Talk:Sutton railway station (Cambridgeshire)

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

Name

The article name should be "Sutton railway station, Cambridgeshire" and not "Sutton (Cambridgeshire) railway station". The common name, if an entity that was non functioning for the majority of its history may be said to have a common name at all, is "Sutton railway station". As it happens, it shares this name with other railway stations around the world; a disambiguator is therefore necessary. The standard disambiguator for geographic entities is the comma. For example, you have Dublin, Alabama, Dublin, California, Dublin, Florida, Dublin, Georgia, Dublin, Indiana, Dublin, Kentucky, Dublin, Maryland, Dublin, Missouri, Dublin, New Hampshire, Dublin, Paterson, Dublin, North Carolina, Dublin, Ohio, Dublin, Pennsylvania, Dublin, Texas, Dublin, Virginia etc. Where a place has an overwhelmingly strong claim to the name, it is entitled to claim it without a disambiguator (e.g Dublin, the capital of Ireland). This is not the case with any of these railway stations: each is equal in its obscurity. Parentheses is used as a disambiguator for type (e.g Cork (material), Cork (plug), Cork (surname) as opposed to the renowned city of that name). All other Sutton railway stations use my proposed format. I see no reason why Cambridgeshire should be the exception. @Redrose64: Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even the city is disambiguated - Cork (city). Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a geographic entity, it is a UK railway station, for which the normal form is to have the word "station" last, and any disambiguation is parenthetical. This comes up every few weeks on various articles; and indeed, you moved this page exactly five months ago. Since the move was controversial last time, you should not have attempted it again without a WP:RM. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: You should refrain from making ‘absolute’ statements. (All other Sutton railway stations use my proposed format.) Beside Sutton (Cambridgeshire), Sutton (Surrey) and Sutton (Dublin) use the standard UK naming format. And the general consensus seems to be that each Railway Wikiproject is free to set its own naming standards. Useddenim (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this came up indirectly at User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 14#Sutton (Dublin) railway station following these moves, which were part of these moves and edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing "absolutist" in my rationale. It is certainly no more "absolutist" than the claim that "This is not a geographic entity". A quick look at the search box let me to believe that all other Sutton stations followed the comma disambiguator format. I see now that the entry for the London one was just a re-direct. Apologies for that; I should have actually clicked the page. It appears that Useddenim may have fallen into the same trap as he/she mentions Sutton (Dublin) which is just a re-direct for Sutton railway station, Dublin. So let's avoid the mud-slinging and personal attacks and stick to the facts. Where is is written that a railway station is not a geographic entity? Is a lake a geographic entity? A city? A railway bridge? Where is it written that Railway Wikiprojects are free to depart from standard geographic naming disambiguator practices? Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay at its current title because that is how {{rws}} is set up to work. Mjroots (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Laurel Lodged should do his/her homework and read Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)#Previous discussions. Useddenim (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that any of those links is the definitive, last word on the subject that the editors may have thought them to be. All it confirms is that the geo disambig convention has been widely flouted and that railway stations in particular have been noteworthy and egregious examples of how not to use it. It's not even clear from the UK project that this page has properly applied its own local rules. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]