Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

The following discussion 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.

RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions

The following discussion 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.

Should WP:USSTATION be amended? Or should we try to follow its advice per the previous consensus? or neither? Dicklyon (talk) 03:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A review of discussion sections above may be useful. The recently enacted station titling guideline hasn't worked out so great between those who don't like it and those who like it but want to capitalize anyway where it says not to. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Corrected link from WP:STATION, the notability essay, to WP:USSTATION, the naming guideline. ansh666 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
More correctly, should the naming convention be changed to "Foo Station", "Foo station", "Foo (Foobar station)", or something else? Epic Genius (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. This is not about one station, but is a naming convention to cover every station and every option in the USofA. You say that we need "to clarify that it's a station", which means that the suffixed "station" is a descriptor and not part of the proper name. But! But if the transportation system calls and signs their facility "XXX Station" or "XXX Transit Center", that is a proper name. Unfortunately there is no simple answer. Round and round and round we go. Perhaps "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" might apply here. Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This applies to every single station that I am talking about, which is the thousands of articles that I will not list here. Epic Genius (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This RFC, as presented, is ambiguous, because it doesn't state that the question is whether Station should be in upper case. Editors shouldn't have to read the tedious talk page archives to know what they are being asked, although it is useful for them, after they know, to read what the background is. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I purposely kept it more open than that, since several who objected to fixing the case per the advice of WP:USSTATION did so on the basis of objecting the general naming scheme itself, saying the names should be rolled back before the moves intending to implement WP:USSTATION. Others objected on the basis of wanting to ignore what it says about capitalization, like Epicgenius and Secondarywaltz above; still others want to implement it, and respect its intended consistency with MOS:CAPS. Would you prefer that I make several binary RFCs about this? Or can we just collect comments and see where we are? Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
FTR, I object to the usage of either of the new naming formats using "Station"/"station". "Station" is the more feasible of the two ideas, but both are still equally pointless. Epic Genius (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Dicklyon, that is not what I said. That was a response to a specific comment. If you look back at my previous comments, which inspired the naming of this discussion, you will see that I support a standard lower case descriptive suffix which "removes any regular stations from claiming an upper case proper name". But the reality is that there will be a large number of editors who are invested in the status quo of using the system name as a suffix. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
But you've basically said that if Station appears on a sign, capitalize it, whether it's part of the official name or not. Every sign that identifies a station from the outside is going to capitalize Station, so this nullifies what the guideline says. If you look on the official station lists, or on the platform signs, you find only Union Station includes Station in its name (in the Washington Metro system; see pictures). But you've made us capitalize them all. Do you still not want to fix that and follow WP:USSTATION; should we just revise it then to say to always capitalize? Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The guidelines on the capitals were written as they were to accommodate difference in local use: in some cases, the locality may capitalize "Station" (making that its common name) and in others they may not. We need to determine if we'd rather force consistency to one or the other. If not, all we really need to figure out is what types of evidence we accept to make the determination. Signage? Use in local publications? etc.--Cúchullain t/c 16:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. Do you have any examples to illustrate the kind of local variation you're thinking of? And are you saying that a capital on a sign is evidence of proper name status (like Nurse Station, Police Station, Eye Wash Station, First Aid Station, Fingernail Glamming Station, and Train Station in these signs)? Dicklyon (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, nice try. The difference is that "Nurse" isn't actually a proper name, and neither is "Police", "Eye Wash", "First Aid", "Fingernail Glamming", or "Train". Epic Genius (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment from uninvolved editor - so from what I can tell, there are two questions being asked here: 1) should the word "station" be part of the title (outside of the parenthetical disambiguation), and 2) if so, should it be capitalized? Am I parsing the discussion correctly? If so, it would be useful to just write it out plainly like this, and rewrite the guideline to match consensus if necessary once the RfC is resolved. ansh666 00:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes. The choices are "Foo Station", "Foo station", "Foo (Foobar station)", or something else. Epic Genius (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
      • That's approximately right. The previous consensus for "Foo station" when "station" is not part of the station name seems to be broadly reviled, both by the over-capitalizers and by those who see the word station there as an inappropriate way to do disambiguation. So we should fix it one way or another. Dicklyon (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Use "Foo station" in absence of unambiguous reliable sources that "Station" is part of the formal name of the station, as is the case with Union Station (NY), but not Greenbelt station (MD). Per WP:NATURAL policy, do not use parenthetic disambiguation except where necessary, e.g. for "Central station (Transit_system_name_here)". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Simpler questions / concise survey

OK, that was too subtle or complicated or something. Here are two binary questions we can address instead:

  • Should we (A) keep the recent USSTATION convention to use "Station" or "station" as natural disambiguation, as in Anacostia Station or Anacostia station, or (B) go back to the previous convention of using the system name as part of a parenthetical disambiguator, as in Anacostia (WMATA station)? Or (X) don't care.
  • Should we (C) interpret capitalized "Station" on a pylon outside a station as meaning that this pylon is a reliable source for the interpretation that the station's official name includes the word "Station", or should we (D) go back to using official station name lists, which for example in the WMATA system show that only "Union Station (WMATA station)" has Station in its name? Or (Y) don't care.

Added after my vote and some of the discussion below: To simplify matters, suppose these opinions have no particular impact on the WMATA naming, which is in a unique mess from having attempted to implement the new USSTATION guidelines. What would you prefer for other systems not yet stirred up?

You may make concise answers, as for example BY or AD or whatever. Or gush (if you are tempted to respond at length about how it doesn't matter, you don't care, it's a waste of time, etc., don't say I didn't give you a quick time-saving way to register that opinion). Of course, I realize some will provide alternatives other than the ones that were obvious to me; they can just spell them out. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  1. BD. Dicklyon (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  2. BD. Also, I'd like to apply this to Sacramento RT, MAX Light Rail, MUNI Metro, TECO Line Streetcar System stations. -------User:DanTD (talk) 11:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  3. A[C,Y] USSTATION made a great leap forward in putting mandatory unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation to bed. Do whatever you want with capitalization, but please don't erase this very important progress. --BDD (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  4. BZ In which Z is we should look to independent secondary sources wherever possible, and if such secondary sources are unavailable or conflicting, then give preference to D over C. While I don't in general favor unnecessary disambiguation, if there is systemic consistency, especially where the terms are not particularly obvious, that is preferable to one-off inconsistencies. older ≠ wiser 13:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  5. A, which is really a non-starter. The old unwritten conventions aren't an acceptable option as they're entirely out of step with WP:AT. Any local naming convention needs to be inline with WP:COMMONNAME and the titles criteria (for instance, we don't add parentheses to titles when it's not needed for disambiguation, per WP:NATURAL, WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE). The capitalization question is really separate; I'm fine either way, so long as we're really looking at what the available reliable sources use rather than just forcing a consistency for the sake of it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  6. NONE OF THE ABOVE. Every case should be considered independently. If natural disambiguation (A) is commonly used in reliable sources for a given station, then go with it, otherwise use parenthetic. But even if you go with parenthetic we should be looking at other uses of that particular name to decide what disambiguator to use to best distinguish from the other uses.

    As to the second question, the existence of a sign with the (proper) name of the station is certainly evidence supporting usage of that name. --В²C ☎ 15:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

    AC sounds like what you're saying, since writing "station" or "Station" after a station name is very common (for every station name I've looked up at least). Can you explain how capitalization on a sign is evidence of proper name status, in light of such signs as Nurse Station, Eye Wash Station, Police Station, and Fingernail Glamming Station that I showed pictures of? Since signs with common and generic terms are almost always in Title Case when not ALL CAPS, I don't see that as informative in the least. I was wondering if anyone would seriously support option C; now you and BDD (whose change of RM target after consensus for lower case led to the present mess) have. I am baffled. Dicklyon (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  7. B and D. (Also see my comment below.) Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  8. AD – Per my comment below. Nothing is broken. RGloucester — ☎ 16:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    Interesting that you say nothing is broken, given that you twice supported my attempts to fix the capitalization that went against the closest thing we ever had to a consensus on the Station vs station question. Let me know if you'd like links to your statements in support of fixing it, or to the original near-consensus for station; or show a link to any place where you think there has ever been a plurality in favor of capitalized Station, which is the current broken state. Dicklyon (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    As I said below, the GUIDELINE is not broken. Yes, the community has decided to keep those particular articles at the capitalised titles. That's fine, as it doesn't matter to the reader anyway. The guideline says to consult RS, and the community consultation of RS in the move review and in the second move request resulted in them remaining at the capitalised title. I may well disagree with that assessment for divers reasons, but that has nothing to do with the guidelines themselves. USSTATION guidelines cannot determine what sources are reliable or not. That's outside of the purview of the guidelines, and there is no way that such a change would be acceptable. If there is a question of reliability of certain sources, take it to WP:RS/N. If you want to move the article, file a new RM or a move review. The guidelines functioned as they should've done. RGloucester — ☎ 17:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    Don't be absurd! Every indication of the community on the case question favors lowercase. The lack of consensus to move, in spite of more favoring lowercase, cannot be taken as a community decision in favor of uppercase, even if it is enough for you to change your own opinion for reasons unfathomable. And don't forget that that in the original RM to implement USSTATION, the response was originally unanimous for lowercase here before the pylon theory came along and BDD corrupted that support and make it go uppercase. Dicklyon (talk) 18:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    There were two supports. Scottalter and Cuchullain both supported because of USSTATION, which goes back to the move request in a circular loop in this case... Epic Genius (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's fine. So file a new RM, or a move review. I'll happily support a move. Once again, that has nothing to do with the guidelines themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    The question is really about whether to follow the guidelines (thank you for suggesting that you support that), or to change them to reflect what people would prefer to do. I'm happy either way, but unless we decide that here, it seems silly to repeat the RM process which has been shown to be so impossible. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    The guidelines were followed, in the minds of those who supported the capitalisation. According to them, those "stations" are capitalised per what they deem sources. The fact that both you and I deem analysing pictures of station pylons as the worst kind of WP:OR imaginable is irrelevant if others do not support that position. Wikipedia is based on consensus. Again, the problem here isn't the guidelines, which suggest consulting sources to determine whether a station name is a proper name. The problem is that there are conflicting points of view on what is a reliable source, as there are across Wikipedia. I suggest that a new RM be filed, which is the way to remedy this situation. Messing with guidelines will not accomplish anything, as this has nothing to do with the guidelines. A new thread at WP:RS/N might also be useful, as I imagine station pylons would be quickly discredited there. RGloucester — ☎ 21:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's just crazy talk. There's nothing unreliable about the signs; but it is silly to interpret them as giving an opinion as to what the official station name is. A sign that says "Eye Wash Station" is prefectly reliable for those who want to know whether a funny looking fountain is for washing out eyes or not, but who would suspect it of supporting the opinion that that's a proper name? Nobody would. The existence of the other signs, on the platforms, without station on them, tells one something; the fact that they agree with what's in reliable official station name lists tells you something. The pylons don't mean squat for this issue. BDD half admits it sometimes, and B2C is just being stubborn. So we're almost there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  9. AD. Nothing wrong with the guideline; just follow it. 73.222.28.191 (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
    @73.222.28.191: We are asking about whether to change the guideline. There are good reasons being presented for all of the arguments. Epic Genius (talk) 04:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  10. BD (rapid transit & light rail); AD (commuter and innercity rail). But, outside of opposing capitalized "Station" in the vast majority of cases, I can probably live with most outcomes here... --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  11. AD. This guideline is sound and makes sense. It is not rigid and gives flexibility for disambiguation when needed. These guidelines were carefully constructed over years and are consistent with other guidelines. Going back to parenthetical disambiguation for all articles is not needed and goes against WP:AT. Regarding capitalization, using the official station list makes sense. If the official station list does not include "Station", then it is probably not part of the name. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  12. BD. Seems the most logical and least grammatically offensive solution. I don't have strong opinions on this matter, except that spurious capital letters are evil. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  13. AD. B has WP:AT problems (e.g. WP:NATURAL policy). C is just irrational, and has WP:RS problems.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Alternative formulations and discussion outside the numbered survey on two binary questions

  • Oppose everything, leave well alone – I see no problem with things as they are, and do not understand the purpose of the RfC. There is nothing wrong with USSTATION. That yours and my personal interpretation of the RS presented in certain cases was not approved by consensus is not a problem with the guideline. Consensus has determined that those should have the uppercase, and that's where they should remain. The guideline is fine, and working as intended. What's more, I find that your attempt at introducing proscriptions into the guidelines as being WP:CREEP, aimed at getting the result that you want certain discussions. We don't determine what sources are and are not reliable here. That must be determined in individual cases at various article talk pages. RGloucester — ☎ 00:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Quite a bit fewer than half of respondents expressed a preference for upper case at the recent RM. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Use interpretation (A) for any systems that have already adopted the convention, and for future instances, use (B) to avoid a naming mess like this—we keep the system name in the title and the title still has "station" in it.

    Interpretation (E), which is, entrances aren't necessarily reliable sources because they may be abbreviated. So, we should go by the full station names they use on the map (or the full station names on the entrances), with all abbreviations expanded and without the "Station", et al. disambiguator appended to it; then, we use whatever naming convention is in place for that project. For example, if it's NYC Subway, we use NYC Subway naming conventions, which cover a smaller scope than US naming conventions Epic Genius (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate your opinion, Epicgenius, I think we have to realise that the present mess was not caused by the guidelines, but by the vehemence of a certain editor. There was no fundamental problem with the articles, whether they were at the capitalised titles or the lowercased titles. Capitalisation, as with all matters on Wikipedia, is subject to consensus in various discussions. It just so happens that in this case consensus resulted in these articles being placed at the capitalised titles. That's fine. There is no problem with that. It's just how the RS were interpreted by certain people. That's how all discussions involving RS occur on Wikipedia. The guidelines say to consult RS, and the consensus was that RS supported the uppercased titles. If a certain editor was not part of the equation, the articles would've likely remained where they were, and a lot of headaches could've been avoided. There is no benefit to modifying the guidelines for his sake, given the mess he's caused. Having two separate systems for different sets of articles defeats the consensus that originally established these guidelines, and makes more of a mess. Let's stick to the programme we have. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I guess that works. In the meantime, we should also not make rash decisions, like mass-moving pages against non-consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
RGloucester, I'm guessing that you mean me as "a certain editor", even though I had no part in the current titles except to try to get them fixed to agree with sources and guidelines. I am somewhat perplexed at your opposition, given your twice previous support for fixing the capitalization error that was caused by an RM discussion gone awry. I can only interpret your opposition here as opposition to me personally. If anyone can show some other plausible interpretation, I'm all ears. But lacking some other interpretation, I'll have to just ignore it as a change of mind designed to frustrate my attempts to fix the problem. It's only half expected of you; I'm presuming your God told you to do this, as you say with all your edits, so who am I to object? Dicklyon (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I appreciate how frustrating it must be to deal with people who deny facts and logic and clear evidence. But please be more measured in your posts ("I'm presuming your God told you to do this"). Tony (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
"Measured"? Seems like you're planning for a war. I'd like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a battleground. Regardless, in those cases, I did support the lowercased titles, and thought that the Greenbelt move was flawed procedurally. However, that was never a problem with the guidelines, but with the specific procedure in that instance. It is also true that others interpreted the sources different. I accept that Wikipedia processes have determined that the uppercase is to be used in those cases, as allowed for my USSTATION. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Epic, I think you're saying BD or BY, at least for systems other than the WMATA one that was the guinea pig that attempted to implement USSTATION. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I am. Epic Genius (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding your B and D above. Looks like we agree for a change (though why you worked so hard to implement C will never be clear to me). Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2015 (UTCJ
I would like to remind everybody that I think the New York City Subway naming convention should stay as it is. I still remember when Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) was abruptly renamed, and how that completely disrupted everything, and the editor who did so used WP:PRECISION as justification. Besides the arguments I had for keeping it with the NYCS naming convention, there's something else to consider; What makes Parkside Avenue station stand out that it could live on that name alone? It's not Grand Central Terminal in Manhattan, or 30th Street Station in Philadelphia, or even South Station in Boston. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the NYC Subway conventions, but why don't you go ahead and add it to the conventions as an exception if that's what it is, per WP:BRD, and see if anyone disagrees; perhaps it's not relevant here, or perhaps it is; I don't know. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
To add to my previous comment, I support (in order) choice B or "(Foo station)", then uppercase "Station", and finally lowercase "station". Epic Genius (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC) (This would be choice B, then A. I support D throughout. Epic Genius (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC))
You are now saying BC? Before you agreed that BD was your position. Just sayin' ... Dicklyon (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
No, I am still saying BD. I support choice D first, then choice C. Epic Genius (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for "clarifying?". Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Something is clearly wrong here. I thought BD was simply Foo (Amtrak station)/(Metro-North station)/(Tri-Rail station), etcetera. I see a lot of stations names being changed into something really weird, and in many cases being reverted into vague, dab names right now. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
B would be that. The C/D question was intended to apply if we keep the current guideline statement (A), but I suppose C would also suggest titles like "Foo Station (Amtrak station)" or "Foo Station (Amtrak)". Please do say what weird changes you are seeing so we can look at them. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Mostly I'm seeing a lot of "Foo station (Amtrak)" and "Foo station (Florida), Foo station (Michigan), etcetera, but on some occasions (to be more specific) I've been seeing "Delray Beach (Tri-Rail station)" converted to "Delray Beach station", even though another "Delray Beach station" exists as Delray Beach Seaboard Air Line Railway Station." While I'm here, I'd also like to remind the rest of you that the Washington Metro stations should be reverted to the name Foo (WMATA station). The use of "Washington Metro" would be better suited for the services of WMATA, such as the Red Line, Blue, Line, Silver Line, Metrobus, and the like. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
UPDATE -- The "Delray Beach station" issue seems to have been solved. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to follow up on these and see who is doing what, not knowing the bindings of Foo to search for. Dicklyon (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to interpret your reminder, either. Did some discussion already decide to revert from the USSTATION guidance on the WMATA stations? Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I meant BD, then AD (not BC). Epic Genius (talk) 16:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry my formulation is still too complicated to follow, but if you could go back and strike or correct your previous statements, and try to leave us with your first-choice letter pair and statement of ordered preferences consistent with it, that would be better than yet another confusing contradiction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary / conclusions

  • It appears that we're 5–5 on the A/B question of whether to use WP:USSTATION or revert to the previous (unwritten) naming conventions for stations (or maybe 6–4 in favor of rolling back the USSTATION guideline and go back to parenthetical system disambiguators, depending on how Epicgenius's next clarification comes out).
  • There's little to no support for the scheme (AC) with capitalized Station as inflicted on the WMATA titles. A weak support or don't much care from BDD, and feeble statement of caps being OK by B2C.
  • A clear majority (looks to me like 7 or 8 D of 10) would prefer to go with reliable sources such as official station lists, rather than capitalize per pylons as the current mess does on the WMATA stations.

Does anyone disagree with these summary points?

Would it be reasonable to apply this sentiment to the WMATA article titles, or do we have more than RGloucester and BDD and B2C who want to maintain that the articles based on pylons are NOTBROKEN? If we can agree that they are broken, perhaps we can agree on asking the binary question of whether to fix them by going back to the parenthetical disambiguator and scrapping USSTATION, or fixing the case to lowercase station per USSTATION. I would be willing to abstain on the latter question, if we can agree that's the key point. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We could do another question, or a new RFC, with those two WMATA fix options; or a three-way with notbroken as an option; or a four-way that would let me say that either fix is OK by me, but that notbroken is not OK. Dicklyon (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

We could do another !vote or a question about whether or not NOTBROKEN is OK, and whether or not to support one of the three naming conventions being proposed. Personally, I want to move back to the parenthetical disambiguators. Epic Genius (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
When it comes to policy/guidance, having only 10 people !vote is definitely not enough. Whether you try a new question, or ask the same question... I would suggest that you advertize the hell out of it to get comments from a much wider audience. Blueboar (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking project naming conventions were considerable lighter weight than either policies or guidelines, but I'd sure welcome more input here. Would you be able to help advertise it if you know a good way? Dicklyon (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Policy is more heavily weighted than guidelines because policy must be followed, while guidelines are just suggestions. Epic Genius (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:Guidelines are more than "just suggestions". I just noticed that naming conventions are indeed guidelines; that's why following them is generally respected over not. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Either way, an RfC on deprecating these guidelines would have to be widely advertised. It would have to have a clear yes or no question, unlike this RfC, and it should take place in a public locale, preferably the WP:VP/P. As far as I can see it, this RfC is merely advisory, positing a direction to go in. It has none of the necessary features to deprecate a community guideline (not a "project" convention). Keep in mind that RfCs run for thirty days. RGloucester — ☎ 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
You don't actually care about fixing this, do you? You just like tying me up in knots; I get that. But do stop going on about it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a related move review now at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015_April#2015 April; this could be the valid shortcut around the mess that RG wants to continue to drag me through. Those of you who said "D" can probably see how you might help fix things there. And if you said "C" you should just forget I said anything about it. And if you prefer "B" like me, don't let that dissuade you from helping. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

So far nobody disagrees with my summary, which suggests a pretty good consensus for lowercase station, and a big division on whether to use USSTATION at all versus roll it back. That's about what I expected, given the comments in the recent Greenbelt Station RM discussion. It doesn't really resolve anything, though, unless people speak up and help resolve it, over the objections of RGloucester, who does his best to keep it from being resolved even though he favors the obvious fix of lowercasing station where it's not part of the station name. He has pilloried me plenty on process issues, and doesn't seem willing to let up or to encourage any way forward. So I guess we're stuck. Dicklyon (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that you've opened the move review, we need to wait for that to finish. Patience. RGloucester — ☎ 16:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
No we don't. We can continue to collect comments and work on how we want to proceed. This RFC is not about the WMATA articles so much as about the general conventions. Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Dick, you may want to see WP:DEADLINE. You don't need to file a MR a week after opening an RfC, nor do you need to make 500 moves per month. You don't have any quota to fulfill. Epic Genius (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Shut up if you have nothing useful to say, OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think suggesting that we could go slower and more deliberately is useful. However, telling someone to "shut up" isn't very useful (nor helpful). Blueboar (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
But his hypothetical accusations get tedious. Have I ever approached 500 moves per month, or acted like I have a quota to fulfull? No, I have not. Have I opened a move review as an alternative approach to try to get some resolution on the mess here? Yes, I have. Why is he picking on that? He has nothing useful to say, so he should shut up. It seems clear enough. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The utility of my comments to you isn't relevant here. Epic Genius (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you should read WP:NPA, Dick. Epic Genius (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Are you suggesting that I attacked you by suggesting that you shut up? The suggestion still stands. Dicklyon (talk) 03:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem appears to be that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) bears no resemblance to how articles were actually named. One side dogmatically preaches that text and the other side points out that it has never been done that way. This discussion still remains unfocused, with a shotgun approach to comments, with a wide scatter. Anarchy rules when random moves are made to whatever pleases you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, one thing worth remembering is that WP:USSTATION is a "guideline", so it's not as if it has the "force of law" or anything. On my end, I just wish that USSTATION would be revised to something more rational, including not treating urban rail systems and commuter & innercity rail systems the same, because they're not... --IJBall (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a guideline, which means it ought to be followed as much as is reasonable. At any rate, virtually every point is consistent with the WP:AT policy, which can't be said about the unofficial conventions used before. And the guideline doesn't treat everything the same; in fact, there are different, flexible recommendations for different articles and situations.--Cúchullain t/c 02:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't see a way to get anything useful out of Secondarywaltz's "The problem appears to be" comment. Has he no actual opinion to express about which way to move the guidelines, if at all? Does he not understand that his proposal to capitalize based on pylons is what led to the present mess, and he has no desire to help find a way out of it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I have started two simple binary RFCs below to see if we can answer either question. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I invite you all to advertise it wherever appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone object to a withdrawal or early close of this RFC, in light of the two below? Are those adequate to capture all relevant options and opinions on how to proceed? Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

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.

As far as I can tell, there's really no consensus in this discussion on what to do. I've not yet looked at the other discussions, so perhaps something will be decided down below. Nyttend (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the USSTATION convention be rolled back?

The following discussion 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.

In the open RFC #RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions above, it appears that half or more of respondents would prefer to roll back the new US station article naming conventions that have been so hard to implement sensibly, and go back to using system name as parenthetical disambiguator. That is, Greenbelt (WMATA station) rather than Greenbelt station as WP:USSTATION recommends or Greenbelt Station as we have now.

Proposition: Roll back the USSTATION guideline; roll back the WMATA station article titles to use parenthetical (WMATA station) as disambiguator. Please SUPPORT or OPPOSE with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – the old convention of using the system name as disambiguator was better in several ways. It made titles that were recognizable, precise, consistent, and informative; it avoided the invitation to guess wrong about whether station should be capitalized or not; it was pretty stable for a long time. I'm not sure if we had a written set of conventions before, but the new convention does not seem to be well accepted; going back seems better in many ways. Dicklyon (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    In light of the so-far-unanimouse support for a more sensible interpretation of the USSTATION guideline in the next RFC below, I withdraw my support for rolling it back. Of course, if that second RFC fails, then I'll be back here supporting a rollback. Dicklyon (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Partially support – what you propose is how I think rapid transit and light rail station articles should be named (there are more of them, or more stations sharing the same name among different RT and LR systems, so the additional disambiguation is needed and desirable); but the "new" (i.e. current) naming scheme in USSTATION – namely "{Something} station" – is how commuter rail and intercity rail stations' naming should be handled (there are fewer of them, and they generally don't need the additional disambiguation...). --IJBall (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
What would you do for San Antonio (Caltrain station), my local commuter station? Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
That one would probably need the additional disambiguation, to avoid confusion with San Antonio Station in San Antonio – so doing it the first way will be needed even for some intercity, etc. rail stations. But most intercity, etc. rail stations are probably not going to need the extra disambiguation. --IJBall (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Follow-up: But I think my preferred way to diambiguate that would probably be San Antonio station (Caltrain), as I really prefer "{place} station" as the "base naming format" for commuter and intercity rail stations. --IJBall (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • No, and either way, there's no way to go back to the previous unofficial conventions. Preemptive disambiguation and failure to use common names for article titles don't jive with the WP:AT policy. "Rolling back" the guideline would just mean going by WP:AT, which is effectively the same thing as the guideline.--Cúchullain t/c 13:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose This guideline has been needed for years, and now that there is one, it needs to be kept and implemented. Consensus was hard to achieve on it, but after concessions from all involved, this document reflects consensus. (Just look at the previous discussions on this talk page, as well as the 23 linked "previous discussions" at the top of the page.) This guideline is sound and makes sense. It is not rigid and gives flexibility for disambiguation when needed. This guideline was carefully constructed over years and is consistent with other guidelines (WP:AT, WP:DAB, WP:NATURALDIS, WP:COMMONNAME). Going back to parenthetical disambiguation for all articles is not needed and goes against these policies. Most arguments being made for going back are WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and other points at WP:ATA. Plus, there is no guideline to roll back to. This is the first guideline on the topic. The intent was to roll it out system-by-system, and possibly amend the guidelines for larger more complex systems if scenarios came up that were not already addressed. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scottalter – This guideline is a great move forward, and any reversion would be both idiotic and absurd. One little capitalisation error does not warrant such a catastrophic mess. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose I suspect all of this will cool down with Dicklyon gone, but this would represent a massive step back all over a disagreement on a minor point. --BDD (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Observation (not targeted at BDD, this is just a convenient place to insert it, and it's about a broad pattern of multi-editor behavior across many talk pages): I've edited with Dicklyon for years and agree with him about 95% of the time on style and naming matters, and frankly we're both usually right about them. In reading the above, and related/similar discussions on other pages, it's clear to me that certain editors take great delight in baiting Dicklyon and picking verbal fights with him. It's actually difficult to goad him into intemperate, dismissive responses, so when they happen, it's generally because the other parties have worked very hard at procuring such a reaction, probably for the dual purposes of trying to make his arguments look weaker through a roundabout form of the fallacy ad hominem and the argument to emotion fallacy (i.e., "Dicklyon is just a hothead, so we can ignore him"), and of gathering "evidence" to use against him in future proceedings, to make a case of habitual incivility. If you actually look at his long-term contributions here, he's remarkably civil, rational, and patient. His input and the amount of work he goes into sourcing it and providing precise, logical rationales, is a major asset in these deliberations. The "shut up" comment above that someone finally elicited out of him was not only out of character, it was in direct response to ad homimen personal criticism, i.e. argument to the editor not the edits. Given that, I'm going to take the time to formally remind all concerned here of the discretionary sanctions panopticon looming over style and naming discussions on Wikipedia: See WP:ARBATC for details. No one here can pretend later that they don't know that it's essentially verboten to pick personal fights in article title and style debates. I think we've all had way more than enough of that for several lifetimes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Scottalter, also. I think he covered all the reasons why "rolling back" would not be practical. The conflicts with WP:AT policy in particular are especially important.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

This is quite obviously an unsuccessful proposal. Let's see how the section below this one affects anything. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the USSTATION capitalization advice be adhered to, using reliable sources for what is an official station name?

The following discussion 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.

In the open RFC #RfC: some proper talkin' about station title conventions above, it appears that a clear majority of respondents would prefer to not treat the appearance of "Station" on a pylon or station sign as a reliable indication that "Station" is a part of the official station name. That is, Greenbelt station would be the advice of WP:USSTATION, since in official station lists (and platform signs) the station name is "Greenbelt", not "Greenbelt Station".

Proposition: Treat the USSTATION guideline on capitalization literally, only capitalizing station when a reliable source shows that it is part of the official station name; default to using offical station name lists for this purpose, except where better sources can be found. Please SUPPORT or OPPOSE with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, Union Station is the only one in the WMATA list that includes the word Station in its name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment - From time to time, I've actually considered merging Union Station (WMATA station) into Union Station (Washington, D.C.), and the issue over the naming convention seems to be the best reason for doing so at this point. However, that proposal has been shot down in the past, because many in the DC area don't see it as being one in the same, as seen in this discussion. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I haven't been following this – what "source" shows that this station should have "Station" capitalized. (If we're talking a pylon sign, I agree with Dick that that's probably "not enough"...). --IJBall (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
In cases where "Station" is mentioned on the system's website, etc. (not WMATA), that would be a reliable source. Epic Genius (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have an example? What about with the WMATA stations that have been the subject of so much confusion? Do you agree that "Union Station" is the only WMATA one with "Station" in its name, per the official station lists, or are you suggesting that maybe there's a web page somewhere that overrides this by mentioning "Station", perhaps even in a title or heading or something that would be conventionally capitalized like a sign is? Or would you want to invoke something like this page as supporting capitalized "Greenbelt Station"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Then why don't you revert to the parenthetical disambiguator naming convention, if you think that? Why do you have to incessantly persist on not using parentheses or the system name in the title? What is the point of that? Epic Genius (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, that's a nonsequitur. Did you mean to address someone else and just misplaced your response? I had just asked you to clarify what you meant by "mentioned on the system's website" and where you stand on the WMATA system. Dicklyon (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Reliable sources should be used in determining the official names, as well as for capitalization. Published lists from the transit agencies should be considered reliable sources. Signage alone should not be considered reliable when determining official station name. This clarification should be explicitly added to the guidelines to prevent future confusion again. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Good idea; if this passes, I suggest we add something to that effect. Can you draft a sentence and clause and present it in a section below, or per WP:BRD go ahead and add it and see if anyone disagrees? Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, mainly. This is all that really needs deciding here: what kind of sources should be accepted for capitalization. "Official" use shouldn't trump third-party sources, but will do in a pinch. In cases where both capitalizations are used in the sources, it may be worthwhile to specify which should normally be used.--Cúchullain t/c 15:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    That's already specified in MOS:CAPS; we default to avoiding unnecessary capitalization, and always have; nothing in USSTATION suggests to change that, right? Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
    Agreed. NC pages like USSTATION are not here to make up new general rules, but to apply existing general rules to particular circumstances, and help arrive at a consensus on how to balance multiple rules (guidelines, policies, best practices, precedents) in that particular circumstance.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment – based on all three of these RFCs, it looks like there should be no problem recognizing a consensus to fix the WMATA station titles to lowercase "station"; am I wrong? Every way I've tried to do that before has led to failure (though there's a move review open at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2015 April#Greenbelt Station where people can support my recommendation if they think I've read this right). Dicklyon (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like that is the consensus, though you should let the RfC run for 30 days, until May 7, to implement said consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Agreed on both fixing it, and letting the RfC run, though I note that the matter is actively under discussion at WP:MR as of this writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, obviously. The idea that capitalization on signs is somehow a reliable source for anything is nonsense. Many signs capitalize everything: "Stay Behind Yellow Line", etc. It's just "signese". It's also a variant of the WP:Specialist style fallacy, closely related to the equally silly idea that everything some government document or label capitalizes is a proper name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

And this proposal is quite obviously successful. Now that I've looked over all three of these proposals, let me see how best to implement what consensus, if any, arises from all three of them put together. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Summary

Okay, if I understand the whole situation rightly, it looks like there's overall strong opposition to requiring "Station" in all articles, and overall a decent bit of opposition to always using Placename (Railroadname station). If I understand these parts rightly, along with the rather confusing and consensus-free discussion up at the top (its only real result was that people were in favor of having a convention; it looks like "neither" got little support), the result is that there aren't any significant changes to the guideline as it's currently written. But bear in mind that I'm so not-involved that I'm rather unfamiliar with the guideline itself: it's entirely possible that I've misinterpreted something(s). Please let me know if you think I've mangled the situation. Nyttend (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that most people prefer reliable sources and official websites to station pylons for the official names of the stations. The disambiguator itself is the subject of debate. Epic Genius (talk) ± 16:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, in general, in the absence of reliable sources, it seemed like there was a consensus was for "Placename station" with a lowercase "s" for article titles. This was one of the main point of the RfCs, and some station articles had previously been moved to "Placename Station" (i.e. capital "S"), which seems wrong outside of "Union Station (City)" and a few other articles like that... --IJBall (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I concur with both Epicgenius's and IJBall's clarifications.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Further clarification desirable

It looks to me like further clarification of WP:USSTATION, re: article titling, is probably desirable. While the current guideline clearly eschews the use of "parenthetical disambiguation" now, there are certain instances where it'll be unavoidable (the various Union Stations being the foremost example; certain instances of "Metro Center" stations being another). Therefore, I propose that something about exactly when parenthetical disambiguation should be used (with some examples) would likely be advisable, at this point. Any thoughts on this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

It's worth clarifying, but it should be the usual Wikipedia approach to parenthetical disambiguation—only when necessary! What irked me, and I'm sure many editors, about the pre-USSTATION status quo was the mandatory parenthetical disambiguation, where you had titles like "Foo (Footown Metro)" with nothing at "Foo", or a redirect going the wrong way. --BDD (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Are you looking to add a new section, or just make this more clear? Maybe add "Parentheses should only be used in titles when disambiguation is required." to the end of the first paragraph of the Disambiguation section before the disambiguation examples. Are there any general Wikipedia policies regarding use of parentheses in titles that can be linked to? --Scott Alter (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, I was less bothered by the mandatory parenthetical disambiguation than by the redlinks left at the base names. But that spears to be moot point now. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Bah! I totally missed that section! ... Anyway, I think BDD's concern is what to use as the parenthetical disambiguator – I believe BDD would prefer that the city be used. On my end, for rapid transit and light rail stations, I definitely prefer sticking with using the "rail system" as the disambiguator. So it may be worth deciding on this issue and then adding more clarity. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The preemptive disambiguation, the failure to use natural disambiguation in favor of often confusing parentheticals, and all the red links and lack of dab pages were the major issues with the previous convention. Plus the fact that that it was widely enforced by a few editors despite not being written down anywhere. We could probably tweak this guideline to give some clarity. It was written to give options but clearly that's started to cause some problems. In general, I think the city is usually the best option, except in cases where the city is some suburban town that's less recognizable to average readers than the name of the system, or where the city is already part of the article title and it's still ambiguous (like Burlington station). Of course there are a number of cases where both the city and system are in use: Miami Metrorail is fairly commonly used. Food for thought.--Cúchullain t/c 14:53, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but there are some cases, like Union Station (Washington, D.C.) and Union Station (Washington Metrorail), where stations with the same name in the same city are used for different purposes (railway vs. subway use). And in the case of Pennsylvania Station (New York City) and Pennsylvania Station (1910–1963), it is in the same city and used in the same capacity, but the two stations are from different years. Basically, if the city disambiguation doesn't work, you can go by year or railway system. Epic Genius (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
At some point in earlier conversation, I believe preferential order of disambiguators was brought up. Because every disambiguation situation is different (new station vs old station on same site, 2 stations with same name in same city, multiple stations named after cities with same names in different states, etc), the conclusion was that trying to create strict rules of when to use which disambiguating term would not be ideal. That's why the current "disambiguation by" section gives a brief blurb on when each might be useful. Maybe these should be clarified even more, though I think the current wordage should be sufficient. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Mass Move Discussion In Place on NYCS station names

The following discussion 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.
Originally posted at 10:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC) by Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs).

See Talk:South Ferry – Whitehall Street (New York City Subway)#Requested move 15 September 2015. Epic Genius (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is closed now. Epic Genius (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
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.

SEO

I'm not sure if stats grok is still the go-to statistics source for Wikipedia articles, but it would be interesting to see how the new naming convention has affected viewership. A valid point is the better SEO of including the system in the name (ie Metrorail Metromover station), I first stumbled upon this new convention viewing one of the Dadeland station articles and I left a message on the talk page thinking there must be some kind of mistake. B137 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

At least two Amtrak Stations with capital "S"

Thoughts? epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Newark Liberty International Airport Station is owned by PANYNJ. It is not an Amtrak controlled station, and you have been given a valid reference at that article's talk page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Wilmington Station appears to have disambiguation problems, and should be moved to a more appropriate title. See Wilmington station (disambiguation). But these are individual problems, not system wide. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Ok, so for Newark Airport the title is fine. But we need a RM for Wilmington. epicgenius (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I see multiple attempts for moves. "Wilmington station (Delaware)" matches the Commons category and a very formal "Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Railroad Station" was rejected. I am sure you can find a better name than the current one. Good luck, and I've got your back. Secondarywaltz (talk) 02:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I made a RM proposal at Talk:Wilmington_Station#Requested_move_11_December_2015. If there are any other name proposals, please add them. epicgenius (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The following stations in California are also capitalized for some reason, though the reason is unclear:
These titles are just weird:
epicgenius (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I've moved the Pomona page. Regarding Van Nuys, the station serves multiple systems and is ambiguous with a BRT station located in the same area, so none of the suggested disambiguation methods in the guideline would seem to be appropriate. I'm not sure how to disambiguate in this case. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 12:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Not to mention the hundreds of other shared Amtrak/Metrolink stations with a similar naming convention. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Category:Metrolink stations, it seems that most of these stations have lowercase names or a parenthetical. epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The title "Robert J. Cabral Station" is a proper name, which explains the capitalization. This is in line with other "XYZ Transportation Centre" officially named facilities. The station is named in honor of a former county supervisor who was a driving force behind the creation of ACE and the promotion of a reliable passenger rail network in northern California. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
    OK, so that's explainable. What about the other 10 names on the list? epicgenius (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
This is a disjointed list since not all are owned by Amtrak, and the owner/operator may use the title above as a proper name. For example Metrolink refers to it as Chatsworth Station (proper name) not just a stop named Chatsworth which is a station. You have to do this in some systematic manner or one at a time - and there are many more. Why don't you just take one section of one Amtrak route and deal with that, and then move on. You have to do some investigation before bringing your choice picks here. I will help where I can. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To be fair, it's more like "CHATSWORTH STATION," or at least the Metrolink website says so. epicgenius (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To be fair? That is petty, and slows down the whole process. Read the sign! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
But since every other Metrorail station is being moved to lower case "station" without discussion, this part of the conversation is redundant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
and now at Chatsworth station to match the others. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

On a slightly unrelated note

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015, because the "Pomona station" title is too unclear for the Pomona (train station) article to have been moved there. I am discussing whether the title "Pomona Metrolink station" should be a disambiguation or not. epicgenius (talk) 15:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Downtown Pomona station

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Downtown Pomona station#Requested move 3 January 2016. Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Edgewood (MARC station)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Edgewood (MARC station)#Requested move 13 January 2016. Thanks. epicgenius (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)/Archive_2&oldid=1077443511"