Language desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 28

Grammar

Today I reverted this edit, because it just looked like a test edit to me. Later, the user made the the same edit, however this time they used the edit summary of "Grammar correction". I looked over it and reverted it once more. Now, I'm second guessing myself. Who is right? I am by no means a grammar expert, but that doesn't look correct to me. Although this may look like a content dispute; it's not. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'll gladly revert, but I'd love an explanation on why I'm wrong. Thanks. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the station itself is called Naperville Station? In that case, it would make sense not to use the "the" (but the S should probably be capitalized). --Trovatore (talk) 03:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak uses "...the Naperville station..." (emphasis added): [1] —107.15.157.44 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When a train station is only known by the name of the place where it's located, it's utterly standard to refer to it in the style "Guelph station", but forms like "Guelph Station" and "the Guelph station" are also used. So this is not exactly a matter of correction, nor is the fact that Amtrak uses a particular style in one place on one web page definitive as to correct practice. Notice that on the same page they identify it as Naperville "Amtrak/Metra Station"; that sort of usage with both a place name and one or more operators is also common.

That said, I would always use the shorter style myself, so I think the original edit was an improvement even if it wasn't a correction.

On another point, I don't understand the idea of reverting an edit because it "just looked like a test edit". If someone has a different idea than you do as to what's the best wording; why does that make it "look like a test"? Test edits that should be reverted are ones that clearly aren't improvements. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you see an anonymous edit with an empty summary consisting of the deletion of one word, which – according to your sense of English – appears to make the sentence ungrammatical, wouldn't you think it was a test edit? --Lambiam 05:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd think the person's sense of grammar was defective, and probably revert it. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Notice that on the same page they identify it as Naperville "Amtrak/Metra Station"" To me, that suggests that the actual name is "Amtrak/Metra Station" and "Naperville" is just a locator/disambiguator. Using "Naperville station" as a pseudo-proper noun seems to be making a false statement that it is actually named "Naperville Station". --Khajidha (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, a station in the U.S. is referred to by the name on the signs at the tracks, which are visible to the passengers aboard the trains. In this case it is simply "Naperville" (see its article). But use of "the" is a matter of style and preference, as long as clarity is maintained. I would use it in this case. Jmar67 (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, neither version is grammatically incorrect, but my preference is to omit the definite article, effectively treating "Naperville station" as if it is a proper noun (but without necessarily capitalizing the second word). Different editors may have different preferences. A haphazard sampling of some pages gave an article-less Milton station and Centralia station, and both an articled and an article-less Summit station. I think I may be most inclined to leave out the article when I think of the station as a service point on a railway-service line, and slightly more inclined to use the article when I think of the building as an architectural construction. --Lambiam 05:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. Since there isn't a clear consensus either way, I won't self-revert, but I also won't revert again if the IP comes back and makes the change. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wrong without the article to me. Are we certain this isn't a British/American English difference? Rmhermen (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The caption of the infobox image in that article says, in part, "The terminal tracks of the Aurora station in September 2016." The omission of the before "Naperville station" therefore gives the appearance of an inconsistency of usage within the article. I think both usages are defensible as idiomatic in isolation, but I also think that consistency within any particular Wikipedia article is a worthwhile goal. Deor (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The inconsistency fits with my intuition. In the sentence "the Fox Valley is served by Amtrak from Naperville station", the function of "Naperville station" is that of an abstract service point on a railway-service line. In "the terminal tracks of the Aurora station", we see the Aurora station treated as a concrete physical entity with spatial extension. --Lambiam 17:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think this may be a difference between people who deal with stations a lot, and those who don't. It's the ones who don't that are likely to use the "the" when there's no need for it. But this is just my feeling; I don't have a reference, or even personal experience, to cite. --76.71.6.31 (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably is mostly to do with how much people use trains. For me (a non-user), any use of the word "station" means the actual building and the abstract service point sense that Lambiam mentions would just be "Naperville". --Khajidha (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]