Talk:Bristol station (Virginia)

Old article

In the deleted history for this page is a stub article about a never-built station on the never-launched Transdominion Express. It was redirected to this article in 2016 when it became apparent that this building would be used. There isn't anything useful in the page history. Mackensen (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Article name and lede text asserting name

The longstanding name of this article has been "Bristol Railroad Station", which is the National Register listing name for the place.

Recently two editors have moved the article and have revised the lede to assert "Bristol station" is the name, on basis of their assuming the depot/station is commonly known as "Bristol" plus their appending "station" to it, citing wp:USSTATION. wp:USSTATION is not a source, but rather is an essay or guideline that in my view is not valid, in its advice about how to name places which do not have names from sources. wp:USSTATION does state that if there is an existing actual name for a place, as established by sources, that the actual name should be used. Here, "Bristol Railroad Station" is supproted by sources.

Also, I tried checking other sources in the article. One reference no longer connects. This news article from WJHL uses "Bristol Train Station" as the formal name. The National Register reference links need to be updated, to this Virginia state DHR coverage, which uses "Bristol Railroad Station", and which also mentions "Bristol Union Railway Station". There is no established usage of "Bristol station" as an official name of the place, not even any usage at all that I am aware of.

Besides the fact of moving the article, it is not acceptable to put just anything into an article, which is not supported in sources, and which is challenged by other editors, and the unsupported usage has indeed been challenged. --Doncram (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Drop the stick. Neither "Bristol Railroad Station" nor "Bristol Train Station" is well-supported by sources. "Bristol Railroad Station" is not used outside of NRHP and NRHP-adjacent documentation, which as you've been repeatedly told are not official names. And one news article is not remotely enough to establish "Bristol Train Station". USSTATION is a widely accepted and used guideline, and your efforts to undermine it - which have been clearly based in bad faith and poor udnerstanding from the beginning - are not appreciated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me? You happen not to be familiar with National Register naming practices, when nominators are explicitly charged with reviewing historical information and identifying the common name of the place though history, as based in documents. And the NRHP naming is itself documentation, and it is echoed in other sources, because it is indeed one official naming of the place. It would be fine to challenge one official naming vs. another official naming that contradicts it, but you are preferring, instead, your own personal official naming, which has no sources whatsoever. You act as if your terming NRHP names to be "not official names" makes them invalid, which it does not. Sure they are "official" in one sense, _and_ they are valid. Compared to your making shit up?

And you have the gall to label my editing as vandalism? I think you asserted vandalism in an edit summary elsewhere, and here you have done so with edit summary abbreviation "rvv" to revert vandalism. I suggest that you revert yourself in the article now. --Doncram (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very familiar with NRHP naming practice, and how flawed and unreliable it is. Would you like to RM Attleboro station (Massachusetts) to Northbound and Southbound Stations? There is zero consistency with how NRHP listings are named, and there is zero merit to your claim that nominators determine "the common name of the place though history". The NRHP wikiproject doesn't have an article naming guide, nor have I seen you trying to create one. I labeled your edit as vandalism because you are edit warring against a clear consensus that includes multiple administrators who are far more familiar with railroad stations than you are. You might gain some traction if you were polite and concise, but from the beginning you have been hostile and posted lengthy screeds on talk pages. Do you actually expect that to convince anyone? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, well I was politer before, for quite a while, and I am irked by seeing that moves have apparently been going on, despite clear direction from myself and at least one other editor, to the recent mover. And now you are taking up the cudgel, and making move contrary to explicit challenge, as unsourced, for the wording you put in. You don't get to do that, you should know that by now.

Sure there is variety in NRHP names, because they are chosen by local historian/nominators, who do follow explicit guidelines in a NRHP nomination guidance handbook. They are charged with coming up with the common and historical name, which might be a name long-used in history, in preference to some current business occupant name, say, that is what the guidance is about partly. The names are not chosen by wikipedia editors like yourself, just choosing to make up stuff that fits your particular narrow train-station-centric view of the world. --Doncram (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I see no indication that "Bristol Train Station" is really a WP:COMMONNAME. It's also not an acceptable title given how many other Bristol train stations have articles. Multiple different names are in use in the sources - "Bristol Train Station", "Union Station", "Bristol Railroad Station", "Bristol station", etc., so it seems like the best bet is to default to the WP:USSTATION version as a descriptive title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)