Jump to content

Talk:Hibiscus Coast busway station

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

Upper or lower case?

[edit]

Please join this discussion if you have a view on the article's title. Schwede66 18:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2021

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 03:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– There is a longstanding convention to use lower case for the "railway station" part of New Zealand railway stations. See, for example, Category:Railway stations in New Zealand. For that reason, Constellation Busway Station was moved to Constellation busway station with this diff, where the edit summary states: "lowercase per other New Zealand stations". The other stations on the Northern Busway remained untouched, though, and retain their upper cases. I've tried to get an informal discussion going to have this straightened out but the only comment received was that we have Britomart Transport Centre using upper case and the railway stations should be brought in line accordingly. While I agree with the upper case for Britomart (nothing wrong with a main station being an outlier, as a WP:COMMONNAME may well be different for it), I certainly do not agree that there is a realistic chance of changing the naming convention for New Zealand railway stations. This leaves us with the issue at heart – should there be consistency between railway stations and busway stations? I say yes. What do others think? Schwede66 20:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. -- Aervanath (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)— Relisting. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe the lack of comment shows that most of us don't mind enough to write anything. Here's another idea - Hibiscus Coast, Northern Busway. Once there are stations on several busways, it might be helpful to identify readily which ones are on what route. Johnragla (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Britomart Transport Centre is certainly not an outlier. The vast majority of building and place names are capitalised. For example, we have Auckland Airport instead of Auckland airport. The manual of style for WP:NZR (NZ Railways) even says that article names should be "Place-Name Railway Station." Most of the railway station titles were formerly capitalised but were changed by someone; they are the exception rather than the rule and we should not be changing the names of busway stations to be in line with them. There is a very good reason why is it actually correct to capitalise "Airport", "Busway Station", and "Railway Station": they are nouns and are part of the proper name, thus are always capitalised. For example: in this citation, Auckland Transport refer to "Albany Busway Station" as it is the actual name of the station. MangoMan11 (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I did not know that there is an NZR WikiProject. I’ve had a look and this is what it says: Article titles should be "Place-Name Railway Station", as in Wellington railway station. An exception is the Britomart Transport Centre. I rest my (lower) case. Schwede66 06:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It formerly read 'Article titles should be "Place-Name Railway Station", as in Wellington Railway Station. An exception is the Britomart Transport Centre.' as was intended when it was originally written. "Wellington Railway Station" was decapitalised in 2019 to fix the link that was broken due to a change to the title. The user in question has been called out and blocked due to edit warring and so cannot be relied upon to have made a particularly vaid edit. The prose intends to convey that 'Article titles should be "Place-Name Railway Station"' with "Railway Station" capitalised. The example was only changed to fix the link and was not intended to change the meaning of the prose. Additionally, the exception for Britomart Transport Centre seems to refer to the usage of "Place-Name Transport Centre" in the place of "Place-Name Railway Station." The capitalisation is the rule rather than the exception. MangoMan11 (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I google site:at.govt.nz for one example (Sunnynook) I find the following. I have combined 'Station' and 'Stn' (there are few of the latter).
Name All time 2018– 2020–
Sunnynook Busway Station 7 2 0
Sunnynook Bus Station 78 10 5
Sunnynook Station (or Stn) 124 17 3
Auckland Transport (AT) does not appear to have settled on a single proper name, but if they have, it does not seem to be 'Xxx Busway Station'. The citation that MangoMan11 has pointed to is not current – it is a 7-year-old page from the Internet Archive. At the least, the suffix 'way' should be dropped from the names. On the capitalisation question, I am happy with decapitalising (e.g. Sunnynook bus station), though I'm open to further arguments for capitalising the whole term. Nurg (talk) 04:16, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really in favour of using "way" either. However, that is a different matter and is not the point that was being made. The example was actually to show the use of capitalisation. Whether it is "Busway Station" or "Bus Station" is besides the point. What matters is that they are used as proper nouns and should be capitalised. MangoMan11 (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MangoMan11, just for the record, I’m indifferent on "busway" vs "bus". Either will do. Schwede66 06:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support in looking into the above change to Wellington railway station (which resulted in it conflicting with WP:NZR style guides) it seems this is the result of a 2017 RfC on Chinese railway stations, seeking to bring them in line with the approach of other places (ie. uncapitalised 'railway station'). While the WP:NZR guides seem to still prefer capitalisation, every railway station in NZ seems to use lowercase, so that's probably something in the style guide worth amending. Given all of that, it's probably worth moving these to be consistent with practice, even if it's not entirely the same thing. Turnagra (talk) 19:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason why all the railway stations are in conflict with the style guide is because they were unilaterally changed in 2017 by a bot set up by JJMC89. This had to do with the fact that the names of railway stations overseas (such as in China where they often use made up english names) sometimes do not include railway station in the proper name of the station as the name is unambiguous enough to do so. For example: London Victoria is unambiguous enough that the station name does not need to involve "Railway Station" in the name in order to not be confused with something else. Thus, "Railway Station" is not included in the proper name and it is not capitalised in the article title as it describes what it is rather than being part of the proper name. However, Railway stations in New Zealand generally include "Railway Station" as part of the proper name as they are too ambiguous to not include it (I'm yet to find one that doesn't use it as part of the proper name but there probably will be at least one). Nurg has shown this in their comment above where they showed that Auckland Transport (AT) uses "Bus Station" or "Busway Station" as part of the proper name (they also capitalise it) for Sunnynook Busway Station because just "Sunnynook" would be too ambiguous (Sunnynook the suburb? Sunnynook Road? Sunnynook Station?). The same is true for Auckland railway stations. Therefore, the names of most NZ railway stations do not use lowercase because it correct; It is because of a bot created by non-New Zealand users who did not actually take the time to check whether our stations have "Railway Station" as part of the proper name (JJMC89s talk page from December 2017 includes a few complaints about other proper name railway stations that were unjustifiably changed).
    Examples of uppercase being used for proper names:
    - Auckland Transport is the name of an organisation while Auckland transport would describe transport in Auckland.
    - Auckland city could be used to describe the city if Auckland was an ambiguous term. Meanwhile, Auckland City was the proper name of a (now defunct) city/council that covered much of the central Auckland isthmus.
    When it comes to consistency, bus stations are not railway stations and should be consistent:
    - Primarily with other New Zealand bus stations
    - Then with other transport buildings and structures of which railway stations are merely a component and not the whole.
    Upon taking a look at Category:Transport buildings and structures in New Zealand, it is clear that capitalisation is the stand practice for airports, bridges, bus stations, lighthouses, marinas, piers, and tunnels (there are a few tunnels where lowercase is improperly used but uppercase is still the norm) with railway stations being the only ones that do not comply due to the reason stated above. Therefore, bus stations are already consistent with practice and renaming them would actually make them inconsistent with practice. If anything, railway stations should be the ones being moved (back) to be consistent with practice. This should hopefully be sufficient reasoning to oppose. MangoMan11 (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's good background why New Zealand railway stations use lower case and why that might indeed be incorrect. If so, there may well be a case for having upper case for the railway stations and if others agree, then this move request is moot and Constellation busway station is the one that needs changing (apart from the hundreds of railway stations). Schwede66 18:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A "true" proper noun/name is an arbitrary name - ie it is not descriptive. A range of geographical features have a descriptor following the proper noun and these descriptors are fairly consistently capitalised by convention. Hence, we have Hudson Bay, Pacific Ocean, Thames River and Ural Mountains. It is quite aruguable that these two part names are not "proper" names. Only the first part is a proper noun. The convention does not extend to every two part construction in the form: attributive proper noun plus descriptor. The arguemnt above asserts that anything not capitalised according to the perceived "rules" of English are wrong - yet the proponent writes "Auckland isthmus". The argument assumes a codification of English that is universally understood and applied. Where is this "rule" then written that clearly governs this case? The only truism of English is that, for any rule in English, there are usually as many exceptions to a rule as there is conformity. English is a language that defies codification. The argument does not discern the distinction and difference when a name is a tradename or official name. Auckland Transport and Auckland City Council fall to this. Official names will be recognised and capped in independent reliable sources. Arguments based on the "known" rules of English generally fail because they assume a particular interpretation of something that isn't all that well known. WP has made a general ruling on naming railway stations. It is not unreasonable that it be extended by analogy. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the official FAQ that says "What are the names and locations of the bus stations? There are five stations on the Northern Busway: Albany, Constellation, Sunnynook, Smales Farm and Akoranga. In addition, there is the Hibiscus Coast station." 'nuf said. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the evidence of Dicklyon. Capitalisation is clearly not "necessary" per MOS:CAPS since they are not unitary phrases. We are not seeing convincing evidence from independent reliable sources to the contrary. An a priori argument (above) is not convincing. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Services

[edit]

This section has been reverted twice and, as it is happening on all the related pages, is approaching Edit Warring, where the advice is "participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page".

WP:NOTTRAVEL doesn't set levels for detail. It is open to interpretation. Pages such as these, prior to these edits, and, for example, Halesowen bus station have listed details of services. Many US articles, such as Oakland Coliseum station, have lists and links to articles for each route. Unless and until NOTTRAVEL is revised, I think the work done to create the detail should remain. Johnragla (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because something similar exists on another bus station article doesn't mean it should ... nor should it be rolled out to other similar articles. If you look at most of the major London bus station articles, they don't have details about every bus stop and which routes stop there. Replicating the AT Northern Bus Guide, is quite a clear definition of a travel guide, people should be going to Auckland Transport to know which bus stops where, not Wikipedia. WP:NOTDIR also applies there. A simple paragraph in proses outlying the connecting services, as I had condensed it to, is encyclopedic enough. I'd also like to point out that the reference I used was more recent than the one you have reverted back to. Ajf773 (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The London articles are like many in the US; they have lists in the form of links to articles about the routes. Until such articles are written, it seems more appropriate to include such details in a table. Which part of WP:NOTDIR are you referring to? It seems to cover whole articles, not sections of articles. Johnragla (talk) 10:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The London bus/rail/underground bus connections are not written in tables, they are in simple prose format. The table for Halestown bus station was only recently added by an IP user, and there far more information than is necessary or appropriate for an enyclopedia (even without specific bus stop numbers or letters for each service). The whole article is poorly sourced, so not a good example to use. WP:NOTDIR applies to content as well as whole articles. Ajf773 (talk) 10:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have not yet managed to justify exactly how this makes the article a "travel guide." Just because something could be of use to travelers (and I'm not convinced that it actually would be of much use to travelers - it's there for factual purposes only) does not mean that it is a "travel guide." By your logic: travelers might want to know where something is, therefore having any information about where something is located automatically makes it a "travel guide." Travelers might want to know about the history of something, therefore we should go around deleting large swathes of Wikipedia articles because history could be of use to travelers and that makes it a "travel guide".
The article itself is not the issue, it's the comprehensive listing of bus routes, destinations and stops. This is excessive, undue, and out of convention compared to other Auckland rapid transit stations' articles. Wikipedia is also not a directory. Both sources are directly linked to the official AT website. If we want to provide access to this information, the place is in a summarised prose form, as I had done, with the appropriate reference. Adding an external link to the bottom of the article is also acceptable. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that a lot of the infoboxes for bus and train stations include fields for things such as "parking", "bicycle facilities", and "fare zones." These are things that are arguably more travel-guide-like than what bus services actually use a bus station.
There is plenty of debate as to what level of detail we constitute content written in the form of being a guide. But just because something exists in one article, doesn't mean it should elsewhere. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Ajf773 (talk)
"Replicating the AT Northern Bus Guide, is quite a clear definition of a travel guide"
Actually, it's not a replication of the Northern Bus Guide and no it's not a "clear definition" of a travel guide. A clear definition is, in fact: "a book of information about a place designed for the use of visitors or tourists"
The content was directly copied from here: [1]. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately, the purpose of WP:NOTTRAVEL is to prevent articles having things like "while visiting, a great place to eat is X restaurant before you do X attraction." These are articles about bus stations and the way that buses operate through the stations is some of the most important factual information that an article can have.
The scope of WP:NOTTRAVEL includes detail about how to get around a city as well. WP:NTT contains some important points about content relating to stations. Excessive listings of published information, that is subject to change frequently, is in my view, complicit with being a travel guide. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I'd also like to point out that the reference I used was more recent than the one you have reverted back to."
Thanks for that contribution. However, the fact that it was reverted doesn't actually pertain to this discussion. If you didn't want it to be reverted, you should have made that edit by itself rather than bundling it in with a controversial, weakly-justified edit. Given that you were deleting a significant section of content, you probably should have made the reference edit on it's own and discussed the other edit on the talk page before proceeding with the edit MangoMan11 (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider this a weak-justified nor controversial edit, no more than I consider you adding this content in the first place when there is no encyclopedic value for it to be there. Ajf773 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Ajf773's argument is a complete misinterpretation of WP:NOTTRAVEL and WP:NOTDIR that has been used in various places to try to delete bus related content. NOTDIR prohibits Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. This does not mean all tables, of which there are many across the wiki. The contextual information exists in the rest of the article. Garuda3 (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A month later, and still no response to my messages on May 1. I also see MangoMan11 went ahead on May 16 and reverted my edits on three similar articles Manukau bus station Sunnynook busway station and Constellation busway station using the edit summary As per discussion on Talk:Hibiscus Coast busway station. From what I can see here, the dispute has not been resolved. Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you need to look harder then, as we seemed to be in a state of agreement that you're completely misinterpreting wikipedia policy. I will also note that you have been in many other similar disputes where you've tried to delete stuff and other editors have agreed that you're misinterpreting the policies. If you want replies, then maybe don't to that incredibly irritating thing that you've done where you've made replies right in the middle of the original comment. I also didn't reply to your messages because, in the interests of good faith, I didn't want to turn things into a big argument (knowing that you would continue to argue against us by reaffirming the same points in different ways). I thought it to be unnecessary to turn this into a (potentially messy bad faith) drawn out argument when I already considered Garuda3's comment to be sufficient to resolve this. Seeing as you are intent on doing so, and you love to quote WP policies while overcomplicating them at that same time as we agree that you are misinterpreting them, here's a nice and simple one that you shouldn't be able to overcomplicate:
    WP:IGNORE
    This content adds value to the page. As such, even if it didn't comply with Wikipedia policy (and you haven't managed to justify that it does), we should ignore those policies in favor of keeping the content.
    MangoMan11 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    First, I make no apology to replying to you in an incredibly irritating way, as you did the same thing toward my previous response. Secondly, nobody has explained how I've misinterpreted or overcomplicated any policy. Given the content is uplifted and referenced from a travel guide itself and written in a way to guide bus travels exactly which stop to catch the bus at to get somewhere - then I'm not exactly sure how this is NOT a travel guide. There are countless examples where similar content has downsized in the same manner which I have done while still keeping the reference or link to where that content still is (i.e Auckland Transport's website). The abbreviated format which I initially made, is very consistent with consensus made previous in other Wikiprojects such as WikiProject London Transport and WikiProject Stations. and this is the [2] and avoids articles turning to an indiscriminate collection of information. So in my opinion, there is no consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 10:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hibiscus_Coast_busway_station&oldid=1233083505"