Talk:Train station

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

To-do list	Pending tasks for Train station:	(purge cache – edit this list)
Expand "History and development" section Discuss "Differences with other types of station" Discuss "Different types of station" (e.g. interchange, metro, freight, ferry) Find some references to books or sites
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Todo

[edit] Major edits

I hope that my major changes are OK. First, there was WAY too much listing of stations. I've created two list pages, List of railway stations and examples of train station configurations. For the latter, the section has been replaced with a discussion of railway station configurations.

I also replaced the images - the existing ones were, well, not that exciting.

Finally, I replaced the section on Netherlands convenience stores with a "station facilities" section - which seems a reasonable section to write about - though I was doing it solely for the sake of not just removing the previous bit and leaving nothing in its place.

I think the article is rather nicer now.

Thoughts or complaints? Zoney 22:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Captions

Since I'm not up on the pictured train stations, perhaps someone else could fill in some details on the captions (see Wikipedia:Captions). What makes the pictured train stations special and particularly worthy of inclusion in this article? Is Grand Central Terminal the biggest? Is there something else special about the other stations? It's good to have the name of the subject and the date, and it would help to have more context. Thanks! -- ke4roh 17:23, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Here's the reasoning - The first picture is a very traditional looking station edifice, appropriate for the beginning of the article, starting with an old picture. Grand Central Terminal is mentioned in the accompanying paragraph as one of the largest stations, and largest overall in terms of platforms. I choose the Lewes station picture as it looks more modern (colour, DMU, building) and shows the track layout / platforms, appropriate for the accompanying paragraph on station layouts.

Zoney 14:45, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope you don't mind I edited them again, mostly just making them active sentences. The extra info from the talk page and your new captions certainly helps the pictures support the article. -- ke4roh 19:34, Jul 13, 2004 (UTC)

Lewes station was recently renovated but it's actually quite old (Victorian?). I don't think any of the buildings are actually new. I appreciate that the chosen photo shows the layout but there must be a better example of a genuinely modern station. The Wikipedia article on the historic Lavender Line (opened 1858) also mentions Lewes.

[edit] Featuring the article

I've had this article on Wikipedia:Peer review for almost a week now, so far, no comments. Tommorrow or thereafter, (a week after posting to PR) I intend to post the article on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. I think that there is quite a nice structure to the article, as well as appropriate and interesting images. However, with the amount of work I've done rewriting/restructuring the article, I'm probably a bit unbiased. If anyone spots anything requiring attention - please attend to it, or leave a note here on my talk page. I'd appreciate any feedback. Zoney 11:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Missing information

These sections may need to be covered for the article to become a featured article.

1) History and development

History does need some coverage, but bear in mind, this article attempts to cover all countries. I'll give it a go at some stage, although, someone else could try! Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2) Architecture

An entire article could be written on this, as far as I know. There's quite a lot of styles, and it's linked to art history, the time at which the stations were built, very big topic I think. So probably some sort of coherent summary is needed, hopefully eventually linking to a main article of railway station architecture. The section on this page could detail styles in historical order, under the "history and development" section. Zoney 13:14, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not even knowing that this article is a candidate for featured article, I added a photo of Kyoto Station. As luck would have it, the article on Kyoto Station comments on the architecture. If you don't feel that the photo strengthens the article, please feel free to delete it. Separately, Nikko has a train station (Nikko Station) that Frank Lloyd Wright designed. Fg2 10:41, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

See Image:Jr-nikko-station.jpg Fg2 07:41, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Also see new page, Katase-Enoshima Station for a fanciful building Fg2 03:17, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

3) Important stations

Hmm... here's the problem - the list can keep expanding - as in fact it did. Now. Where does one draw the line? I agree that it might be good to include more than the superlatives, but realistically - how many can be written about on this general page? Who decides which are included? Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Oddball" stations might deserve mention. Two that come to mind are in the Seikan Tunnel, underwater, miles from the ends. Also, somewhere in Japan, there's a railway station with an onsen on the platform. There must be similarly offbeat stations in other countries.Fg2 23:40, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Again, how does one draw the line? There are plenty of oddball stations - people will add their local ones. There was previously a list where we now have a section on "configurations". I agree some examples would be nice, but any ideas on how to limit. Perhaps we should start with a large list (railway station layouts) and by consensus pick the best examples?

4) Differences with other types of station

This is an acheiveable section, one can compare with subway/metro and bus stations, as well as tram stops. Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

5) References to books or sites

I'd like some too. Anyone have any? Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

6) Types of railway station

(a subway/metro station is in essence, a railway station), freight terminals, ferry terminals?, joint stations (heavy rail and light rail/tram, bus and rail, airport stations) Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please add to as necessary, comment, or address the issue. Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Objections

These objections may need resolved for the article to become a featured article.

1) On some points, the article is a bit too generic.

It has to be. This article is about railway stations generally. It may need tweaking to cover all countries... anyone who feels article is at odds with their local situation should attempt to amend appropriately - or suggest amendments. Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2) examples like "(e.g. Wizzle in Netherlands)" are unnecessary.

I agree - I didn't remove it as someone else had written it. I don't know why I left it in! Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3) Article title is incorrect. Should be moved to Railway station (British and most of world), Station (rail) (neutral but awkward) or Rail station (same form as real (no pun) terms, but unused)

Should be at Railway station. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 10:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm in support of that too, but it really isn't any better than having it Train station (the US term) as regards neutrality.

Neutrality isn't possible here. Let's just use the right term.

Railway station is correct British English, although Train station is becoming widely used in the UK. The first one was in Manchester so maybe the British term is justified? Billlion 09:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

— Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 11:30, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other reason it should be Railway station is that the US has one of the lowest densities of such establishments in the developed world. -- Picapica 18:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add to as necessary, comment, or address the issue. Zoney 23:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] To do

The "todo" thing at the top is cute, apart from one thing. There is no such word as "todo". Except in Spanish, that is. Unless we mean "all", then we need to be writing "to do" or "to be done".

Come on, "todo" is worse than "lol". It reminds me of when I was about nine years old. I'd learnt to program in BASIC, and so I started to write "go to" as "goto", as in "when I'm grown up I want to be an astronaut and goto the moon". — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 09:24, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Discussion on renaming the project (it's not particular to this article) at Wikipedia talk:Todo list. Zoney 11:27, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I've reworked the introduction to provide a more general overview of what a station is, and acknowledging their role in goods and loco/rolling stock maintenance. I've cut down the specifics of what was there slightly, as it is discussed in detail in the later section "station facilities". I've attempted to more carefully cover the area previously discussed, but I won't include it word for word. As it is, the intro is now reasonably full and comprehensive. zoney ███ talk 21:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Train Station vs Railway Station

Please keep the main article in 'Railway Station' and the re-direct in 'Train Station', as the latter is incorrect English and an American invention. The thing that goes through the station is a RAILWAY line, not a train line! Also, if you look at the names of the 19th-Century railway companies in Britain, you will notice that they are called, for example, 'London, Brighton and South Coast Railway, not 'London, Brighton and South Coast Train. I REST MY CASE!. --RichardHarrold 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)-

Funny, I thought that thing I got on at a station today was called a train.

More seriously, though, while I would not use the phrase 'Train Station' myself, I can see nothing intrinsically objectionable about it, and it is parallel with bus station. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. ColinFine 23:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it should just be station, it was not considered necessary to disambiguate it at all until very recently. Grand Central Station, Paddington Station, Neasden Bus Station. See also wikt:station Just zis Guy you know? 15:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

But station has several meanings which are not large buildings: Surveying station, for example. Septentrionalis 18:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of meanings wholly unrelated to transportation: [1]. -- ChrisO 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed there are. Now say to someone "the bookshop is by the statsion" and see if they ask you to clarify which station. Just zis Guy you know? 22:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what's a depot? As in Saint Paul Union Depot? I'm going to have to talk to the Minnesota State Historical Society and tell them to rename all the historic buildings that are called "depots". --E lkman - ^(talk) 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

A depot is where you go to tile your bathroom, silly. - Sekicho 05:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh :-) But seriously, I believe this article should be at Station, with a {dab} header, and what is now at Station should be at Station (disambiguation). Just zis Guy you know? 13:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The St. Paul Union Depot was almost certainly formally St Paul Union Depot Station, the station attached to the depot (being a mantenance facility, usually). Willesden Junction and Willesden Junction Station are not formally the same thing, but the station is almost always referred to as Willesden Junction. There are also depots with no station attached (there's one near me, Reading Turbo Maintenance Depot). Just zis Guy you know? 13:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Depot" was (and possibly still is) used in the USA as an alternative to "station". This referred to a station's role as a freight depot (ie literally, where goods are deposited). Strictly speaking it should not have been used for purely passenger stations such as existed in large cities, but of course it was. "Station" is still in most English speaking countries widely understood to mean "railway/train station" with bus stations requiring to be identified as such.

Exile 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Superlatives

How does this text at Berlin Hauptbahnhof fit in in the text on superlatives:

Berlin Hauptbahnhof is the central railway station in Berlin, Germany, and the largest passenger rail transportation hub in the world.

Sounds like this is the largest railway station by some definition - but which? -- Gerrit ^CUTEDH 19:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not by area. InGermany, Leipzig is still bigger (the main building is over 300m wide and 400m long) and is still I think the world's largest by floor area. Nagoya is slightly larger in area but this includes office buildings so the area devoted to passenger use is difficult to determine. Google Earth can be used to estimate the size of large buildings if high-res photos are available.

Exile 13:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railway v Train... in the intro

Since this article is located at "train station" (and likely will be for the forseeable future), shouldn't "train station" come first with "railway station" and "railroad station" offered as alternatives? —Cuivi é nen 00:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes - however, RichardHarrold doesn't seem to like "train station" (apparently on the grounds that American English is "incorrect"). I've tidied this up now for consistency. -- ChrisO 09:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That endless debate...

In my view this article should be at Station, and the other meanings listed at Station (disambiguation). This would be consistent with both normal English usage (US and British) and n ormal Wikipedia practice. And the objections are?... Just zis Guy you know? 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. "Station" can refer to many other things as equally notable as a train station. When people say "station", they don't always mean a train station. SCHZMO ✍ 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

WHen people say "the station" (unqualified) it is, in my experience, without exception a reference ot the railway station. The fact that there are other kinds of station is not disputed: bus station, work station, etc. But station, on its own, especially when coupled with the definite article, almost always means railway station. Just zis Guy you know? 13:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, because I would interpret the word equally to mean train station or a metro station. But you rarely hear people say "station" unqualified unless there is something to give it context. SCHZMO ✍ 14:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If someone tells me "Meet me at the station", the question I immediately ask is "What station?" "Station" is generally ambiguous -- there may be some places where the term is unabmiguous, but I believe those are the exceptions. In any event, the mere fact that it's been debated on this page is evidence that many consider it ambiguous. It should remain "train station". A Transportation Enthusiast 17:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Metro is a railway, yes? So you have more than one railway station in your town. Meet me at the station in a town which has a bus station and a railway station will always be taken as the railway station. Just zis Guy you know? 13:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

My point is that there are places where "station" alone would be ambiguous. I live in a city with bus, train, and metro, but none of them are used by a majority of the population, so if someone said "station" without context it would be ambiguous. In fact, we just woundn't say it that way. That's my experience, and it probably is the same for most others who don't live in a major city like NYC or London. A Transportation Enthusiast 14:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is MORE likely to be so in a big city with many stations. In London, if you say "meet me at the station" you would get some strange looks as there are so many of them. In a small British town with ONE train/railway station and ONE bus station - "station" means the railway station. In contrast to the USA, there are far more British towns with rail stations than with bus stations, many quite large UK towns having bus stops only.

Exile 13:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In London, "station" is ambiguous. In Reading, where there is a bus station and a railway station, it would be asumed to mean railway station. Just zis Guy you know? 22:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

All depends on where you are - here, (Kingston Ontario) people assume the train station. Obviously if you live in a large place you would specify...Bridesmill 22:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work it out here first

To everyone involved in the current content dispute... Please take the time to work out the issue here first. Slambo (Speak) 13:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RichardHarrold seems to have a point (other than AmE being "incorrect") - all the categories and lists about stations use the name "railway station", maybe he wants to standardiz(s)e. SCHZMO ✍ 13:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the links to this article. The overwhelming majority link to this article at its present location (but that could just be a result of where the page resides when the link was written). Personally, I have no preference on where the article ends up (being an American myself, "train station" is the term that I've always heard and used); what I object to is out-of-process copy/paste moves before reaching a consensus on the appropriate talk page. Slambo (Speak) 14:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not mistake this for a rational argument. His position appears to be driven by the viewpoint that American English is "incorrect". That's a silly, ignorant POV (and I speak here as a speaker of British English). We can certainly argue about whether a particular American English term is appropriate in a particular context, but it's just dumb to claim that an entire dialect of English is somehow "incorrect". RichardHarrold has been trying this since March and I've repeatedly urged him to discuss the matter on this talk page. However, I think his lack of participation here shows his lack of willingness to have a rational discussion.

I propose to unprotect the article and block RichardHarrold for disruptive editing if he continues to make out-of-process copy/paste moves without discussion. I should note that I've already had to do this once before, for much the same reason. -- ChrisO 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I took a wander through various article histories. Wow. A few editors (myself included today) have tried to get him into discussion, but it seems that our collective civility has not helped. I haven't had to take any dispute beyond a talk page discussion before, so this will be new territory for me. Slambo (Speak) 19:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps rename the article to Station (rail transport)? That's a neutral and specific title. But I doubt that renaming to a neutral title will solve the problem, RichardHarrold seems insistent that BrE is the "correct" English and so the article must have the BrE title. SCHZMO ✍ 21:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not just the title, but any mention of the phrase "train station" (see diff [2]). At root this is simply one user's personal prejudice against American English. -- ChrisO 21:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys, don't get upset just because I haven't been at right in with this discussion - I've just come off a short wikibreak. Anyway, I'm leaving Wikipedia. Could someone keep an eye on my userpage and, once I've added a notice to say that I've gone, block me indefinitely? User:RichardHarrold/Template:Signature

I've initiated an indefinite block on your username per your request; I left a note at WP:AN as well to let other admins know about the action. Feel free to email me if your situation changes. Slambo (Speak) 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since a Wikipedian in Scotland (right the far end of Britain from Leatherhead, the small Surrey market town where I live) was blocked from editing on a PC that supposedly had the same IP as I had been using when blocked (and, as far as I am aware, was from a different number series to the one that the few IPs I have had), I have been unblocked. i have decided that, with major exams coming up, i will only be an occasional Wikipedian and that the few edits I do make will be fairly major ones, mainly creating new articles. User:RichardHarrold/Template:Signature

[edit] from RfC

Um; based on WP practice and policy, on the American/British English difference, first-come, first-served. It started as 'train station' way back 11 Oct 2002. Railway Station did not appear until - what? 23 June 2006???? (in other words, those of us who speak the Queen's English weren't all that fussed until now) So can we please leave it as Train Station with the appropriate redirects etc. Otherwise the war will start back up all over again at Jewellery (Jewelry), which was started with the UK spelling (thank goodness ) and likely every other article that currently uses 'colour' etc etc. The fact that there are lots of lists with 'Railway Station' has to do with language distribution & prevalence of the darn things worldwide - this is not and has not in the past been substantiation for chosing one spelling over another.Bridesmill 01:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the date of the article's creation. You're absolutely right about the policy - If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used. (WP:MOS#National varieties of English). Since the phrase isn't exclusively associated with American English or British English, there's no particular reason to prefer any particular version, and we all know what it means. Can we leave it at that, please? -- ChrisO 07:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Judging by stuff like this: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and so forth, I would say that there is a good chance RichardHarrold will be blocked for a large period of time in the near future. He thinks he's fixing things, it seems, but at a certain point it ceases to be a misguided effort to help and becomes vandalism. Various people are spending a bit of time reverting his work. Sxeptomaniac 20:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Having tracked his edits for some months (hence the message at the top of his talk page!), I agree entirely that he's a problem user. However, I don't think he's much more than an occasional nuisance at the moment and I don't think he's acting out of malice - it strikes me as more of a combination of cluelessness, immaturity, tactlessness and an unfortunate lack of awareness of the gaps in his own knowledge. -- ChrisO 21:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he decided to leave, anyway. I imagine he noticed that he wasn't making much headway on most of his edits. Sxeptomaniac 17:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, when his last few edits comprised deleting swearwords from the quotations of singers [8], I'm not surprised! -- ChrisO 19:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Software Solution?

I've followed the debate on "train" vs "railway", which is essentially a debate about locale variations in the English language. Would it be possible (or is it possible today) to add the capability to switch based on locale data? In other words, if a user specifies he (or she) wants US english, "color" is displayed; for UK or Canada, it's "colour".

To do this, it would be necessary to specify alternate versions of words or phrases for different locale settings, while editing. Something like:

"The {US:color|UK:colour} of the {US:train|UK:railway} station's walls are blue."

For common terms like color/colour, a shorthand could be used, i.e. something like {!color} that would look up a database of localized terms for that specific term.

Where would I proposed such a software change?

A Transportation Enthusiast 14:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting idea. Perhaps something in Bugzilla would be appropriate? Slambo (Speak) 14:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Chinese Wikipedia has something similar that automatically converts characters between simplified and traditional Chinese according to the user's preferences. Conversion is done through a set of character conversion tables that may be edited by administrators, and regular editors may override the conversion tables for specific sections using special syntax (Chinese Wikipedia#Automatic conversion between Traditional and Simplified Chinese). Maybe the same idea can be applied to the English Wikipedia to convert between American and British/Commonwealth English? SCHZMO ✍ 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that UK/US English is only the tip of the iceberg, this may just be a bigger 'dog's breakfast' than anyone wants to tackle - some Canadian words, for example, follow US preference, others follow UK - similar for Australia. And then there are regional differences. My 2c (or is it 2p?) worth... Methinks this discussion needs to move to the Village Pump.Bridesmill 21:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted part of this section at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Automatic conversion between American and British/Commonwealth English. I'm not filing it at Bugzilla because this is not just a technical issue. SCHZMO ✍ 21:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Train station v Railway station - again! (Requested move discussion)

I was thinking that this article should be Railway station rather than Train station - to keep it in line with the content of the article (which uses the terms "railway station") and the categories - which are all Railway stations. For the sake of plain and simple consistency and common sense. Then I noticed the Move button had been removed. And I check here to see there has been a lot of discussion already. Mostly centering on British English v American English. The argument that the use of Railway station as a name only started in June is perhaps not accurate because there is evidence that RichardHarrold made a move from Train station to Railway station on March 10 2006: "21:32, 10 March 2006 (hist) (diff) Railway station (moved)" in his User contributions history. I don't wish to stir up a hornet's nest, nor do I want to get into an argument over British English / American English. I think that RichardHarrold's attitude has been unhelpful throughout and has perhaps annoyed people so much that the common sense of the name change has been lost. However, I do think that Railway station would be the better name as that keeps the article name in line with the category names and the article's contents. Either that or we change all the category names? SilkTork 18:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, going down that route would open many, many cans of worms. End of the day, you would see the majority of currently UK english spellings changed to US english based on a precedent of using 'most common usage' in ghits or whatever. In terms of diffs, curious that this only shows in the User contribs & not the articles, but in any case the Train article still predates Railway by four years or so. I hear what you are saying; I'm a fan of the Queen's Englische myself, but this would just get too nasty & is not worth falling on swords over.Bridesmill 18:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

My argument is not based on British v American. But purely on the sense that railway station appears 12 times in the article (16 including External links, but I've added those so that could be seen as biased) - compared to 6 times for train station (7 including External links). And that if you look here: Category:Railway stations Train station is the ONLY instance of that use, apart from Ulaanbaatar train station in a category and series of sub-categories swamped with railway stations. It is time to see beyond the British v American debate and just look at how isolated and out of place "Train station" actually is as it appears on Wikipedia. SilkTork 19:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - if you change it based on 'more frequent use', then as a rule American english will win every time - even if that was not your intent here on Train station.Bridesmill 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Additionally, some of those are blatantly in error (as the ones I just changed) and WP:MOS says 'use style, spelling etc. consistently within an article' - so the argument would be 'there are lots of errors in the article, so let's go with the erroneous one because it's more popular'.Bridesmill 20:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

- My point is that not only was the article full of references to railway station but that Wikipedia is full of Railway stations. It seems quicker, easier and simpler to change the name of one article than it is to change the wording within that article and then the names of 2,000+ articles and the names of something like 100 subcategories as well as the main category. My point was one of simple common sense. If Railway station is used as the main name on Wikipedia, and there is no significant difference in meaning between Railway station and Train station, then it would make sense to change the name of the article to that of the one most used on Wikipidea. Either that, or change all other uses of Railway station to Train station. I really don't care which way we go. I tend to say Train station anyway. But it seems appropriate to have some consistency. And changing Train station to Railway station is the simplest solution. Take a look through the Railway stations on Wikipedia. Count how many Train stations there are. Count how many Railway stations there are. Have a nice strong cup of tea. And let me know what you think SilkTork 20:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re cups of tea - you're the one re-opening the old well-debated can of worms :-) My point is that we need to think a little bit broader than just this one article. Every once in a while we just have to let one go. Go right ahead & reopen the name-change can of worms, but you will raise the ire of all of the AmEn speakers out here (ghits - Train Station - 20 mil, Railway Station - 19 mil, so that argument doesn't hold either (barely)). And then the can of worms will get opened in exactly the same way on every other case where there is variance.Bridesmill 21:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The Google search is not my point. And I am not doing a rest of the world v USA argument. My point is Wiki use and simple common sense clarity. I do not mind which way round it goes. We can call all the articles and categories Train stations. But if we did that, and then we had the main article called Railway stations, people - like me - are going to ask questions. To stop this can of worms being opened up again it would be helpful if there wasn't such a glaring inconsistency. I think it might be useful if this debate were taken to a AfD debate. There is a tag for renaming categories - is there a tag for renaming articles? SilkTork 08:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Back on the main project discussion page I've asked about some more serious terminology conflicts. However, I don't know why we should reconsider this one. "Railway station" is unusual usage in the USA, but it hardly requires explanation; the reader would have to be ignorant as to what a railway was not to understand. Mangoe 22:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same goes for Train Station...my fear is setting a precedent that does not need to be set.Bridesmill 22:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Does Railway Station redirect to Train station? Why yes it does! Problem solved, no discussion needed. Fiddle Faddle 08:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

- You are clearly saying that it doesn't matter which name is used because both will lead to the same article. Good point. However, is there a valid reason any one can make as to why this article should remain as Train station when the category is Railway stations, and nearly every mention on Wiki is Railway station? I'm not arguing for one form over the other, just for a sensible reason why anyone would want the main article to be different from the main category. If there is no valid reason for the title to be either Train station or Railway station as redirects will lead to the same article - as Timtrent as pointed out - then we might as well have the article title consistent with the category title and with usage across Wiki. SilkTork 21:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we change Jewellery to Jewelry? You cannot simply ignore the point that this goes beyond just this article. Secondly, Train Station wins the google hits count, it preceded 'Railway Station' as an article by years, and until the past few months this has not been an issue. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And within the article, both versions will always exist, as there are some places that need to be referred to that are called 'train station' and others which are called 'railway station'.Bridesmill 21:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move nomination

Train station → Railway station … Rationale: The main category and all sub categories and something like 2,000 articles have the term Railway station. This creates an odd inconsistency which has resulted in debates and arguments. For harmony and a more consistent appearance the cats should match the article name when there are two equal alternatives. Railway station is no better or worse than Train station, and it matters not which way round it goes - but it seems simpler to change the name of this one article than of all the cats. … Please share your opinion at Talk:Train station. —SilkTork 16:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support as nominator - reasons given in nomination. SilkTork 16:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose a lot more than one sentence - see above. Debate has been repeatedly held, This would set Very dangerous precedent in how to handle US/UK english diffs - please take off the blinders; article will always have both 'Railway Stn' and 'Train Stn' as both are part of proper names; Train Station is marginally better known by ghits.Bridesmill 17:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Hi SilkTork, I understand your motives, but I agree strongly with Bridesmill (and all the others who have commented on this in the past): this sets (or, worse yet, given other changes in the last year, strengthens) a very bad precedent. The result will be more divisiveness. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-06 08:28 (UTC)
Oppose this is not a terminological problem worth fretting over, as neither side needs the difference in language explained. Also, the article is really only about passenger stations anyway. Mangoe 12:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Although I'd personally rather see the entire wiki in either AmEn or Queen's English, it's clear from reading the other comments that changing this title would fuel a great deal of argument elsewhere, and wouldn't improve the wiki as such. Shinydan 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments

I'm indifferent to the article's name. If the page is moved, is there a bot we could use to change all the links to the new location? There are a few thousand pages that link here. Someone will also have to update all the interwiki links (currently 24 of them, so this could be done manually) on the other language wikis. Slambo (Speak) 16:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There should be no problem. The links will go to new name. Sometimes if there have been multiple redirects and name changes then a double redirect occurs where someone ends up on a redirect page rather than the article. It is unlikely to happen in this case, but I am quite happy to do the checks to make sure everything is clean. Tag Hunter 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

2000 wiki articles with 'railway station' - and how many with 'train station'? If we start using that logic (if it applies in this case) we are on a very, very slippery slope, where the endstate will be the end of UK english usage with very, very few exceptions. Please think beyond this article (an issue you have neither addressed in spite of it's being raised numerous times, nor appeared to have considered).Bridesmill 17:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Less than 20 on my count, but it was a quick wizz so there may be more. I did say that I felt people were entrenched on a political situation regarding this issue. The proposed name change is not which accent sounds better, ~~which~~ [but] that there is some continuity of accent. I like an article to start with the same tone and end with the same tone, and to use the same spelling and the same names for things. Keeps things clean and simple. Despite the young lad's howling preference for Railway station and his belief that Train stations don't exist, I suspect most readers wouldn't care which form was used - only that one name is used and kept to as much as possible. I take care when editing other articles to keep to the main one - be it American or British. This situation here is that the main spelling is Railway station and you are insisting on the isolated Train station being kept. I don't think I fully follow your argument that changing the name of this article to match common usage across the categories will result in the decline of Commonwealth English. I'd be happy for you to explain your ideas fully either here or on my talk page. Tag Hunter 22:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The above Tag Hunter comments were by me. I was playing around earlier with my signature. SilkTork 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I will repeat the argument; (because this is very much a language issue in ramifications) Wiki policy is that the article, unless it is about one specific country (e.g. England, where UK english would be de rigeur) is written in the dialect of the first major contributor, and that it then stays that way. This has worked for ages. Once that is violated, it would open the doors for anyone and everyone to say 'my spelling is more popular or more widely used and therefore this, that and the other article MUST be changed also' In most cases, mob-rule democracy would be in favour of US english. The situation here is somewhat similar, excepting that the content of the article will never be consistent, as some of the stations referred to are 'train stations' and others are railway stations; and you have to call them as they are. The only reason 'Railway' has an edge on Wiki is no doubt because most of the articles were of UK origin (plus your '20' is not an accurate count - curious as to what your methods were - it's a given that more than 20 US Train stations are discussed here); if you google the issue, 'train stations' are also more common than 'railway stations'.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bridesmill (talk • contribs) .

Counting. My method was not scientific or accurate. I simply looked through all the Railway/Train station cats and counted those articles and cats I saw which had Train station in the title. The American ones tend to just use "station". A few used Railroad station. There were plenty with the name Metro station or Amtrak station. But the usage of Train station as an article title is uncommon. I didn't keep a record of my counting - nor did I spend a lot of time on it. But it was quite stunning how little use there has been of Train station as an article or cat title. It was equally astonishing how much use there was of the term Railway station as a cat and article title. The Google point is not one I am using. I have been consistent throughout this debate that the use of Train station is as valid as the use of Railway station. People understand both terms. And apart from the occasional extremist I can't honestly see anyone legitimately complaining about the use of one over the other. My point all along has been about consistent tone of voice. As for guidelines - well, they are there as guidelines to help inform decisions. But, of course, each case has to be considered on its merits. The flexibility of Wiki is one of its major strengths. Making a stand on precedent will result in a stagnant Wiki that is unable or unwilling to respond to change. What happened previously informs decisions rather than, as is being implied here, dictates. Careful, considered and open reasoning is used throughout Wiki - as is the case here. Suggestion that we shouldn't do things because we haven't done them before or that it will cause the collapse of future debate are very tenuous. I trust the Wiki process of careful debate. And I favour debate over standing on rules. SilkTork 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I just took a look at the links that Slambo mentioned above. There was a Railway stations that was redirected to Train station in 2004. I mention that because there was an earlier comment that Railway station as an article title was a recent creation. It also put me in mind of a notion that on the grounds of precedent if someone had a view which they wanted to dominate on Wiki then they could set about creating articles with the spelling they prefer and then insist that for perpetuity all other editors use their preferred spelling. And bear in mind that we are making policy as we go along. Wiki is still new. SilkTork 11:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article itself, I see the additional problem that the article is about passenger stations. And I don't know about overseas, but in the USA there are at least three different things that "station" could mean with respect to a railroad (though they are closely related). (I've already put in train order station as a separate entry.) I would be inclined to move the current article to passenger station and let everything else existing redirect to there.

I'll also note that the current counts are heavily biased by some in my opinion misbegotten enthusiasm. Apparently, every station stop in Melbourne, Victoria, and I-stopped-counting other parts of the commonwealth has a separate page. In my opinion, these pages shouldn't even exist; they are mostly better served by a table within an article, or by a reference within the article about the place in general. (We have some of that in the USA listings too; someone put pages in for every Metro-North stop.) I realize that I would lose that one, but the point is that the counts are pretty irrelevant. Mangoe 12:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have pondered the Passenger station idea, but it would still leave us with the same problem of the main article title being inconsistent with the main cat. Plus, the article is about both passenger and goods stations. Sub articles based on just passenger or goods use could break away from the main article, but the main article is probably still best being named Train/Railway station. The other observation that many of the railway/train station articles are probably not worthy of an entry is interesting. Is it worth bringing up on the project talk page? SilkTork 21:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just read through the article reading each mention of Railway station or Train station as Passenger station, and it works. The article only mentions goods in the introduction, but not in the main body. I'm warming to the idea. SilkTork 21:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I brought up the notability issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Every name on a timetable. Looking at the references to Railway station in particular will illustrate the extent of the problem. Mangoe 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be cogniscant that there are three types of consistency:

Internal to WikiArticle: If I use 'colour' in an article about France, then it shall be 'colour' throughout the article - except when:
Internal to the Object discussed: UK Ministry of Defence & US Dept of Defense because those are their names - even in the same article.
Common to Wiki: Impossible, as 1 above has already been accepted for the good reason of peace & goodwill among anglophones, and 2 is just natural law & common sense.

The problem here is that Train is the article (re. point 1); both are in real-world use (and cannot be nec. replaced with 'Passenger', if their proper name or main article has either 'Railroad/way or Train' as the standard.) (re. point 2) What does all that thinking out loud mean? We could rename the article 'Passenger Station' (But oh what will happen when the same quible arises over the inevitable 'Goods/Freight' station) and the words 'Train Station' and 'Railway/road Station' will still end up in the article when referring to specific location/articles. While 'Train/Railroad/way' are mutually immediately understandable on both sides of (both) ponds, 'Goods' and Freight I don't think are, so the problem then would be worse. I'm starting to wonder if we all need to have a few days tea-break on this...(oh, and 'points' above did not refer to 'switches' Bridesmill 22:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

A nice hot Darjeeling blend, straight, for me, please. B-)

I agree with the sentiment above about the proliferation of station articles. There are way too many articles about non-notable [passenger|(freight|goods)|rail(way|road)|train] stations. The larger and more culturally signifcant stations should have articles, but I don't think we need articles about every tram stop in every city. On the current name discussion, it would definitely be easier to leave it at "train station" as we wouldn't have to worry about all the pages that link to it, but I have no personal objections to "railway station" even though I am a crazy 'Merkan. I've always heard the building and track(s) facility in question referred to as a "train station" followed by "railroad station" and occasionally "railway station". The real problem is that all these terms are in common use and they all essentially mean the same thing. Since I hear them all in daily usage around me, it really doesn't matter to me which of these names it ends up under. Slambo (Speak) 02:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A nice cup of tea for everyone. SilkTork

Even though I am of course 100% right on this and I want everyone to bow down and acknowledge my superior intellect and stunning good looks, I can see that what we have here is a Tehachapi Loop. While I am in serious doubt that changing the name of this article will allow the hordes to piss in the opera house, I can see that it has caused a fuss, and that the name change may not end future fuss as I hoped. There are other areas to get involved in on Wiki and while this has been fun, and you guys have been gentlemanly in debate, I shall now back out and have my cup of tea before diving in and disturbing others elsewhere. The discussion on non-notable stops sounds like fun, and I'm now off to join in on that one. If I come back here and make another comment, slap my wrist and remind me that I said I wouldn't. Cheers. SilkTork 08:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result

Move opposed. SilkTork 21:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Station stop"

The term "station stop" is not, to my knowledge, used in railway parlance in the UK (I don't know about any other countries). It appears to be an entirely North American term - so the article should make that clear. Peter Shearan 06:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETrain_station_4005.html"