Talk:Waterbury Union Station

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was move. Jafeluv (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Waterbury (Metro-North station) → Waterbury Union Station — Rename to reflect name of building and broader historic sweep, rather than this just being a stop on a current commuter railroad. doncram (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Local knowledge is needed here! It's not clear to me that the historic Waterbury Union Station is the same place as the Metro-North station that was the original subject of this article. It looks like the historic station is now the offices of the Republican-American newspaper, and a different building entirely is the place where people get on and off the Metro-North trains. (Most of the links in the article are dysfunctional, but this one is a harangue about the sorry situation.) If the historic station is not the same as the current station, they would need to be two separate articles. --Orlady (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Additional information: http://as0.mta.info/mnr/stations/station_detail.cfm?key=298 (a link that is also in the article but didn't work for me -- it resolves to the MTA home page, so to get to it you need to find on "Metro-North Railroad" on the menu and then select "Travel" and then "Stations" on the pull-down menus) gives the station location as "at the Republican and American Newspaper Offices". Thus, apparently a portion of the building is in use for rail service, so the move is reasonable. --Orlady (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for investigating and commenting. This is one of many station articles which perhaps need renaming. See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)#Historic or otherwise named stations, about which i also posted at Wikiproject Trains. doncram (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know, the references here seem confused themselves. What about simply "Waterbury station"?
  — V = I * R (talk) 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  I think the article name needs to be a proper noun name of the place, or at least it should be if one is available. Waterbury Union Station is the name given in the NRHP program, so it will reflect the applicant's view of the formal name of the place. I'll add another NRHP-related reference to the article now. It certainly would be helpful if anyone was interested enough to obtain a free copy of the NRHP application for the place, which would be a reliable historical document that would describe the history of its names up to the NRHP listing date. I do agree that the treatment of name in the references and in the external links seem to be inconsistent. I would perhaps defer to a different proper noun name if such could be established as being the locally used common name, but I think the Waterbury Union Station name would be fine, also, with any other common name such as Waterbury Station (if that is in fact used) being given as a bolded alternative name in the intro. I don't think anyone is likely to refer to it as "Waterbury (Metro-North station)" however, and I think "Waterbury" is the name of the city not the name of the station. doncram (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the "(Metro-North station)" text is actually just a disambiguator. That style is used all over the English Wikipedia, and the ext inside the parenthesis is not really supposed to be something that people normally use. The reason that it's there is because the article name is suposed to be "Waterbury", but since that name obviously collides with... the article about the city with that name, something is needed to differentiate the name of this article, and someone picked "(Metro-North station)" at some point. Parenthesized disambiguators are always a lousy, last ditch effort to differentiate names though (as is outlined in the WP:DAB guideline), so if something better is available (as seems to be the case here) then that should be used.

  My only concern with using Waterbury Union Station is that there seems to be some concern that the current train station is not the historic train station. "Waterbury Union Station" sounds like it may very well be a different location then the current Metro-North station. Therefore, unless someone is willing to edit the article (splitting it into two articles?) in order to adjust it to clearly cover one or the other, it seems as though using Waterbury Union Station may be incorrect.
  — V = I * R (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

  I am no longer concerned that the current train station might not be the historic station. From the sources I've examined, it seems that the building is properly called the Waterbury Union Station, and the Metro-North train station still occupies a part of the building. Thus, it would make sense to craft a single article that covers both (1) the history and architectural significance of the landmark building and (2) the characteristics of the current commuter rail station. --Orlady (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK, that's fine by me. The important thing though is to please update the article with the information that you've researched. That is much more important then what the name of the article is.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • From what I've read, the former Waterbury Union Station and the Metro-North station are one in the same, as well as being the headquarters of the local newspaper that Orlady mentioned. I say it should be left alone, and the "Waterbury Union Station" name should redrect here. As for simply naming it "Waterbury Station," absolutley not, since this isn't the only Waterbury Station in the world. ----DanTD (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support move. This is the name as it is listed on the NRHP. The comments above support this as the name of the building. It does away with an unnecessary disambiguation in the name. Since the building is what is notable, as opposed to its current use, that should be reflected in the article name. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Metro North stations are considered notable (every Metro North station is the subject of a Wikipedia article, regardless of the what building it is in). "Waterbury Union Station" is the right name for this article, but that doesn't imply that the current train station is nonnotable. --Orlady (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

new split

Can we revisit this decision and split off an article on the Metro-North station from the historic building? The two are now completely separate entities that share only some of the same parking. The station building is devoted purely to newspaper purposes; the station facilities itself are modern. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the preceding discussion and move does not at all preclude splitting the article later, if development warrants that. Daniel Case, if you want to develop it now, I say please go ahead and split however makes sense. As Daniel must know, the NRHP nomination document, previously not available on-line, is available now:

Clouette, Bruce (November 19, 1976). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Waterbury Union Station" (PDF). National Park Service. and Accompanying eight photos, exterior and interior, from 1976

--doncram (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am doing this tonight. Daniel Case (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

By-product of the split

I'm not complaining about the split, but when this article was renamed from Waterbury (Metro-North station) to Waterbury Union Station, the revision history of this issue went back to the Metro-North station talk page when it shoudl be here. Can anybody fix this? ----DanTD (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Union Station, but what other railroads?

The only former railroad listed at Waterbury seems to be the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Since this was a Union Station, I assume other railroads used this station, but I don't see any of the others here. ----DanTD (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

NYNH&H was the north/south train. The New York and New England Railroad was the east/west train. But, by the time this station was built in 1909, it was all NYNH&H. I am concerned with the "66 trains a day at it's peak" statement. (That's why I'm on the talk page.) The timetables I saw had at most, circa 1920, closer to 8 trains a day. While Waterbury was very industrial (there is still a large freight yard on site at the station), passenger service never put up good numbers. Dickbalaska (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

New Photo

A reader has supplied a new photo: File:Waterbury Union Station 2013.jpg

The current infobox photo is from 1960, while this is more current. I'll leave it to other editors to determine whether this new photo should replace any in the article, or be added to the article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge Waterbury (Metro-North Station) To Waterbury Union Station

I would like to make a proposal to merge Waterbury (Metro-North station) with the Waterbury Union Station article.

As far as I can see, there is very little benefit to having two articles on practically the same topic; while the owners of Waterbury Union Station, the Republican-American newspaper no longer allow individuals to use the South Waiting Room in the building itself, the tracks and active platform continue to sit directly adjacent to the building; the parking lot of the station is commonly used in pick-ups and drop-offs. (Something I myself experienced and witnessed others doing quite often)

As far as I can see, it's just a waste of precious Wikipedia data-center space to have two separate articles for this; if anything, it should be one article with sections denoting the history of the Waterbury Union Station of the past and today's still-active single platform, still providing passengers service to significant destinations like Bridgeport, Stamford, and New York City.

Any thoughts? I really don't see a good enough reason to justify a station building and a station platform existing as two articles. I used this station sporadically for years, and I never made a distinction of 'Two Waterbury Stations' in my mind. On the contrary, I believed the building and its iconic clock-tower made 'Waterbury' (by any name) one of the most beautiful train stations in the entire state, and certainly the nicest Metro-North station I've ever used.

The closest equivalent I can point to which parallels this unique situation is another McKim, Mead, and White-designed station, the infamous New York City Pennsylvania Station, which was torn down. There is no designation between its still-active underground platforms, and its former beautiful station above. There's a long section about the architecturally-significant structure in the article, and that's all that is necessary. Not an entirely different article.

Most people aren't familiar with where the internet actually 'exists'. The thousands upon thousands of Wikipedia pages exist on servers, many of which exist in expensive buildings called 'data centers' which use hundreds of kilowatts of electricity to keep perfectly cool and operational. Wikipedia must pay to maintain and operate these servers.

As Wikipedia is non-profit and does not use ads, this requires them to request donations to keep Wikipedia operating. While one article using up space may seem insignificant, multiplied thousands of times in other articles using up unnecessary space, means all the more costs for Wikipedia. That's why it's nonsense to have a Wikipedia article for every character, say, on 'Mork & Mindy' when a single page giving a brief outline of significant characters is more than adequate for most readers.

Make it one article with two sections. They're both "Waterbury Station" depending on who you ask. It's just a waste of precious space; having two articles serves virtually no purpose.

(Please note that I have never done a merge before; if I have made a mistake in the merge procedure, please let me know.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efb91 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Efb91: Thanks for your thorough explanation for the merge request. First off, I would encourage you on talk pages to sign your statements with the four tildes (~~~) so others know who is saying what in the conversation. Secondly, the concern about taking up cyber-space is not an issue with Wikipedia.

The articles have, however, arisen from a cut and paste split, apparently, which should never have happened as it did. The original attributions have therefore been compromised; and the articles should probably be rejoined, as one page seems to be adequate for the subject at hand as far as I can see. You may still want to notify those who in the past were part of the original move-and-split, and perhaps get some additional input from them. You seem knowledgeable about the subject, and can gp ahead and do a bold merger if you'd like. (Worst case, it gets reverted.) Let me know if you have questions. Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 06:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to the merge. I should state I have an interest in the topic: my grandfather was stationmaster for a few decades ending about 1955. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful advice, GenQuest and Jc3s5h. I'll leave the status quo for a couple more days, and if there's no major objections, I'll do just as you've advised, GenQuest, and do a bold merger. Thanks for your help. :D Efb91 (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with merging the two articles. Both the historic and architectural aspects of the building and the station operations can easily be combined into a bigger, more comprehensive article. --Polaron | Talk 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of the separate article on the Metro-North station, I disagree and find nothing above that convinces me to even rethink that. The argument about server space is utterly irrelevant, and frankly absurd ... if that were a problem we would never have established Commons, nor told people to always upload images at the highest resolution possible. A good deal of the money the Foundation raises every year goes toward paying for more server space; we're not in any danger of running out any time soon (and if we were, you'd hear about it). Even if space were an issue, the article on the Metro-North station is a grand total of ... 4.4KB! The last time I had a computer where that little memory would have been a problem, Star Wars was still on its first theatrical run.

As for the station itself, there are two reasons for separate articles:

• First, the old station is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which was the reason I developed that article so much based on the nomination forms for it. The new station is not included in that listing for obvious reasons—it was built much later and is not a contributing resource. Therefore it has no place in the article about the old station, which discusses purely that building (Compare with other stations along Metro-North lines which are NRHP-listed and still actively used: Tuxedo, Poughkeepsie) or architecturally integrated into the existing station even if functionally separate (Philipse Manor. There are also many examples of those old red barn-like stations along the New Haven Line that are Register-listed and still used as the waiting area).
• And even if the station weren't listed, the two buildings are entirely separate in their function today. The old station is a station in name only, and primarily used as a newspaper office. As noted above, the newspaper itself closed off the waiting room sometime ago; that ended any connection between the two buildings that would have justified keeping them together.

  The new station has a separate history, which, even though it's not in the article currently, can be researched from existing sources (not necessarily online) and developed. I believe the two properties might even be on separate land lots. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose this for the same reasons given by Mr. Case, despite the fact that I had originally renamed Waterbury Metro-North station as Waterbury Union Station long ago. It's also the same reason I've tried and failed to keep the content of Opa-locka (Tri-Rail station) separate from the former Seaboard Air Line Depot. Speaking of which, I have to remove the SAL gallery from that article again. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, if you two really believe that they should be two separate stations, that is fine by me. I still maintain that the two articles would be better as one; however, I don't care enough about the topic to vehemently argue for one way or the other; I just viewed two separate articles for 'past Waterbury station' and 'present Waterbury station' which are literally 30 feet from one another, if that, to be inefficient, and not what I, the passenger, personally experienced as one who frequented the station regularly in the past. If you'd like to keep the articles separate, that's no skin off of my back. Efb91 (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not really – as per arguments made by Daniel Case and DanTD. Plus, the server argument is just ludicrous. The server can hold billions of kilobytes of data. Epicgenius (talk) 12:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)