT stations and MAX Light Rail stations. But now I stand by that naming convention even moreso since my recent experience with looking up Muni Metro stations in San Francisco. A recent check of WP:Trains Assessments included "Broad and Plymouth," which I thought was some old railroad in England until I realized it was a MUNI Metro stop. So naturally, I propose adding the name XXXX (MUNI Metro station) to many of these. For those that are owned by other transit agencies (BART, Caltrain, etc.), I'm open for suggestions, although I'm leaning towards using the names of the owners of those. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles are continuing there. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#LRT stations.
New Zealand Railway Stations are generally all capitalised eg Wellington Railway Station; except for current Auckland Train Stations which should be all capitalised in the format Avondale Road Train Station (though some are still "Railway Station", and with the exception of Britomart Transport Centre). See Wikiproject NZR/Manual of Style Hugo999 ( talk) 10:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower case. What about junction stations in India? Earlier there was a similar issue raised at India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)( Support) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways}}
- many go to an article about the station, others to an article on the town. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)My say in the matter is that if Indian railway website & station images show the same name as in Mathura Junction railway station, the article should be Mathura Junction railway station. The problem arises when the Railway website shows one name & images of the station show different versions like Delhi Junction railway station shows up as just Delhi. But i would go for what the website says as that is what is printed on the tickets as well. Superfast1111 ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the naming should just have the name of the station, say Mumbai Central, Coimbatore Junction, Ahmedabad Junction. In cases like Delhi, or New Delhi, we can go for New Delhi (railway station), or Delhi (railway station). -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Confusion arises when you encounter articles of Delhi Junction railway station which is what is present on platform & station boards while technically being called Delhi by Indian Railways. If i were to just say Delhi then i will wind up a very long distance from the railway station. It may be called Delhi railway station. Nagpur railway station which is the correct name shows up as Nagpur Junction on the station board but Nagpur on the platform board.
I agree with Epicgenius & let us look at the website of Indian Railways as the final word on what an article should be called as that is what is printed on railway tickets.
Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Superfast1111 ( talk) 04:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lucknow Junction railway station, created on 30 April 2011 by Twesh and moved to the present title. Lucknow Junction railway station, created on 7 June 2014 by Vin09 by move and filled by Twesh. One of the pages can be deleted, since i am apprehensive under which category can one of the pages be deleted. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are following variations in the part of a proper name. Need consistency?
-- Salatonbv ( talk) 03:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So why is "Station" capitalized in these? We don't do that in other countries, so probably we should not in Japan, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Once again, a rash of "I don't like qualifiers" editors and administrators are destroying the structure of the station articles! --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This is just one entrenched editor unhappy with community consensus. Articles are simply being brought in line with standard Wikipedia practice, instead of the idiosyncratic mess it has been for years.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Oceanian stations). Based on existing station naming. Useddenim ( talk) 04:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been initiated to rename/move the page. Kindly share your views and inputs.-- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 21:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for a discussion regarding "Xxx GO Station"s. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
The station naming convention seems like a good idea, but it wouldn't work for some systems where there are multiple stations with the identical name on different lines, which may or may not be at the same physical location. Strangest example (perhaps) is on the B train in New York City, where the train stops at two different stations, both signed "Seventh Avenue". One is on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn and the other at 53rd Street in Manhattan. There are no fewer than four 125th Street stations, three on the IRT Division, one on the IND Division. You also have a number of transfer station where the station has a different name on different lines. Same deal in Chicago, which has very long avenues. Cecropia 01:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the input; since my experience is limited to the Washington Metro and the London Tube, I didn't know about such issues with New York's. In which case, it would seem that mentioning more defining information is appropriate; for the above, you would get "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Brooklyn)" and "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Manhattan)" and disambiguate further as needed, maybe even mentinoning the intersection. A disambiguation page could exist at "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway)".
Okay, after reading the rest of your post, I'm growing to hate New York. ;) In which case, it would seem the best way to do it is go to the least ambiguous fashion necessary, that is:
Personally, I prefer the first format - better to describe them by lines, I think. I must again reiterate my distaste for New York's system, it looks absolutely horrid to navigate, yet millions manage. ;)
As for the Chicago example of having the SAME station having a DIFFERENT name on different lines, can you give an example, since I'm not familiar with their system?
I also need to point out that I think this should be a format for other forms of transportation too, including passenger (and possibly cargo? is that logical?) rail, ferries and perhaps bus, if not local then perhaps national/Greyhound. -- Golbez 03:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
To answer the easiest part first, "Chicago L" or "CTA" are the most common usages. Only some more recent systems in the U.S. use "Metro."
The least ambiguous way to describe New York stations would be by station name, system, traditional division, tradtional line name"
and
Of course, even that doesn't explain that the first two are nowhere near each other, but the last three are at the same location (three different physical structures).
and
Mind you, there's also a Broadway and Fulton Street in Manhattan, and a subway station nearby. Confused? Sorry, but NYC is complex and I could entertain (or annoy) you with lots more examples and anomolies. Cecropia 03:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Okay, I'm banning New York from this project. ;) Let's see here... I think the best solution would be to go with the most ambiguous title that still maintains unique names. In other words, so long as the first listings of 7th Ave and Broadway Jct give unique results, I don't think we need any more unique stuff in the name. -- Golbez 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
---
D'oh... this page is typoed. It's supposed to be "Naming conventions (stations)". Worth changing? -- Golbez 05:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Oy, now ya tell me. ;) OK, let's see... Well, really, the only difference is the parentheses. I figured that since the words "tube station" aren't in the actual name, they should be separated, but that's a minor issue.
OKAY then, we get back to the original issue. Let each line dictate the necessary amount of disambiguation (Which would seem to be a much larger problem for New York and Chicago than for London) and have the line outside parentheses, but the disambiguation inside. Using the above examples:
See, this lets the London stations stay as-is. Fortunately, "tube" is pretty unique, and I don't think any other system uses that. DLR is unique as well. Metro, unfortunately, isn't, so the city must be there. There may be a problem with "railway station" but we'll get into that as more railways are added. I suppose we should work on the Railway naming conventions, though that wouldn't seem to be such a major problem...mentioned.
Any comment on this from the non-Tube folks? --- Golbez 08:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please tell the other city wikiprojects as well. Wikiproject London people have only found out about this via word of mouth. Your proposals will affect all city wikiprojects. Secretlondon 18:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Shall we abandon this convention then? If no one objects, I'll just put that on the main page and be done with it. -- Golbez 22:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think I've got a compromise, after looking at the stations for Paris Metro.
So, this lets London stay the same, AND lets Paris stay the same, and still provides enough disambiguation. The only difference is, there are some tube pages (like Rayners Lane tube station) that have no generic counterpart (i.e. there is no Rayners Lane). This is easily repaired with a redirect, though. The question is, in a case like this, which should redirect to which - the "with tube station" to the regular, or the regular to the "with tube station"?
Eithr way, congratulations me. You've come back to right where we started. If I owned this site, I'd nuke this page, but let it remain as a testament to my lack of vision. :P -- Golbez 08:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What should be done for stations that are on multiple systems, or not on any current system? I'm thinking of stuff like Amtrak stations that are also used by commuter lines. -- SPUI 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are 3 Wilmington stations which Amtrak passes thru if you include Wilmington MA (on the Downeaster route. KevinCuddeback 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The station is primarily Amtrak. Why did you change its name to Septa? It should be changed back.
Amtrak also stops in Wilmington, North Carolina. SEPTA only stops at one Wilmington. -- SPUI ( talk) 04:27, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After some discussion in Talk:Wilmington (SEPTA station) and other places, I'd like to throw up the following set of guidelines for discussion and revision. Bold indicates article name, italic indicates optional disambiguation. Guidelines are listed in rough order of precedence.
Articles on major stations should simply be Name (city). This includes all stations named Union Station. Current examples include Pennsylvania Station (New York), South Station (Boston), Union Station (Chicago), 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania Station (Newark).
Articles on metro, subway, and other rapid transit stations should be naed according to the guidelines established by the relevant competent (city) WikiProject or talk page consensus.
"Station" should only be capitalized if it is part of the station's proper name. Stations with "Terminal" as part of their name can omit "station" if it is called for in a guideline.
Articles on stations should be of the form Name, State station. Disambiguation should be enough to distinguish it from other currently operating stations; disambig from defunct stations is unneccessary. Examples include Back Bay Station, Route 128 Station, Wilmington station (no active collisions), Trenton Rail Station, Ardmore, Oklahoma station (resolves collision with Ardmore, Pennsylvania station), Newark, Delaware station (disambig from Newark Penn Station et. al.).
Articles on defunct stations should be of the form Name, State station (system), where system is the most prominent owner or tenant; abbreviations/AAR reporting marks are usually appropriate, e.g. PRR, SAL, UP, MBTA, NJT, Amtrak. Examples include Manayunk station (PRR), Philadelphia Broad Street Station (apologies for my limited knowledge of defunct stations; this is the guideline I feel least strongly about and would encourage its revision.)
-- CComMack 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page has been dormant for the last six months, while repeated move/edit wars over station article naming have broken out. I think it's time we at least try to establish a convention here, before there is more confusion and unpleasantness.
My latest thought on the matter is to have a three-layered convention.
Firstly, rapid transit is again excluded.
Secondly, stations with no name other than a city should be of the form City, State station (system) where system is an optional disambig for he most prominent owner or tenant's AAR marks. For example, White Plains, New York station or Manayunk, Pennsylvania station (PRR).
Thirdly, stations with a name should be of the form Name, City or Name, City, State (subject to consensus). For example, South Station, Boston or South Station, Boston, Massachusetts
Mainly I'm posting this proposal to spark discussion, but I really think we should move on this.
I close with the following note: Wikipedia is written for the ease of its readers, not its editors. Please keep this in mind in these discussions.
-- CComMack 20:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
As there still appears to be discussion in various places about the aprorpiate name of UK railway stations outside London I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The french stations could be STATION NAME (REGION) for regional stations and STATION NAME (TGV LIGNE) for TGV trains Chris5897 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that there is already consensus to use lower case in railway station in titles, but am trying to convince User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#More (qv) of this. Could you have a look at this - maybe post at the discussion already existing, unless a controversial debate breaks out in which case probably best to continue here. Thanks. Sf5xeplus ( talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I understand that per this discussion, articles on non-metro stations in France have been left at "Gare de X" rather than moved to "X railway station" as was discussed there, and that's what the Manual of Style says to use. I had also thought that stations in the Paris RER that do not have other rail service were to be consistently at "X (Paris RER)". That's what I see in almost all cases at List of stations of the Paris RER. However, someone has just moved two such stations on my watchlist to the "Gare de" form using an argument of consistency. I'm not a member here and don't feel very competent to judge between the two or three options: railway station, Gare de, or differential usage for RER-only, although I can see the editor's point with regards to consistency, particularly since some of the currently RER-only stations are slated to also be served by the Tangentielle Nord. And I'm not sure many English-only readers understand the significance of the word Gare. So I'm putting it to you for discussion so that we can have consistency either by undoing that editor's two article moves and any other anomalous names or by changing what's been done up to now. Yngvadottir ( talk) 19:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand Yngvadottir ( talk · contribs) noticed a station article name change and I hear some of the comments above. I understand some contributors feel RER station article could be named with the RER station suffix. Regarding this I would like to mention the many station that are operated by both the RATP and SNCF and have both main line, suburban and RER rail services. Since the mass creation for station articles some six years ago the consensus has, for French railway stations, to have them named 'Gare de n'. If some, if not many, stations that carry the RER also serve main line rail services, doesn't it make, to maintain consistency, to have all Berne gauge rail stations named as such? An exception are Metro and some tram stops (I am still reticent to have tram stop article, considering the lack of content in most of them) that cannot, in virtue of gauge and rolling stock used, connect with the national railway, to continue being named 'n (Paris Metro)'.
Example: Gare de Sartrouville, on the Réseau Ouest, has through main line rail services, regional services and the RER A. Surely its current name is the most appropriate, despite RER services stopping there. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Azylber, if I understand correctly, the project does it the other way around; see this by Useddenim above:
[M]ain-line stations use the form "X railway station", (sub)urban networks "X (System)", and modal interchanges simply "X station" (no railway)
So it's the multi-system stations that use the simple name Wien Mitte railway station should be just Wien Mitte station, and that goes also for stations that have S-Bahn as well as U-Bahn (or in the French case, RER as well as mainline), but purely U-Bahn, purely RER, or purely S-Bahn should have the disambiguator (I think partly because they generally share a name with a square, street, or other location) and mainline stations have "railway station" (or in France "Gare de"). That seems logical to me; it's just the reverse of what you and Captain scarlet have started implementing. DanTD, as you see from the specifics, yes, Vienna also has S-Bahn and mainline stations, and combinations. Yngvadottir ( talk) 17:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Earlier on this page there was discussion that this convention of naming railway stations in France is supposed to be standard. However, a quick look at Category:Île-de-France railway station stubs and I instantly see several other conventions being used, for example:
With all this inconsistency for no particular reason, should a naming convention be agreed upon as has happened to the UK, US, and other countries? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» ( talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
A whole bunch have been named "X Station", capped thus, which is divergent from all other conventions. If we can actually decide on a convention, it will be easier to respect it, but for now I'm doing some case fixing. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2007, 4#American transportation naming conventions
I'd like to raise the matter of current naming practices for articles on American railway stations. At present we use parenthetical disambiguation by company: [[NAME (SYSTEM station)]] gives Battle Creek (Amtrak station). I find this approach problematic, especially when two or more systems run to the same station, as at La Grange (Amtrak station). La Grange is served by two heavy rail operators, Amtrak and Metra. La Grange (Metra) redirects there. I don't know who owns the station; I doubt it's either of the operators. In addition, we have numerous "Union Station" articles, disambiguated by location: Union Station (Chicago). Finally, we have station articles at their nondeterminate formal names: Kalamazoo Transportation Center and Rome Railroad Station are two examples of this.
I propose that we simplify the naming conventions for all stations served by heavy rail in the United States. Off the top of my head, these would include the following:
I would suggest the following conventions: all stations are identified by their most common name, followed by either "railway station" or "railroad station." In cities or towns with only one station, this would take the form of "Kalamazoo rail(road|way) station." In places with multiple stations, it would take the form "Chicago Union rail(road|way) station" or "Chicago LaSalle Street rail(road|way) station." Formal names for a station would be indicated in the text, but not the article title. Articles which deal with mixed-mode stations (heavy rail & metro), could perhaps drop the road/way part and simply be "X station." Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
So are there any objections to switching to the "Foo railway station, region" format (where the region part is included as needed for disambiguation) as discussed above? It appears that articles about stations in Australia already follow this format too. I can easily move articles that I run across in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stations for further input. If there aren't any objections in the next few days, I'd think we could start moving them. Slambo (Speak) 16:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
As this is a subject that crops up regularly, I propose that this guideline is reintroduced. As as start, here are my suggestions for the standard:
Any thoughts? — Tivedshambo ( t/ c) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, i come here to comment that the application of naming conventions outlined here seem to work badly for buildings that are architecturally or otherwise significant and specifically named stations. Any naming convention for stations needs to explicitly take into account the necessity to use widely known common names for a specific station, and perhaps the appropriateness of using a less-known but somehow-official name such as the NRHP program name for a given historic station.
It's as if this naming convention proposal, as written, might apply okay for the merely directory-type listings. But in the case of significant buildings that are wikipedia-notable on their own, the directory-type listing should be ignored or it should be just a redirect to the name of the main station. Such as Grand Central Station in New York City is a named place, and naming its article "42nd Street (IRT line)" or "New York (Metro-North Station)" or any of numerous other possibilities based on the proposed naming convention is would not be sensible.
For another example, " Waterbury (Metro-North station)" in Waterbury, Connecticut, is not better than "Waterbury Union Station", which seems to be the historic, common name for the place, and which was used in the National Register of Historic Places listing for it. I have put this up for requested move. Also I am working my way through the disambiguation list of Union Station (disambiguation) and renaming many others. I am happy to discuss further here, will give notice elsewhere. doncram ( talk) 16:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
This proposal hearkens back to the failed attempt I made at getting people to not put in articles for every station stop that has ever been since the dawn of time. Really notable station buildings would generally get identified the way that other notable buildings get identified: by name and place. One can quibble about the name a bit, because people goof up on NHRP submissions and the like, but the convention is obvious and deals with buildings past and present. Likewise, when talking about transit stations, the "stop (system)" convention is in practice the only workable solution, and never mind whether subway stops are all notable.
The real problem, it seems to me, is the same one I saw before: it's easy to make articles for station stops (just dump the schedule data into your article template), and therefore they tend proliferate. So when you look at the all the "platform and a parking lot" MARC stations, do you enter them as "place Station (MARC)" or "MARC Station (place)"? If it were up to me, I'd say "neither"; I'd just put a table of stations in the MARC article and leave it at that, because the only real information is all directory stuff.
When we're talking about buildings, the system qualifier doesn't really work, because buildings exist whether or not they are part of any existing system. They should stick with the "building (place)" convention. Subways are a completely different kettle of fish and should follow their own rules. Articles about other "stations" which aren't about structures shouldn't exist at all. Mangoe ( talk) 15:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Well, I'm looking at perhaps the most extreme case, and I see that we have separate articles for Izaak Walton Inn and Essex (Amtrak station) even though the former is the station building for the latter. Of course, before the latter there was Essex (Great Northern station). And before Kensington (MARC Station) there was Kensington (Amtrak station) and before that, Kensington (Baltimore and Ohio station). And for a while it was just a building.
It is purely incidental that MARC uses the station in Kensington, just as is the case for pretty much all of the older buildings at MARC stops. In a number of cases the building sat there for a while before being used again for ticketing or waiting; I don't think there is a single case where MARC actually owns the building. As the Essex example shows, we could simply maintain separate articles since they are really about two different things. I'm not particularly happy about having to rename the building article every time the state/city renames its commuter services. Mangoe ( talk) 00:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
There are other problems with changing current named to the historic names. Consider Tallahassee (Amtrak station), which is historically named Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad Company Freight Depot. It's not located in either Jacksonville or Pensacola, Florida, or Mobile, Alabama. Or Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station), which is historically named Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot. It's neither in Hartford nor New Haven, Connecticut, and in all honesty "Hartford & New Haven Depot" ought to be a name for a dab page. Otherwise, we're really better off redirecting old names to newer ones. ---- DanTD ( talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Having read through the above discussion, it seems to me that the central issue here is between two different naming conventions, the one for historical places, which favors using NRHP-listing names where available, and the one for stations, which disambiguates the often-generically named stations with the current system name, if applicable, unless it's served by multiple carriers.
The issue with the former, to me anyway, are that, as noted above, the NRHP listings aren't always accurate to either the WP:COMMONNAME of the station or its current relevance, as they are, by definition, historical, which may mean their listings reflect former usage, but not current ones.
Which brings me to my second thought, that current usage should take precedence, at least for currently active stations, as the fact that they are train stations is the more defining characteristic of them, compared to any listing they may have on something like the NRHP. While it is excellent for preservationists, both railfan and non-railfan, that so many stations are on the NRHP, the listings are simply secondary to their function as rail stations. Indeed, it's the importance of the places as rail stations that likely heavily contributed to their listing in the first place. oknazevad ( talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved Durham–UNH back to Durham-UNH (Amtrak station). Transit system station names are a weird exception to WP:PRECISION. Because station names are usually based on a) a town/city, b) a street, or c) a landmark, they almost always need to be disambiguated. Most systems, including Amtrak, use the parenthetical on all stations to make linking easier; even those like New London Union Station where it's unambiguous have New London (Amtrak station) as a redirect.
Cheers, Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
JHunterJ, the point we are all trying to make is that the move you made was not an improvement and was in fact the opposite. It was a reasonable mistake to make, but you are trying to defend a move that goes against project consensus. The issue of postfixes has been discussed to death on WP:Trains and every single time the consensus is to keep them. The (Amtrak station) postfix is unambiguous - it identifies any Amtrak station in a way that a shorter name does not. As DanTD pointed out, "Durham-UNH" could just as easily refer to the college. Repetitively citing WP:PRECISION is a poor substitute for considering the opinions of the editors who work with train station articles on a regular basis. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
I think we're going in circles here, and I'm not sure why it is that one person gets to demand that everyone else prove they're right. There's no such thing as a consensus of one. Let's break down the statement in WP:PRECISION, making full allowance for the subtleties of the English language:
Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles.
The key here is consensus. What is Wikipedia:Consensus? Well, that's complicated. The policy page is actually silent on how many people you need since consensus is ultimately an iterative and collaborative process, which requires not numbers but discussion. The current naming convention stems from long-standing practice, beginning in probably 2004 or so when station articles began to be created in large numbers. If the convention stems mostly from people involved in WP:TRAINS that's no accident but rather a reflection of interested parties. I was heavily involved in one of the exceptions explicitly noted above, the naming of royals and nobles, and I can tell you that it was a very small group which crafted that guideline. Most people neither knew nor care, yet it has consensus because in the main it is not challenged. You're also wrong to rely on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I think: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You cannot reasonably describe thousands of articles over half the life of the project as "one place and time." WP:CONSENSUS says something else: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept." These article titles are all stable. You're proposing a change, which is fine. You need to get consensus for that change, and baldly asserting that the existing convention is invalid because you don't like it (I sympathize) or because it somehow doesn't have consensus (untrue) isn't the right approach. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 2#Parentheticals again
The issue of (XYZ station) after station names has come up once again. Please see Talk:Durham–UNH. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 01:56, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Dan, for those who weren't around for the previous discussions could you please expand on your argument and explain what those problems would be? I'd like to respond to "you've got names of railroad stations that look like something altogether different" but I'm not sure what you meant by that. Most articles would be named as they are now, save losing the somewhat meaningless parenthetical disambiguation and picking up the far more useful "station" or "railway station" or "railroad station" (I have no opinion on which of the three is superior). I would note the the railway station articles for every other country follow this convention. It makes very little sense to me for the US articles to be named different, and arguably all these articles fall under this WikiProject. I would further note that the existing disambiguation produces odd outcomes when applied to stations with multiple service providers. Mackensen (talk) 04:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Foo railway station
to Foo Station
) it pretty quickly gets moved back; if the log entry for the reverting move includes a link to
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), they tend not to do it again. There are a few situations which are not covered, such as
the problem of disambiguation when the station names are identical - do we use locality (e.g.
Ashton (Devon) railway station) or railway company (e.g.
Ammanford (GWR) railway station); should the disambiguator go before the word "railway" (e.g.
Ammanford (GWR) railway station), or after the word "station" (e.g.
Brentford railway station (GWR))? But by and large it works. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 14:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)There is no reason why stations (any kind) should get standard parenthesised disambiguators. Having the "XX station" naming is sufficient for probably 95% of all stations. The minority that would be ambiguous even then should get a disambiguator, but there is no reason to give many articles a non-standard name to match the few that need it. The argument that otherwise, the name may refer to something else than a station is not convincing, since that applies to all Wikipedia articles. You are free to start an RfC to disambiguate all Wikipedia articles by default to make them more descriptive, but until you get consensus for that, there is no reason why stations shouldn't follow the standard naming procedures which work fine for most other articles on Wikipedia. E.g. Littleton/Route 495 (MBTA station) should be at either Littleton/Route 495 or Littleton/Route 495 station, and Prides Crossing (MBTA station) should simply be at Prides Crossing station. And if you want clarity: it is not clear that Dune Park (NICTD) is a station either, it's a for most people meaningless disambiguator. Dune Park station works perfectly allright. Fram ( talk) 14:36, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
So I ask the question "Any reason why this should be different for train stations?", and the reply I get is "because they're stations"? Anyone want to provide a better answer? Why are all other articles normally at a non-descriptive title, which gives no indication of what kind of subject the article is about, but is this somehow unacceptable for train stations? Why is a title like Cinder Road acceptable for a band, and Reservation Road acceptable for a movie, but such names would be suddenly unacceptable for a station? Fram ( talk) 07:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That is one thing that has been standardized on - when multiple agencies serve a station, the parenthetical is the owner. See Providence (Amtrak station) for another example. Pi.1415926535 ( talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2012, 2#Penrose railway station
We have articles at Penrose railway station and Penrose Railway Station currently, each describing different stations. They need to be more clearly named; does this project have a standard convention for disambiguating similarly named stations? - TB ( talk) 13:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit#Station naming convention
Talk:Edmonton Light Rail Transit/Station naming convention
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013#Station names being messed up again
Once again, some editor, and sadly an administrator has decided to trash the naming convention for stations, this time it's the Jacksonville Transportation Authority's JTA Skyway stations. I've tried to explain the reason for the naming convention, but this person refuses to budge. And to make matters worse, the slasher of Sacramento RT and Max Light Rail stations has joined up. ------- User:DanTD ( talk) 18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
I've had a quick check through the archives, and I've noticed that the subject of station naming has popped up numerous times. I was just wondering whether someone could explain why this WikiProject has been unable to decide on a standard for naming stations. The discrepancy that attracted my attention was the naming of Thai railway station articles ( Ayutthaya Station, Yommarat Halt and Hua Lamphong Railway Station). I don't know whether to rename the two articles 'X Railway Station', to bring it line with the rest of Thai stations, to leave them as they are (because there is no standard convention) or to rename all the stations in the region 'X railway station' as is the standard with UK railway stations (which I have previously worked on). Either way, surely it's time that we agreed on a global standard? I can't see a reason why stations should have a different format depending on their country.
Here are another two instances that I noticed while going through the archives: #Penrose railway station, #Station names being messed up again. Jr8825 • Talk 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)
Does anyone else think that Las Vegas (Amtrak station) is misleading or confusing? I think this may be in compliance with the naming conventions, unless you want to argue that Las Vegas, New Mexico (Amtrak station) is correct. Note that Amtrack does service Las Vegas, Nevada via bus from the nearest rail line with a stop. Vegaswikian ( talk) 18:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is it Las Vegas (Amtrak station) but Las Vegas Union Pacific Station? It's called "Las Vegas Amtrak station" in the lead, but is it really just called "Las Vegas station"? I'm also annoyed that the article doesn't use the word "train" once and presumes that the reader—who may not be American(!)—knows that Amtrak (which is not wikilinked either) is a rail operator. — sroc 💬 04:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Note that "Las Vegas" is the name of the railway station, not a geographical reference, although the two happen to coincide. In any case, there is form for others:
but:
— sroc 💬 04:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
And most of those use the "natural" (non-parenthetical) form "X Amtrak station" in their leads. Should do that here, too; or just Las Vegas station, since it existed long before Amtrak. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
|
|
|
{{
historical}}
, tends to be ignored. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Just from skimming the “Amtrak stations in …” categories (so if anyone’s done more extensive research, take mine with a grain of salt), “[Name] (Amtrak station)” does appear to be a common convention. But since any use of Las Vegas not referring to the one in Nevada is confusing, the title should probably have the state name in it. I vote “Las Vegas, Nevada (Amtrak station)”, per e.g. Washington, Missouri (Amtrak station). However, I would be for an effort to remove parentheses from “(Amtrak station)” in all such names. — Frungi ( talk) 05:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
“not referring to the one in Nevada”. Sorry if I was confusing; I meant that when “Las Vegas” is used to refer to anything but the primary topic of Las Vegas, Nevada—if it’s used without qualification to refer to Las Vegas, New Mexico—it’s confusing, since “Las Vegas” alone almost invariably refers to the city notorious for gambling. — Frungi ( talk) 06:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
{{Amtrak|Baltimore}}
expands to [[Baltimore (Amtrak station)|Baltimore]]
.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)I've already brought up my reasons for keeping the qualifiers attached to the station names of Sacramento RT stations and MAX Light Rail stations. But now I stand by that naming convention even moreso since my recent experience with looking up Muni Metro stations in San Francisco. A recent check of WP:Trains Assessments included "Broad and Plymouth," which I thought was some old railroad in England until I realized it was a MUNI Metro stop. So naturally, I propose adding the name XXXX (MUNI Metro station) to many of these. For those that are owned by other transit agencies (BART, Caltrain, etc.), I'm open for suggestions, although I'm leaning towards using the names of the owners of those. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles are continuing there. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#LRT stations.
New Zealand Railway Stations are generally all capitalised eg Wellington Railway Station; except for current Auckland Train Stations which should be all capitalised in the format Avondale Road Train Station (though some are still "Railway Station", and with the exception of Britomart Transport Centre). See Wikiproject NZR/Manual of Style Hugo999 ( talk) 10:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower case. What about junction stations in India? Earlier there was a similar issue raised at India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)( Support) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
{{
Top 100 booking stations of Indian Railways}}
- many go to an article about the station, others to an article on the town. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 20:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)My say in the matter is that if Indian railway website & station images show the same name as in Mathura Junction railway station, the article should be Mathura Junction railway station. The problem arises when the Railway website shows one name & images of the station show different versions like Delhi Junction railway station shows up as just Delhi. But i would go for what the website says as that is what is printed on the tickets as well. Superfast1111 ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that the naming should just have the name of the station, say Mumbai Central, Coimbatore Junction, Ahmedabad Junction. In cases like Delhi, or New Delhi, we can go for New Delhi (railway station), or Delhi (railway station). -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 13:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Confusion arises when you encounter articles of Delhi Junction railway station which is what is present on platform & station boards while technically being called Delhi by Indian Railways. If i were to just say Delhi then i will wind up a very long distance from the railway station. It may be called Delhi railway station. Nagpur railway station which is the correct name shows up as Nagpur Junction on the station board but Nagpur on the platform board.
I agree with Epicgenius & let us look at the website of Indian Railways as the final word on what an article should be called as that is what is printed on railway tickets.
Superfast1111 ( talk) 10:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Superfast1111 ( talk) 04:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Lucknow Junction railway station, created on 30 April 2011 by Twesh and moved to the present title. Lucknow Junction railway station, created on 7 June 2014 by Vin09 by move and filled by Twesh. One of the pages can be deleted, since i am apprehensive under which category can one of the pages be deleted. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 12:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are following variations in the part of a proper name. Need consistency?
-- Salatonbv ( talk) 03:12, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
So why is "Station" capitalized in these? We don't do that in other countries, so probably we should not in Japan, no? Dicklyon ( talk) 03:22, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
Once again, a rash of "I don't like qualifiers" editors and administrators are destroying the structure of the station articles! --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This is just one entrenched editor unhappy with community consensus. Articles are simply being brought in line with standard Wikipedia practice, instead of the idiosyncratic mess it has been for years.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Oceanian stations). Based on existing station naming. Useddenim ( talk) 04:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion has been initiated to rename/move the page. Kindly share your views and inputs.-- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 21:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for a discussion regarding "Xxx GO Station"s. AlgaeGraphix ( talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)