Talk:Richmond station (London)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why has this article been moved to Richmond tube station? I thought that the naming system was that if a station served more than one of {tube, rail, tram, DLR} then the format was xyz_station - from Wikipedia:WikiProject_London#Naming_conventions - and as Richmond station serves both tube and rail, surely "Richmond station, London" would be more appropriate? edd 22:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Under that naming convention the name should be, as was, "Richmond station" however that was turned into a redirect to "Richmond railway station" - which is a disambiguation page. If the disambiguation page was moved to "Richmond station (disambiguation)" then this page could return to where it belongs without the need for a ", London" or "(London)" suffix. Mrsteviec 05:37, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] April 06 move

If we are following "most-common-naming" such as Birmingham New Street over a consistent naming scheme then Richmond tube station comes before Richmond (London) station. Mrsteviec 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Both names are equally wrong. The convention would be Richmond station, since only 2 of the 7 platforms are for tube services. London can be added in brackets afterwards to disambiguate it from other stations of that name. --Dtcdthingy 02:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Those who use the station use the rail service as much as if not more than the tube service. I disagree that (as alleged in April rename) the more common name is "Richmond tube station". I have lived in the area and find myself there, now, as I type this. The use of a "(London)" suffix is in keeping with WP standards and is necessary because of the existence of railway station in Richmond (Yorkshire) and in other Richmonds too. Paul Beardsell 09:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RM Oct

Just simply agree. "Tube station" goes against naming convention with stations with multiple modes of rail transport, amongst others. Look at Paddington station or Tottenham Hale station as two examples. The only station that comes to mind with the new move which follows this format however is Victoria station (London). Simply south 11:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Because there are several Victoria stations. Similarly there should be Waterloo station (London) because of the important and busy station similarly named in Manchester. Paul Beardsell 09:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Where in Manchester is that? Are you thinking of the tiny Waterloo (Merseyside) railway station? Warofdreams talk 16:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes. But if the size of the station is found wanting and therefore unsupportive of my argument then I see you and raise you Manchester Piccadilly. Paul Beardsell 19:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move to Richmond station (London) —Mets501 (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to "Richmond station (London)" - Survey

  • Support renaming to Richmond station (London). With a renaming like this, I think it should just be done, without discussion. It is so obviously the right thing to do that resorting to a survey is only necessary after the fact if there is significant objection. There isn't. Edit boldly! (I have tried to rename but it has all become so complicated the move requires an admin's help. Help!) Paul Beardsell 08:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This seems to be following convention for conventions sake to amend the current, simple, and commonly used naming to a convoluted one containing parenthesis. What would be gained by this move? Mrsteviec 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I lived in the neighbourood. I am typing this from Kew, just down the road. Richmond Station is not "commonly" called Richmond "Tube" Station. Reference required from Mrsteviec for this repeated but incorrect assertion of his. But even if he were correct, we file things under their proper name at WP. The "(London)" is required for disambiguation. Paul Beardsell 22:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, based on a not-terribly reliable google survey I conducted, which gives 30:1 hits in favour of '"Richmond station" London' versus "Richmond tube station". However, note that "we file things under their proper name at WP" is not true. Please see use common names, which is one of our earliest guidelines, going back over 4 years. Morwen - Talk 10:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 11:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. But are you in favour of retaining the current title? Paul Beardsell 19:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm in support. Warofdreams talk 12:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The consensus seems to be in favor favour of the move; Richmond station (London) seems more natural to me than Richmond (London) station though. Could you point me out to "standard disambiguation for British stations"? Duja► 08:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichmond_station_%28London%29_91e6.html"