Jump to content

Talk:Downtown New Britain station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Requested move 29 January 2018

[edit]
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 per consensus. More of a procedural close since the page moves were made before this debate closed. Good decision, bad precedent for inexperienced editors, especially since this RM did not run a full course of seven days. Moot point at present, though due to the circumstances, there is no prejudice toward any editor opening a new requested move for these pages at any time. ♥Happy ♥Hearts ♥Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  03:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there is no confusion in the future, the following list shows the exact recent page moves:

 Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  06:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original requested move proposal:

– The operating agency Connecticut Department of Transportation is locally known as "CTDOT", while "CDOT" could be confused for Colorado or California DOT. "CTDOT" will unambiguously name any future stations. –Zfish118⋉talk 16:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree They should be renamed to:

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) there should be no suffix, except if required for disambiguation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Pi that Newington Junction station would seem to be the best name, judging by Google News results.[1]--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's another article on "Flatbrush Avenue station", Flatbrush Avenue station would be the most appropriate title here. We can revisit if another article is created.--Cúchullain t/c 15:19, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flatbush Avenue–Brooklyn College (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line) and Flatbush Avenue (BMT Fulton Street Line) are the two in particular that may conflict. –Zfish118⋉talk 19:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Secondarywaltz's proposal. epicgenius (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the rest, go with Secondarywaltz's proposal to follow WP:USSTATION. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have moved all the pages already. I think there is a unanimous consensus per WP:USSTATION. @Zfish118: would you mind withdrawing the request? I can't close it myself, and you seem to be in support of the alternative USSTATION proposal. epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Epicgenius, to me your action seems a blatant violation of RM procedures on several counts. Either close the RM, or let it run its course. But this seems controversial (and already messy enough) that I would think non-admin closure inadvisable. Andrewa (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • ​I wasn't aware that this ran afoul of RM procedures. Two other users have moved Flatbush Avenue (CDOT station) to Flatbush Avenue station (Connecticut) while this RM was ongoing, so I went based on their precedent. I have changed the "current names" of the stations, and I'll let this RM run its course. As to your comment But this seems controversial (and already messy enough), there is not a single oppose !vote on this discussion so far, hence "unanimous consensus" in my above comment. WP:USSTATION is pretty much consensus for most U.S. bus and train stations. epicgenius (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • To quote another editor, "Don't do that" ;-). I edited Flatbush inadvertently because I was working through the list of Hartford Line stations and forgot West Hartford was also a bus station. I posted the note when I realized the mistake. It is not that the moves are controversial, but I started the discussion to find the best solution and work through any complications like Parkville or Flatbush. –Zfish118⋉talk 03:05, 2 February 2018 (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.

Post move

[edit]

I should not have singled out Epicgenius for criticism as this was a litany of poor procedure by many participants. And the end result is good. But please all read the RM instructions. Andrewa (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right. I know that I violated a major RM policy, but now I know to wait until the RM is over next time, even if everyone agrees. epicgenius (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with the final naming scheme, but so many stations were added or removed and added back to the proposed list, and premature moves made and reverted and unreverted that I would have preferred the dust to have settled a bit more to better ensure the technical process of moving the pages was done smoothly. For instance, there are still some WP:Double redirects, and I had been waiting for a reply from Cúchullain about the Flatbush station. –Zfish118⋉talk 17:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry about that, you were right about the Flatbush station, I typed the name wrong. Thanks for the catch.--Cúchullain t/c 17:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favour of a certain flexibility, and so is policy of course. The rules are just there to help us to collaborate, see User:Andrewa/Rules, rules, rules (and see it while it lasts, it's very much a work in progress, and comments welcome on its talk page). But we need to be aware of them, and I was concerned that newcomers seeing this discussion might be misled unless I said something. That's my agenda. Andrewa (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As closer doing followups, I just noted that one page, Parkville station, has been moved to a different qualifier. I would ask that no more renames be made to these pages without RM discussion, a debate that can take place at any time. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

USSTATION is (mostly) uncontroversial since it's Wikipedia policy. I don't know why a separate RM has to be made for an uncontroversial move. epicgenius (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think such a thing is "controversial" per se. What is controversial is the way this RM swayed in different directions and didn't really get a chance to run but about half its course before a procedural close. All I'm saying is that this is no longer a Lone Ranger situation. Other editors have participated and should have a say in what happens. If not an RM, then there should at least be informal functional conversation among involved editors here on this talk page (or the talk page of a specific station in this group of pages) where it, of course, belongs. Why would anyone want to exclude involved editors?  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that. I didn't realize before that you should not move a page that is affected by an RM. What I don't get is why I can't move a page after the RM is over, which you were implying by my move of Parkville station to a different qualifier. epicgenius (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see where you're coming from; however, I shall continue to AGF. I must ask, though, how you can respond to an editor "Don't do that. It confuses people if you move a page while a RM discussion is in progress," early on 1 February, and then later the same day commence moving all these pages half way through an RM. What were you thinking? Then after the RM, after a fair consensus had arisen to move "Parkville (CDOT station)" to "Parkville station (CTfastrak)", you move the page to a different qualifier. What was wrong with the agreed-upon title? Why do you suppose the consensus in the RM did not include "Connecticut" as the disambiguator rather than "CTfastrak"? It appears that without discussing this with involved editors, you have gone against consensus. These are just thoughts to consider. I consider the point moot and my questions rhetorical. In this particular case, I'd say it all worked out to the benefit of Wikipedia. It may be well to remember though that sometimes when these things happen, the "controversial" aspects can be like Vodka; they'll run around behind you and bite you on the arse. Wouldn't want that to happen to any editor!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  02:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at USSTATION, I initially thought disambiguation should be by state first, then by transit system. But apparently I was wrong since "Context will determine the most suitable distinguishing term". So based on that, I probably should not have moved the article about Parkville station since there was nothing wrong with the previous title. That's something I will remember for next time. Now, do you want me to self-revert that move?
And regarding being a hypocrite: my move of the Flatbush Avenue station article was reverted after I moved it back to the original "(CDOT station)" title. I asked why it was moved, and I was told to "Be bold and move some". So that is what I did. epicgenius (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding reverting the Parkville move, already answered. Better to leave things alone for now. Regarding being bold, that option is very much like IAR – have a very good reason to be bold, and be prepared to justify your changes. This encyclopedia project is a community effort of staggering proportions. So be prepared the next time you decline to follow your own good advice.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that USSTATION is uncontroversial, and discussions to conform are usually not necessary. But it's a convention, not a policy. Dicklyon (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's listed at Category:Wikipedia naming conventions but I can't see that it's linked to from WP:AT. It may not be an accepted naming convention at all. But agree that these proposals were uncontroversial, and could have been done boldly or requested as technical moves if admin powers were needed. Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon and Paine Ellsworth: Sorry for the mistake. This does mean that there are exceptions, though, and maybe this could have been one of the exceptions because it was a bus station. I guess I should have let the RM run its course, then, even if there was consensus to move the pages to their current titles. epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Music soothes...  Paine  17:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: Although the convention is not "controversial" per se, I was not strongly familiar with it, which is why I brought it to the discussion; otherwise I would have made the original proposed changes myself. I would have been fine with "Parkville station (Connecticut)" since it was perhaps the odd one left out, after every other station was found to be unique, and Flatbush got the state qualifier. This is pretty much why discussions should usually last at least 7-days - to iron out such kinks!
Participants in a discussion reasonably expect it to play out for the whole week once started, especially if there is any sort of dialog, so that firm consensus can be reached. We are all busy and on different schedules (r even time zones!) so discussion can be slow. A consensus means everyone felt heard and mostly satisfied. Once everyone is involved, it becomes frustrating when someone acts unilaterally before the kinks under discussion are fleshed out. I think we are all OK with the result, but left with sour taste as to how it came about.
(Aside, before we start to beat a bottle of glue, so we should start winding down the post discussion. I defer to the soothing music linked above.) –Zfish118⋉talk 21:27, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Be sure to listen all the way through – after about 7 minutes of really soothing music, the piece begins to remind of a masked man on a silver horse riding off into the sunset. Wikipedia, though, is the sun that never sets!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  01:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

: Sorry to weigh in now, Parkville station may actually be worth its own discussion. Either Parkville station (Connecticut) or Parkville station (CTfastrak) could be acceptable based on WP:USSTATION, and in fact my opinion is that (CTfastrak) is the clearer title. By contrast, Flatbush Avenue station (Connecticut) is acceptable for that article, as it's planned for rail service as well as CTfastrak. And to one of the above comments, of course WP:USSTATION is a widely accepted and followed naming convention.--Cúchullain t/c 17:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feeling either way, but will note that Parkville is a defunct railroad station in addition to a current bus station [20:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)]; on the other hand, a new "CTfastrak East (of the CT River)" is proposed, and those stations will have no railroad history. Should CTfastrak East be built, Parkville (CTfastrak) would no longer be the "odd one out". –Zfish118⋉talk 18:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Downtown_New_Britain_station&oldid=1207027132"