Talk:Glasgow Central railway station

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

Glasgow Central railway station → Glasgow Central station — there is no need for the railawy to be in the title the most common name is Glasgow Central station —Barry O'Brien entretien 23:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Completing nomination - Chris cheese whine 10:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

1. Support Does it matter at all that no one calls it "Glasgow Central railway station"? Does it matter at all that all the signs in the station call it either "Glasgow Central" or "Central Station"? Does it matter at all that our official naming policy clearly says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other things"? Google Search for "Glasgow Central station":52,800 results. Google Search for "Glasgow Central railway station": 644 results. AlistairMcMillan 13:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Support No one calls it Glasgow Central railway station it goes against Wikipedia policy of using the most common name there is no need for the railway to be in the title --Barry O'Brien entretien 21:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Support, I agree with Barry O'Brian.Pyrotec 22:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Support. There is no "naming convention" but there is WP:COMMON. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

1. Oppose - we have a naming convention for this already, in which stations are "railway station", unless they have multiple modes of rail transport on-site. In this case, GLC does not have a portion on the Glasgow Subway, hence it is a "railway station". Chris cheese whine 10:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose for the same reason given above. Signalhead 11:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Oppose - same as above. Glasgow Central railway station fits in with the established naming convention. --Dreamer84 11:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose - as per above. It is easier to locate articles if they all follow the same naming convention. Keith D 11:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Oppose - it should be moved only if the convention is changed (i.e. all railway stations - except those with multiple modes - became merely 'station'.) Nach0king 13:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I'm opposing this because there is a clear convention that UK stations articles are called "[Location] railway station", one only needs to look at other articles. If you don't agree with this then I suggest this is taken up on a wider scale, as changing this station alone will leave it out of sync with the vast majority of UK railway station articles. As I have noted in the discussion below, there is no guideline on this, only the proposed Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), but I do note that there is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations) as to whether the convention is correct or not. As Bryan Derksen has commented there, the disambiguating term is usually in brackets. My opinion would be to maintain the convention of "[Location] railway station", as I think it is more helpful for readers and that is what we should be considering here. Adambro 18:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose, as User:Adambro — we have a naming convention already. — OwenBlacker 18:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we have a proposed naming convention. AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a convention, in the sense that most articles use "[Location] railway station", but not a naming convention in the formal Wikipedia sense, only a proposal for one as AlistairMcMillan notes. Adambro 19:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention in the sense that members of the WikiProject have gone around and moved everything whether anyone else likes it or not. AlistairMcMillan 02:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

1. Which ever way this goes we should be very careful about the way forward. Wikipedia has a naming convention, which does not always fit with common usage. The big question here is does this station receive is common usage term. Today I asked for a ticket to Central. Note no Glasgow, no railway, no station. Just to highlight this I also used the Glasgow Subway from St Enoch - no station, no subway. Whether or not this survey goes one way or the other, I predict another proposed moved within a year. Please prove me wrong. --Stewart 16:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2. Where is this naming convention that people keep talking about? It isn't listed at Wikipedia:Naming convention. AlistairMcMillan 17:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no official naming convention for UK stations, there is however a proposal for one, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), however the convention in terms of what most article use is the format "[Location] railway station". Adambro

So we have an official policy on naming pages and a proposal for a policy on naming stations that is still under debate. Why are we even discussing this? AlistairMcMillan 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard it called Glasgow Central railway station there is no need whatsoever to have that as the title, and there are no other Glasgow Central Stations so whats the point?--Barry O'Brien entretien 21:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I know we aren't supposed to canvas for votes, but I'm genuinely curious whether any Glasgow-based editors who travel through Glasgow Central regularly would support the article title "Glasgow Central railway station". AlistairMcMillan 22:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a Glasgow area based editor. Before moving to around 10 miles south of the city, my local station was on the Cathcart Circle, and my nearest station is now on the Neilston Line. I did a little digging on Wikipedia:-

• Glasgow Central goes to a disambig page listing the station and the constituency
• Central Station goes to a disambig page with many links

The second (or just 'Central) is how I and many of those I know refer to the station. --Stewart 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I lived in Paisley, so that rules me out (Note: For those not aware of the tradition, Paisley people always deny that they live in Glasgow, and in return Glasgow people call them Paisley Buddies) however when I bought train tickets I always called it Central or Glasgow Central; mostly the latter to avoid any confusion with Greenock Central station. I'm happy for it to be called Glasgow Central Station; but Glasgow Central Railway Station is a a nonsense.Pyrotec 22:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also a Glasgow-based editor, living beside the Cathcart Circle, and I support Glasgow Central railway station as the title. Although it would be normal to use a shortened form like "Central Station" in conversation, it would be understood from the context what was being talked about. That is not necessarily the case with Wikipedia, as anyone could arrive at that article by a variety of routes. Apart from that, there is a convention that has been followed, and if this railway station article is renamed, then the rest of them should be, for consistency. Signalhead 22:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Might also be worth point out that on the aforementioned Central Station page, all but one of the UK articles are called X Central railway station (the one being Newcastle Central station, which has a tube station along with regular rail). --Dreamer84 23:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The articles are all at "X railway station" because members from a certain WikiProject moved them there. I bet hardly any of them ended up there because people use those names. They should all be moved. AlistairMcMillan 23:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some common sense is needed here. Glasgow Central Station was moved to Glasgow Central Railway Station as recently as February 2007, moved back in February and reverted in March. Signalhead is correct in so far as we are using shorthand. I probably would refer to Cathcart Railway station and/or Bishopton Railway station, but in the centre of towns and cities, particularly where there was more than one station, must people use the shorthand style, e.g. (Paisley: Canal, Gilmour St., or St. James); (Edinburgh: Caledonian, Waverley), (Glasgow: Central, St Enoch, Queen St. etc) etc. My personal preference is to drop railway from the article name. However, coming to my main point: to take just one example, Glasgow Central, the article name has been changed three times this year so far; but not only that, almost every map, figure and article that references Glasgow Central has been dabbed probably three times to match the current article name for Glasgow Central. This is a lot of churn. I would suggest that for every station article with a X railway station name, there should be a corresponding X station redirect. That would allow all the current links to be left alone. It would also be a more productive use of editor's time.Pyrotec 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The current naming convention is a de facto standard, in that pretty much every station article meets it, and has gone pretty much unchallenged for over a year. Chris cheese whine 12:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been challenged this year; and it was you that moved the Glasgow Central article twice, so is it your naming standard, or has it been agreed by the community?Pyrotec 12:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion page would suggest otherwise. If you want to change the convention, please do so there, not here. Chris cheese whine 12:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no policy on naming stations the one everyone is quoting is a proposed one --Barry O'Brien entretien 18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Birmingham New Street. 147.197.251.136 14:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to expand on that comment please? Adambro 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think they are pointing out that Birmingham New Street station is not a Birmingham New Street railway station and not part of the de facto naming convention. --Barry O'Brien entretien 18:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been in operation for at least a year, and has pretty much gone unchallenged. It's a bit cheap to say it is only "proposed" - it has become a de facto convention, which means anyone that wants a moan needs to go to that convention's talk page, not here. Chris cheese whine 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats funny because the page was at Glasgow Central station from 15 April 2006 till 2 February 2007 when you decided to move it, and its not pretty cheap to say it is only "proposed" because that is exactly what it is look at the page References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy". which means unless it becomes a policy I will moan till my hearts content as it is this page goes against WP:NAME --Barry O'Brien entretien 00:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• 668 for Glasgow Central railway station
• 55,500 for Glasgow Central station.

At the beginning of 2006 we had a vote here on the article title. We decided on "Glasgow Central station". It stayed that way until now except for four weeks in March/April 2006 after someone moved it without asking on the Talk page and for a week in February 2007 after you moved it without asking on the Talk page. The convention for this article is "Glasgow Central station". AlistairMcMillan 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And how exactly were people supposed to go and "moan" on the convention talk page when only people involved in that WikiProject knew about it? When it isn't listed at the main naming convention page? When it wasn't listed on the naming convention category? AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If the logic of the support being given to this survey is followed through the article should be renamed as Central Station, that it what is commonly called in Glasgow. This is followed by Glasgow Central. Using all three words in the title is very rarely used locally. All a google search shows is the conventions other webmasters has used to avoid ambiguous names. Shall we follow this proposal with one that Paisley Gilmour Street railway station is renamed as Gilmour Street. This is the logically conclusion (extension) of this proposal. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) is in existence. One final thought for the time being - We could always go for the current fashion that the media have and called them all train stations. --Stewart 07:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm all for moving it to "Central Station" or "Glasgow Central" with whatever disambig in needed in brackets, "Central Station (Glasgow)" or "Glasgow Central (station)" for example. Anything as long as it doesn't stay at a name that is never used. AlistairMcMillan 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Renaming just on the basis of the common usage term isn't good enough. In conversation, you have the benefit of context; in an encyclopaedia you don't. I'm going to use a sporting analogy here: Take Glasgow's two principal football teams, Celtic F.C. and Rangers F.C.. Would you not agree that to almost everybody in this city, the common usage names are just "Celtic" and "Rangers", without the "F.C."? Yet both Celtic and Rangers, quite correctly, lead to a disambiguation page. The point is that an encyclopaedia covers every topic under the sun, and it may seem a little bit arrogant to assume that every person understands "station", without further qualification, to refer to a railway station, when there are in fact other kinds of station. Nor can you omit "Glasgow" from the title, because "Central Station" means something different to people in Cardiff and Newcastle. This article's title should remain as Glasgow Central railway station. Signalhead 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument using "Celtic" and "Rangers" is quite interesting, the suggestion, from Signalhead, that they should be called Celtic F.C. or Rangers F.C. is OK by me, but there are many types of football, e.g. football- (11 a side), five a side football, two types of Rugby football (League and Union) and possibly some other types of football I've not yet mentioned. So if we were to use Christcf's station ruling we would probably not be allowed to call them Rangers F.C. and Celtic F.C., they would have to be Rangers 11 aside football club, Rangers Football (11 a side) club, etc, etc,. I just hope that common sense comes in somewhere. Pyrotec 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This article was Glasgow Central Station from September 2003 until preemptorily moved by Chriscf in February 2007 and March 2007 to Glasgow Central Station. It should return to Glasgow Central station until or unless there is an agreed station naming convention.Pyrotec 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand you Signalhead. You think people are going to come to this article and might look at the article and think it is about a space station or something unless we have the word "railway" in the title? AlistairMcMillan 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the disambiguating terms ought to be in the title, to make allowance for similarly-named articles. While a space station is clearly a silly example to give, there could be locations where you have "XXX railway station" and also "XXX police station" / "XXX fire station", each with their own articles. The points that I made above, and which you haven't addressed, still stand.

I note that Jordanhill railway station has recently been moved to Jordanhill (railway station). Although I don't think the parentheses are necessary or appropriate, if it would satisfy everyone then I would go for that - just as long as the words themselves stay in the title. Signalhead 20:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've done a general search and really "station" is more common, despite mode of transport than railway station etc. However, if we started naming everything station, wouldn't this become more confusing? Simply south 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a current picture of the Gordon Street entrance however in the book Glasgow Central - Central to Glasgow^[1] there are multiple references to Glasgow Central and Central Station. There two pictures naming the station as Central Station (page 35 of the Hielanman's Umbrella; and page 115 of the south end of the 1904 extension from platform 11a). Based on this book this two names are the most popular, but these are too ambiguous for Wikipedia. Therefore what is the fall back - AlistairMcMillan's proposal to rename or leave as is following (the proposed) Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)? --Stewart 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC). Added (the proposed).Pyrotec 22:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Glasgow Central - Central to Glasgow (Compiled by Dugald Cameron; edited by Jim Summers); published by Strathwood (2006) ISBN 1-90527609502

Seriously, why are we even having this discussion. It's called Glasgow Central and it's a railway station. Do the maths. As I've said, moving individual articles to names that one or two local editors prefer isn't an acceptable solution, we'll end up without any consistent naming. Go to the discussion page for the naming convention (which is a de facto standard, and has been tagged {{proposed}} by a disgruntled user), and seek to change the names for all stations their. Change them all, or leave them where they should be in line with that standard. Chris cheese whine 23:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And George W. Bush is called "George W. Bush" and "the president" so why isn't his article at "George W. Bush the president", similarly "Ford Escort car", "iMac personal computer", "United Kingdom country" etc.

Could you please point us to the "consistent naming" Wikipedia policy page. AlistairMcMillan 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

And the proposed tag was added because naming convention have to go through a process to become accepted policy. You can't just create something and say it is policy now. Wikipedia:How to create policy. AlistairMcMillan 23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This posting was made by Chris on the UK railway stations naming page - {proposed} is for things in the initial stages of discussion. Things which have been in place practically unchallenged except by oily wheels and sticks in the mud, for a whole year (if it were not, we would not have a situation where some 7,000 articles are already titled in line with it) are {guideline}s. Chris cheese whine 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC). With this mentality, and the fact that Glasgow Central Station was moved by Chriscf without consultation, I recommend that his changes been undone.Pyrotec 09:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really overly interested in this, but hope that my input can help. On the one hand we have those who wish to see the title written as "<X> + railway station" as a disambiguator, because X can be more than one type of station when looking at the wider picture across the UK. On the other hand we have those who wish to change this page because it creates an article name which fails WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. everyone calls it "Glasgow Central", "Central Station", "Glasgow Central station" or just "Central").

So how about: Glasgow Central (railway station)? The reason I suggest that is because the wiki software explicitly recognises the text in parentheses as a disambiguator. For example, if I type [[Glasgow Central (UK Parliament constituency)|]] with nothing after the pipe, what appears is Glasgow Central. Also, although they don't demand it, both Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation routinely use, and I would say implicitly recommend, parenthesising the disambiguator.

Bear in mind I came up with this based only on Glasgow Central. There may well be instances for other UK stations where that won't work. However, it's a possibility and seems to offer a simplification in future editing and wikilinking, and would bring Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) closer in line with more general WP guidelines. Hope this helps. --DeLarge 11:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.