Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Poll 2 Midland Metro stops 3 Disambiguation 4 Birmingham New Street 5 Also tram stations... 6 More debate 7 Closed stations 8 Merkland Street station 9 Parentheses 10 "Station" as part of formal name 11 Tagging 12 Related discussions 13 Request for Comment: Is this a policy a proposal or already policy? 13.1 Statements by editors previously involved in dispute 13.2 Comments 14 History 15 New Proposal 16 Is it original research to see what's on the signs and use it? 17 Capitalisation 18 Rejected 19 Tube 20 Glasgow has an the Underground as well as the Subway

[edit] Poll

Comments concerning naming convention on British stations.

Oppose, and comment. Any station, regardless of which mode of transport it serve should be named X Station, with capitalised s. This is because the articles do not simply refer to the station of X town/city but the the building called X Station. Adding which network or mode of transport that particular location is fairly confusing and not need as the mode of transport each location serves is described in the article itself. this goes in the same direction to my opposition to adding railway to all station articles. —Captain scarlet 15:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe the convention you propose is currently used for two stations (Birmingham New Street Station and Derby Midland Station, both with current proposals to rename), while there are upwards of 1,000 in the form ...railway station or ...station. Were your proposal to be adopted, a vast number of articles would need to be move, while the convention proposed on the project page essentially states the status quo. Warofdreams talk 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I agree with Warofdreams. The articles are about the wider subject of the station, not just the building. Adambro 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Support the proposed convention. David Arthur 17:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think a standard should be set for stations not named after their respective cities... especially the London ones. Victoria station (London) should simply be London Victoria, and the like. The station names should reflect their official name on the signs at that station. DJR (Talk) 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The official name of the station should normally be used, except where this would be ambiguous. If there is any doubt about what the official name is, the name given on the station platforms should be used. - for the great majority of stations, this would simply be the name of the town or city, without any "station" or "railway station" suffixes. -- Arwel (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I meant the actual body of the name - I have no view on the "station" vs "railway station" ending - that's pretty much irrelevant. The main substance is the actual name, which should be that displayed on station platforms. This means that London termini will almost all begin with "London blah station" rather than "blah station (London)". DJR (Talk) 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have been more clear about the official name bit, I meant that the article name should be "Official name + railway station" or "Official name + DLR station" etc. Thryduulf@

Support the proposed convention (particularly with Thryduulf's clarification). Warofdreams talk 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Warofdreams, I cannot see how you can agree with Thryduulf's proposed naming convention since it goes against your own proposition of renaming most British stations' articles. If this this convention is adopted your proposal for renaming Sheffield Midland Station's article would not happen. Captain scarlet 09:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the main thing for me is to see some consitent policy, preferably one which doesn't require a huge number of articles to be moved. If Thryduulf's proposal is approved, I'm happy to remove the joint rail-tram stations from the proposed move. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, ok fair dooes, my opinion is that i do not believe in consistency, it makes articles bland and uninsteresting and if possible the style of any article's main contributor should reflect on the article, mùaking it interesting. If you are ok with removing joint stations from the move, i might just be able to change my vote to approve. It probably will be approved anyway, but, not wishing to congratulate myself, i am the main contributor to a fair amuntof station articles and I'd to be able to follow the convention rather than ignoring it, i hope you can appreciate that. Captain scarlet 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, for clarity all that I am proposing here is standardisation of the article names, not the article content. Imho the perfect article has a consistent title, the rail line info box, the station template(s) and a large amount of good, individual text in the body about the station - e.g. its history, notable things that have happened there, why it is special, etc. I wouldn't mind rolling out the london-stations infobox nationally, to supplement the article body text, but that is a completely separate discussion. Thryduulf 00:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The title of an article is just as much the article as its content, it changes the way articles are called and searched/(re)directed. This new convention might not literally change what article contain but will change what they are. That is why I am currently strongly opposing any kind of standardisation of any kind. I am open to important changes, as offered by Warofdreams. —Captain scarlet 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The purpose of naming conventions and standardised naming is so that articles can be predictably linked to. This is particuarly useful for the rail-line boxes. I strongly disagree with "article is as much part of the article as the content is" - I cannot improve on Shakespeare's phrasing "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Thryduulf 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I knew you'd say something like that... That is why there are categories, all stations are in a way or another present in categories (that's if Warofdreams doesn't stop removing them)(that's several categories per article entry). That's why categories are so brilliant. I stand by my previous comment. Captain scarlet 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Support totally. Even though it may be called "x Station" in railway literature, this is a general encyclopedia so we need to add "railway" to clarify. I was at East Croydon today and noted that the station is just labelled "East Croydon". Please sirs, what if the railway company never called it a station - eg. Bingham Road halt? Glad to see "tram stop" is now proposed and that they are not automatically notable. -- RHaworth 10:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have not only mentionned railway literature but British Rail naming convention. This is an encyclopedia and it must use things names for people to know what we're on about. I'm not going to call a cat a dog or a dog a cat just to please you because you and your mates call it the other way round. If your impose your naming I will not adopt it, end of. I will call stations articles using their proper name, not your imaginary names. I believe it is time to end this since it's been something like two weeks since this charade is perpetrated where there is no debate and this scheme will be put forward anyway. I do sincerily hope that i will have no further dealings with you two gentlemen and I will not accept any movings if our paths were to meet. Regards, Captain scarlet 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I hate to throw fuel on the fire, but surely standard wikipedia conventions could be used with stations. That is to use the common name unless that is already taken by something else, in which case a disambiguation term can be added in parentheses at the end. e.g. Bristol Temple Meads; Manchester Piccadilly; Sheffield (railway station). JeremyA 13:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Support. Fully support the proposed convention. Adambro 10:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose JeremyA is right. Wikipedia's official naming policy clearly states "...use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". No one ever uses these names. No one refers to "Glasgow Central" as "Glasgow Central railway station". This is just an effort to make things more consistent for editors, about which our policy says "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors..." AlistairMcMillan 22:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I'm new to this controversy, I only discovered it today. I don't like "railway" being added to every station name - I feel it suggests that the historic use of station (without qualification) in UK to mean "railway station" should be changed because railways are currently peripheral to some people's experience (there was a decline in railway use but there is now a resurgence). I'd prefer the following:

• where only a town name is included have (railway station) after the name, e.g. Inverness (railway station)
• where the station has a unique name use "station" after the name e.g. Bristol Parkway station (or perhaps Station)
• where there might be confusion with another institution also include (railway station) in brackets e.g. London Victoria station (railway station) or if this seems too clumsy have a wee note at the top of the article saying - "this article refers to the railway station - for the coach station see ..."--PeterR 12:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment This - possibly ophaned - section needs a clear statement of what is being "voted" upon. Andy Mabbett 12:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment If standard Wikipedia naming convention was to be applied, then I think the simplest solution would be the suggestion first put forward by Captain scarlet - X Station. This would require no disambiguation in the title itself and, if disambiguation is necessary, then PeterR's suggestion of a toplink can be used. Dbam 19:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Midland Metro stops

Some of these have articles, they are named in the format platform sign + "tram stop". There seems to have been a session renaming to achieve this set up, but seems relevant to this discussion. Ian3055 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That seems to fit the pattern, so I'll add it as there is presumably consensus that there are at least some that deserve articles. Thryduulf 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All the NET stops in Nottingham have articles, named in this format. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I've just created Exeter station is this style similar to the standard as I haven't seen any similar disambigs about to refer to...

That's the same approach I've used for disambigs such as High Street station - using just "station" in the disambig page's title to allow for other types of station (e.g. bus stations) to be included in the disambiguation. Warofdreams talk 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There aren't many disambigs around, but that is a good example of what they should be. "station" is good for disambigs as you say. Thryduulf 09:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A disambiguation page could also be created for Sheffield Station (with capital S as seen on Midland Mainline[1], BBC South Yorkshire[2], M&S Simply Food[3], WHSmiths [4] and National Rail websites), since there are/were three, it'd offer links to the three central stations as well the category to the other Sheffield stations. I shall do that over lunch break. Captain scarlet 11:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

'Hope no one minds but i removed the redirect on Sheffield Station and edited in a disambiguation page. Wicker, Vikky and Midland are on there as well as are categories. I hope it is satisfactory, Captain scarlet 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a good start, but I've made some improvements:

• I've moved it to Sheffield station with a lowercase 's' as "station" in this context cannot be a proper noun and it matches the proposed convention.
• I've noted in the introduction that they are railway stations and linked Sheffield for clarity
• I've alphebetised the order of the stations (Midland, Victoria, Wicker)
• I've noted that Midland is the only current one and is now known as just Sheffield (I think I'm correct in this?)
• I've changed the displayed names to just show the names as there is no point (with the change in into) of repeating "railway station".

Also, when moving a page it is your responsibility to find and correct any double redirects. Also when you change a redirect to a disambig you should ideally disambiguate the incomming links. Thryduulf 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Having done all that I'm not convinced that the Midland article shoudn't be at Sheffield station (as that is the current official name) with the disambiguation at Sheffield station (disambiguation), however I'm not going to change that now. Its too soon to call the proposed convention agreed, but when it is I will think about proposing a page move. Thryduulf 18:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• I Innocently thought that i had made my case concrning Sheffield Station with capital S, you blindly trying to impose your point of vue on this one and I will continue using the upper cas S in any new articles or edits i will made as i strongly disagree with your PoV, but as they say i might as well piss in a violin. I did remove the old redirects so i don't see your point there. since I have edited this conversation with backing (including the station's operator !) for my reasoning, the station article will direct to the Station article rather than the opposite. Regards, Captain scarlet 19:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• • As I understand your view about capital S it is because the name of the station is a proper noun. The disambiguation article is not talking about a specific station, but is saying "There are three stations in Sheffield, which one do you want to know about?". In that sentence "station" is not a proper noun, and that sentence would look very off with a capital S for station in teh middle of it. Your links are making a case for a capital "S" in the name of the article about the stations, e.g. "Sheffield Midland Station", the essence of my disagreement with this is that article titles on Wikipedia are in setence case (First second third) rather than title case (First Second Third).
  • Regarding the old redirects, you moved "Sheffield Midland railway station" to "Sheffield Midland station". When I checked the backlinks I found 2 or three double redirects (e.g. Sheffield Midland Railway Station -> Sheffield Midland Station -> Sheffield Midland station). I probably wasn't very clear about this in my previous comment, for which I appologise. Thryduulf 20:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

right, ok, I'm seeing your point but I'd tend to dissagree. I understand that not every single word should have is first letter capitalise, I'm usually annoyed when I see that, but in this case, I'm concentrating on the fact the disambiguation pag eisn't about a station in Sheffield but THE station of Sheffield. That's when wikipedians will discover that there were three, all of which should naturally have their article's first letters capiatalised (if you understand that: nice one). Concerning the doule redirects, I simply did not touch them, considering they directed to the main article so should have naturally either brought an eventual wikipedia to the appropriate page. If you"ve made the necessary changes, then thanks, we don't want poor linking spoiling it all; thanks for making that point clear which i did miss. I believe we're getting close to resolving the issue, i think what is left is the other two stations, Victoria and Wicker, or perhaps leave as is... (i admit i haven't looked into their content so haven' tput my nose in there yet LOL). Regards, Captain scarlet 21:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Single redirects are not ideal but are normally ok. Redirects don't work in chains, the first redirect redirects as you would expect. However if you are redirected to a redirect page, that redirect doesn't work - i.e. if "1" redirects to "2" and "2" redirects to "3", then a person viewing "1" gets redirected to "2" but doesn't then get redirected to "3". For this reason "1" should be changed to redirect directly to "3". See Wikipedia:Double redirect for more (as this is getting very off topic, please leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss this further). Regarding your capitalisation point, I will comment when I am more awake. Thryduulf 22:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Birmingham New Street

Regarding the recent move of Birmingham New Street. I dont feel this has been properly discussed. I havn't been around much to put the opposing argument. I have already posted my objections on the New Street talk page but no one's taken any notice of them, so I'll put them here.

This move appears to violate the principle of using common names. And I can find no evidence that "railway" is included in the title of the station. Looking up google hits we find that:

• "Birmingham New Street Station" gets 46,200 hits
• "Birmingham New Street railway station" gets only 536 hits
• "Birmingham New Street" gets 156,000 hits however many of these are false positives.

Therefore I contend that this move is in violation of the common naming principle. "Birmingham New Street railway station" appears to be a wikipedia neologism. Somebody above stated that this was the correct name, I can find no evidence of this. It appears to be incorrect, Network Rail's website calls it Birmingham New Street Station [5]. G-Man * 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason for 'railway station' rathern than 'station' isn't to do with common names, but for using a consistent unambiguous name for stations that are served by mainline railway only. This was agreed for use with London stations ages ago by the London wikiproject. It was then used nationwide as a defacto standard used by almost all (at a guess I'd say over 90%) of articles. This proposal is an attempt to convert the defacto standard into an agreed standard. Thryduulf 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And what if we don't agree ? Captain scarlet 22:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Then come up with an alternative suggestion that we can agree on. Ad hoc naming benefits nobody. Thryduulf 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm offering no alternative, that's the point, why have a convention? Categories list all stations so even if there is no wide scheme used, which i do not feel is obligatory, the categories will hold a listing of stations. Captain scarlet 06:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The point of a convention is to make it easy for people to find and link to articles. If we have a random mix of "x" (Bristol Temple Meads), "x station" (Bedminster station), "x Station" (Parson Street Station), "x Train Station" (Nailsea and Backwell Train Station), "x y train station" (Yatton Junction train station), "x Railway Station" (Worle Railway station), "x Train station" (Weston Milton Train station), "x y Railway Station" (Weston-super-Mare loop Railway Station), etc then you are making it incredibly difficult to find the article you are intersested in.

Consider a list of all these (they are the calling points of a local train from Bristol to Weston-super-Mare) in a list and it will look incredibly unproffessional. Remember that categories are just one method of browsing, we have A-Z listings, geogrpahical listings, subject listings, etc.

Wikipedia's search is so poor that it is pure chance if you find an article if you don't have the exact title, searching for "Nailsea and Backwell station" may or may not find the article if it was named above. Having a standard means that people know what the article should be called so they can find it.

If the article is named "x Train Station" but someone links to "x railway station" then it is most likely they will assume the article has not been written. Then somebody else might come along and create the "x railway station article" duplicating the effort of writing and causing more work needed to merge them further on down the line.

Having a standard means that anything that deviates from the standard (e.g. if you don't know that the station in Bath is "Bath Spa" rather than just "Bath", or you don't know that Nottingham has a tram system) then just one or two redirects and/or disambiguation pages need to be created and watched. With no standard there would be a need for a dozen redirects to every article. I can see no good reasons for not having a standard. Thryduulf 12:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Just delete railway from the stations' title and use the British Railways Sectional Appendix standardised station naming. I can see no good reasons for not having a standard. Off course you don't that's why you're back with the whole railway station naming every 5 minutes... if you don't know that the station in Bath is "Bath Spa" rather than just "Bath" Editors will make sure that the name is changed to the correct naming. Captain scarlet Captain scarlet 12:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We should either use official names for stations or common names, the present format is neither, it's a clumsy mess and a wikipedia invention, not actually used in the real world. G-Man * 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also tram stations...

I've noticed a few stations which have been moved to the 'railway station' format which are not solely railway staions. For example:

• Manchester Piccadilly railway station and Manchester Victoria railway station are also Manchester Metrolink stations.

• Birmingham Snow Hill station is also a Midland Metro station.

• There are several stations in south London which are also Croydon Tramlink stations.

Surely calling these 'railway stations' in the title is incorrect and misleading? G-Man * 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have started emigrating all stations in the city of Sheffield (project I am contributing to). All 'railway station' are moving to 'Station' since the British Rail standard as well as any map on book references stations as Nameplace Station. Concerning tram stops I am happy to name them like so Nameplace Stop, since they are not halts, nor stations. For places where the tram stop is an interchange then if interchange is used in literature, I'll use Interchange. Captain scarlet 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The existing convention for stations with Croydon Tramlink is X station, which this convention proposes to make national. I know Nottingham station and East Croydon station are the article names in use (I've not done any editing regarding any other tram systems in the UK so I don't know off the top of my head what they're named). Thryduulf 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually some stations appear to have been moved on 16 March, apparently per WP:RM which I was not aware of, so some may have been moved wrongly (Nottingham was, which I've reverted). Thryduulf 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More debate

Now surely a sensible system would be this:

• Add 'railway' to train station articles where the station is just named after the place it serves such as Rugby railway station or Coventry railway station. In cases like this it would remove any possible confusion with bus stations etc.
• In cases where the station has a unique name such as Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Bristol Temple Meads etc. There should be no need to add 'railway' to the title as there is little chance of it being confused with a bus station etc, and there is no need for such disambiguation. And 'railway' does not appear in the official title, and hence is a wikipedia neologism.
• In cases where a station is not solely a railway station but is also a tram/underground etc station, 'railway' should not be used in the title.

Any thoughts G-Man * 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very puzzled by this idea of removing -station or -railway station endings from things. Surely the article title should make it absolutely clear, especially to someone with no knowledge of the subject, what the article is about. Birmingham New Street sounds like it means an article about a street. Oh no, thats New Street, Birmingham. What clear article naming! Mrsteviec 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to repeat myself, ditch the railway. You don't see it in (many) books, you don't speak of them that way, the convention is purely arbitrary. The less railway we use in the titles, the easier it will make editing articles without the need to [[Inbred Town railway station|Inbred Town Station]], very tiresome, ditch the railway and owned. Captain scarlet 17:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Rail companies don't call them railway stations because they are all railway stations that they are refering to, there is no need to differentiate. Rugby station could be Rugby railway station or Ruby bus station so you need railway in the title so people can find it and link to it.If i'm writing an article on Rugby, and I refer to rugby station glass roof, to which station am I refering? If I write Rugby railway station everybody knows to what I am refering, but if you've writen the Rugby railway station article as just Rugby station and I link Rugby railway station it won't work.

Same with the capitals If I write Rugby railway station and your article is called Rugby Station it won't link. The Sheffield Midland station page is wrong because if it's just called Sheffield station now, the page should be called Sheffield station or Sheffield railway station. On the Sheffield page, the only reason you're getting away with calling it Sheffield station is because has a category for rail.(although it gets called both Sheffield station and sheffield midland on the sheffield article). Many towns are still stubs with no category, or simply have a transport category, also you've got a piped link on there reinforcing the point that the page name is wrong. All the above is fine if you're not going to be consistent and you're going to make it so that theres piped links and redirects everywhere. If you want simple links straight to a page then you need to use the proper full decriptive name, which in most cases is x railway station. Also of note is that the descriptions on the sheffield article for bus stations are Bus station, surely that should be Sheffield station if we're going to be consistent. Meadowhall again not descriptive at all, meadowhall is generally considered to mean the Shopping centre at Sheffield, so it should be called Meadow hall interchange, which is its proper descriptive name. Bristol temple meads is a unique name so i'm not sure if this needs to be clarified what it is. to be consistent though I suppose it does. 88.104.243.147 19:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Closed stations

There is often the need, when discussing a particular line, to mention a railway station which is now closed. There does not appear to be any convention for that at all. As an example: a rail accident which took place at Welshampton railway station in 1897; no station now exists on that line; or describing the route near Hastings railway station: the second stop out westwards was St Leonards West Marina railway station, now closed.

and I do hope that we can keep calling them railway stations, unlike G-Man in his comment immediately above!!! Peter Shearan 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely unneeded as stated many times, it's purely artificial and arbitrary. Leicester Midland Station, not Leicester Midland railway station. Captain scarlet 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

- but London Victoria Station - is that the rail or the coach station? Peter Shearan 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a station, where you go and have a pint ... Captain scarlet 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll be on your own their then because there is no such place as Leicester midland station or Leicester midland railway station, or even Leicester Midland Station.88.104.243.147 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The most straightforward method for the page covering the actual station itself would be to follow the convention (if any) for the station name, followed by the date of closure in brackets, with 2 closure dates for passengers and freight where appropriate. Links from existing stations should be listed in the preamble rather than in the table under the external links section.Romfordian 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merkland Street station

Just wondering. Should i call this a subway station, railway station or leave the article as is? From information gathered, it was part of the original Glasgow Subway. However, it closed during modernisation and before the metro system actually got its current name. Simply south 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Are there any other websites which mention it? If there are then if these generally treat it as a subway station name it as such, if they treat it as a mainline station then name it accordingly. Alternatively, if when it was last open the system it served would be more recognisable as a mainline railway than a subway/metro system then name it as a mainline railway sation and vice versa. I don't know Glasgow at all though so I can't say which will be the case. Thryduulf 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Random google search. At a quick glance, 14 sites use subway station, 48 use underground, none use railway and 314 just use the shortened station. Simply south 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses

I've raised the issue over on talk:Jordanhill railway station regarding this naming convention and its use of "railway station" and other such descriptive terms without parentheses in titles. The MediaWiki software actually understands that parentheticals like that are disambiguation tags and allows for some special tricks to be done with them (You can use [[Jordanhill (railway station)|]] as shorthand to generate the link Jordanhill, for example). If this amendment were to be made I would support the naming convention, otherwise I think it's unnecessarily incompatible with Wikpedia's general practices. Bryan Derksen 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I support Bryan's suggestion because this would make naming of railway station articles consistent with standard naming conventions, the true names of most UK railway stations are often simply those of the places they serve, and never (as far as I know) include the words "railway station".

Thus, in general, station aticles would have "(railway station)" in their name instead of "railway station". This is because the name of the station at Jordanhill is simply "Jordanhill", and so the article would be named "Jordanhill (railway station)" to disambiguate from the surrounding area in Glasgow.

There would be some exceptions where no disambiguation is necessary. For example, the terms "Milton Keynes Central" and "Bristol Temple Meads" can only reasonably refer to those railway stations, and so their articles would be named "Milton Keynes Central" and "Bristol Temple Meads" respectively.

--A bit iffy 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For people's information, Jordanhill railway station has now been renamed Jordanhill (railway station).--A bit iffy 06:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a Wikiproject or someplace similar where we could get some more attention for this discussion? Even though there was a ton of support for moving Jordanhill to the new name, I'm slightly hesitant to update this naming convention and start moving other stuff around on that basis. Bryan Derksen 09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned that this change has happened just to Jordanhill purely on the grounds of its fame (within Wikipedia, at least). (Still, it makes a change from the arguing at Birmingham New Street....) Discussions about this should take place here, not at individual station articles. --RFBailey 10:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although there was general support for the Jordanhill renaming, it's a pity that was done in isolation from the wider debate.--A bit iffy 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In Australia we have named every station "X railway station, City" if located in the suburban area of a city, and "X railway station, State" if located outside. That was following the lead of people in England who had named everything "X railway station". I think it's unhelpful to rename everything in the way that Jordanhill has been renamed. JRG 05:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Station" as part of formal name

An exception to the lowercased "station" is when "Station" is part of the station's formal name. Though there are relatively few of these in the UK, one that is currently in dispute is Newcastle Central Station. While it can be shortened to "Newcastle station" this is not the formal name of the station, which is also of great architectural and cultural importance ("Newcastle" can, of course, be used in lists of destinations or the like). It is not called "Newcastle Central" or "Central" and is shortened only to "Central Station", which is also the name of the Metro station.

If we look at Central Station, most of these capitalise Station when it is part of the common name, but lowercase it when it is not ("Hackney Central"). However, outside of Wikipedia, where some users are already rigidly enforcing this proposed guideline, you will not find "Newcastle Central station" in common use, just "Newcastle Central Station". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 13:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Define "formal name". Chris cheese whine 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

When they have it in two foot letters across the side of the building? AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

... which still leaves "formal name" undefined. Chris cheese whine 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well as we are talking about Central Station in Glasgow, Donald Matheson, who became the Chief Engineer of the Caledonian Railway company and who designed the station extension, calls it 'Glasgow Central Station. The relevant reference comes from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. The paper was given on 10 November 1908, it is entitled Glasgow Central Station Extension.Pyrotec 19:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd, I thought we were talking about Central Station in Newcastle (see the problem here?). In this context, "station" is patently a common noun (i.e. the place is a station, it is not named Station). Chris cheese whine 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My my, so Chriscf has done the same controversial changes, without consultation, to both the Newcastle and Glasgow stations; and then has the brass neck to berate others for reversing his change without consultation.Pyrotec 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The above user evidently has a problem with the name "Newcastle Central Station". We have been discussing this at Talk:Newcastle station, where I have supplied a long list of links (such as to local government websites, the railway companies serving the station, the hotel in the station, the name of the Metro station, a report prepared by HM Government, etc. [6]) showing that the station in question is called "Newcastle Central Station", while User:Dbam linked to a picture [7] of the listed-building plaque showing the same. He replied to this by claiming that all of the above "make a mistake by capitalising a common noun" but providing no substantive reasoning for his belief. The flaw in his reasoning is made clear in his comment above: In some cases, a building is named "Station" -- Glasgow and Newcastle being two examples. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tagging

{{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)

Please observe WP:CIVIL. Your comments above, as well as your edit summaries on this article, and those on Newcastle station, are out of line. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite my opinion on this proposal, I am broadly in favour, it can not be considered a guideline because it has not been "generally accepted among editors". I'm also not convinced by the figure of 7,000 articles, what does this refer to? I understand there are in the region of 2,500 National Rail stations currently open and most follow this but what about the other 4,500 you refer to? I cannot imagine there are that many articles about disused railway stations in the United Kingdom.

Looking through the comments above, and considering the ongoing debate about this, it cannot be described as being an accepted guideline. I would like to see some movement on this however, as the current situation is undesirable. We need to agree on a naming convention guideline for UK railway stations. Adambro 08:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Incivility aside, a long-standing page does not suddenly become a proposal if it turns out that someone disagrees with it, especially if it matches the actual/current situation. Of course, guidelines are subject to being revised if, as is said here, the current situation is undesirable. Either way, it would help to get more feedback on the village pump, and to make a proposal for something new, rather than call the old version (which is not really being proposed) a "proposal". >Radiant< 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that this may be an oversimplification. The proposal admittedly has been there for twelve months and absence of dissent is taken to mean acceptance of the policy. Perhaps it is, or perhaps it has not been seen by those who might dissent. Disagreement arises from the somewhat insensitive manner of its application. Several longstanding x station articles were renamed in February of this year to x railway station. Other authors, reverted those name changes; those changes were reverted in March, and a trading of insults and name calling began. In some ways whether an article is called x station or x railway station is not all that important; however the somewhat heavy handed manner of its implementation, in some cases, means that consensus is going to be less easy than it aught to be. The ends should never justify the means.Pyrotec 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please understand, this page doesn't need "more feedback", the people who wrote this page never sought feedback in the first place. WikiProject members created the page and then implemented their proposals. Tagging it with "proposal" is not returning it to the proposal stage, it never enter a "proposal" stage before. Aside from a link being added to another failed proposal this page was never linked to other articles in the Wikipedia namespace. AlistairMcMillan 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It was linked from, and feedback was requested from, various relevant places. Just see [8]. It was undeniably a proposal. However, I do not recall consensus ever being reached, so it can't be called a policy. Warofdreams talk 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That is fantastic, however proposed policies are supposed to seek comment from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Policies, not just failed policy pages and wikiproject talk pages. This page was not listed there at all until I did it recently. Also when NightStallion and Chriscf kept moving the Glasgow Central article because of this proposed policy, it might have been an idea to point us to the proposed policy so we could have commented on it then. Instead of leaving us in the dark about why the page kept being moved against the consensus that was formed on the article Talk page itself. AlistairMcMillan 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• To the people who object to this as a guideline, could you please indicate in what way it does not match the way such articles are actually named? Thanks. >Radiant< 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Despite my broad support for this, could you please indicate how that is relevant? A convention cannot be called a guideline when it is not agreed on. Adambro 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• If, as you assert, it has not been agreed upon, it follows that there is someone who disagrees. And if there's someone who disagrees, I'd like to know what the disagreement is so that it can be discussed and a compromise can be reached. >Radiant< 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start you could look at the talk page for Glasgow Central. The article was recently moved, reverted and moved again from Glasgow Central Station to Glasgow Central railway station. I think a similar argument raged over Newcastle Central and Birmingham New Street. I, personally, am happy to see it called, Central Station, Glasgow Central, Glasgow Central Station, etc; I just don't think the word railway is necessary. Jordanhill is currently called Jordanhill (railway station), as a sort of compromise, but it is an odd one out. Pyrotec 16:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused by Radiant!'s comment, disagreement on this is clearly evident as Pyrotec mentions, also see the section at the top of this talk page. However, I would agree with Radiant! that the reasons for any objections should be outlined to further this discussion. I don't have any objections myself but suggest that if this is to be a guideline, that should be how we consider it. There should be room for exceptions and these should be discussed on the appropriate article talk page. Adambro 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In summary, put simply, it is linked from elsewhere, it went without objection for a considerable time, some squeaky wheels don't like it, and we're engaged in discussion here. Hence it is a guideline, disputed and under discussion, which is precisely how it is tagged as of right now. Chris cheese whine 00:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term squeaky wheels is unhelpful: see WP:EQ .Pyrotec 10:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A proposed policy has the "proposed" tag at the top. This article didn't have a proposed tag until I added it on March 23 2007. AlistairMcMillan 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

All of which is irrelevant, since it ceased to be "proposed" as soon as almost every article on a UK station conformed to it. The document accurately describes the situation as it now stands, and I don't see people clamouring to move every single station article to another title. You can't downgrade it to "proposal" purely on the basis that "it wasn't voted on" and "I don't agree with it". Chris cheese whine 01:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read up on how policies are formed. They are formed when consensus is reached, not when you edit all the relevant articles to conform to your way of doing things. Please point to the consensus in this article. AlistairMcMillan 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I refer the honourable member to the response I gave some moments ago. Chris cheese whine 02:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Would that be the squeaky wheels response? Let me ask one further question: for the sake of argument, if I were to change the name of every UK station today from X railway station to X station; would you all be in agreement that we had a new de facto station naming policy; or is this just a silly question? Pyrotec 10:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• My point is that we should stop arguing over whether the page was "properly tagged following our tagging process" (especially since we don't actually have a tagging process) and start arguing about the content of the page. Fix it. >Radiant< 08:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related discussions

I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. --A bit iffy 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Imdanumber1's mass revert of station moves.

For the record, US stations normally use the form Name (System) or Name (System station), or if multiple systems Name (City) (like Pennsylvania Station (New York City)). This probably gets around any issues of "foo railway station" not being the common name, and if a station does not need to be disambiguated (like Anderson Regional Transportation Center) then you don't need to include the disambiguation.

The above link is a discussion/argument over how to decide the official name: station signage or maps and schedules? The map often adds community names that are not found on signage, like Jamaica–179th Street rather than 179th Street. --NE2 09:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Is this a policy a proposal or already policy?

[edit] History

The first version of this convention was proposed here in 2002. Relevant archived talk is here. Much of it dates back to even before I started editing, and relevant consensus was confirmed as early as October 2004, and may be even older. Chris cheese whine 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

A highly relevant move discussion is here. There's those words "de facto convention" again. Chris cheese whine 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Chriscf has just inadvertent illustrated the very problem that is being caused by these very heavy handed moves. For what reason should editors having a interest in Glasgow Central or Glasgow Queen Street (railway) stations, to name only two, read the talk page of Birmingham New Street (railway station) to find out that a group of articles are being proposed for a name change? Pyrotec 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Closer inspection shows just how undemocratic this decision by a small group of editors was. The 2002 and 2004 decisions refer only to a naming convention for London. The Birmingham New Street talk page was then used to announce naming changes for railway stations in Scotland, Wales and the North of England. After a limited number of favorable responses, this group of editors made a decision for the whole of the UK; however a considerable number of unfavorable responses then started to appear in the Birmingham New Street talkpage, which these editors choose to ignore. Certain editors then decide to rename all station articles and trample over all opposition, stating de facto standard; selectively ignoring Wiki Policy (such as WP:EQ) when it suits them, but selectively using WP's to beat down any opposition. Pyrotec 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Proposal

Mainline stations, should be called X Station, e.g. Birmingham New Street Station, Glasgow Central Station, etc. Where there are valid reasons for using x station a redirect page to X Station should also be provided.

Comment 1 In many cases the word railway is unnecessary, as the article should be written so as to avoid confusion with other types of station, such as Police stations, bus stations, etc. (Sorry, this is stating the obvious, but it does appear to be necessary, as common sense appears to have been thrown out of these discussions long ago).

Comment 2 In many articles, editors are unhappy with the de facto naming standard imposed on them, but they have no wish for their article to be renamed outside the de facto naming convention. Therefore a link to this discussion should be posted on every UK railway station article.

Comment 3 responses should comply with WP:EQ and other relevant WPs. Pyrotec 11:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. My earlier comments regarding the capitalisation of "station" were limited to the few cases in which it is unambiguously part of the station name, i.e., it is modified by an adjective (Waterloo International Station). I'm not bothered by "Birmingham New Street Station"; although I would tend to favour "Birmingham New Street station" I can see the merit of both cases (here, the word may be treated as part of the formal name, or as a generic term); indeed, as Pyrotec suggests, there would be a certain consistency to naming all mainline stations "X Station". In the case of stations named simply for a place (Sunderland station), I would otherwise have tended toward lowercase s on "station" as generic, though even here a respectable case may be made for capitalising the whole shabang (though not for generic descriptors such as "railway station" unless it's part of the name).

As to the term "station" itself, disambiguation is needed only rarely; the term as it is generally used, refers without qualification to a railway station. Only other modes of transport require a modifier (Digbeth Coach Station, Washington bus station, Four Lane Ends Metro station, International Space Station). As to the London naming scheme, while it is fine in the context of London's very many overlapping modes of transport, it might be unnecessarily cumbersome for the rest of the UK. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 12:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is very bad idea. We should aim to have a single naming convention for all stations regardless of it being a mainline station or not. All UK stations should follow an agreed standard, including those in London, so that they can be located easily without having to resort to working out the status of the station in question. Keith D 13:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest, Keith? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would go with the proposal as it is with all stations qualified 'railway station' in lower case with no exceptions. That way you know exactly what it will be called and you can easily locate the appropriate article. Also it has already been agreed for London to be that way so we should go with it. Keith D 16:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Pyrotec and ProhibitOnions for the reasons they already stated. But also I don't think it makes the articles any easier to find. People are going to expect the articles to be titled with the names they know. People either know Glasgow Central as "Glasgow Central", "Central Station" or "Glasgow Central Station". No one, except editors who either know about the policy or found them by accident, are going to know to look for articles at "X railway station". AlistairMcMillan 16:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A way forward is to use the proposed convention X railway station, however use of the Wikipedia feature of REDIRECT from other commonly used names. This would not fully work for the extant Caledonian Railway terminus in the centre of Glasgow as both Glasgow Central and Central Station - terms I regular use when buying a ticket from my local (railway) station - as these article names are already in use as Disambig pages. One title I do not use is Glasgow Central station. Considering finding the article, entering Glasgow Central station will find the article via a REDIRECT. --Stewart 17:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stewart. I'd suggest we adopt the previously proposed guideline and use "X railway station". I think it would be foolish to agree on anything that doesn't reflect how articles are currently named in the main and require thousands of articles to be moved. There are for example, about 2500 currently open National Rail stations. Any other names can be set up as redirects. Adambro 18:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I concede that both Stewart and Adambro make a good point about the need to move thousands of articles if a new naming convention was adopted. However, the brutalistic implementation of the so called de facto standard concerned several authors, including myself. For that reason I suggested some limited flexibility (it concerned the use of upper or lower case for station with appropriate redirects). My own preference would be to remove the word railway; and realistically if that was accepted a more sensible or pragmatic approach would be to use redirects for existing articles and the new convention for new articles. No doubt such a pragmatic approach would be unacceptable to many authors. However, that means condoning a station naming policy that was introduced by dubious means, i.e. a policy making decision on the naming of the following stations, being agreed on the talk page for Birmingham New Street station. This I find hard to accept as a good example of democratic decision making.

Birmingham Snow Hill station → Birmingham Snow Hill railway station

Cardiff Central station → Cardiff Central railway station

Clapham Junction → Clapham Junction railway station

Derby Midland Station → Derby Midland railway station

Euston station → Euston railway station

Exeter St Davids station → Exeter St Davids railway station

Glasgow Central station → Glasgow Central railway station

Glasgow Queen Street station → Glasgow Queen Street railway station

Manchester Piccadilly station → Manchester Piccadilly railway station

Manchester Victoria station → Manchester Victoria railway station

Newcastle Central station → Newcastle Central railway station

Nottingham station → Nottingham railway station

Sheffield Midland station → Sheffield Midland railway station

Pyrotec 19:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If a naming convention is agreed upon there is no need for the articles to all be moved immediately. A lot of the articles are only one or two line stubs right now anyway. The major station that get a lot of attention could be moved initially, with the rest following as time permits.

Please remember that official naming convention policy is to use most common name except where conflicts arise. For the editors who want to find everything by adding "railway station" to the end, we would have redirects. Keeping in mind, we are supposed to make decisions that make things easier for readers, not editors. AlistairMcMillan 20:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Pyrotec. I do not believe changing article names is the way forward. Redirects are the way forward for readers to find the articles.

Following the line of reasoning from AlistairMcMillan, his favourite example will always be found by two of its common titles Glasgow Central and Central Station via the two disambiguation pages. One of these names is attached the station in many places by Network Rail. Changing the name to Glasgow Central station will not provide any additional help to readers looking for information on the station. This particular redirect is already in place so this article does not need any further consideration in this respect. --Stewart 20:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem we have is that it is only larger stations (e.g. Birmingham New Street, Glasgow Central, Newcastle Central and Sheffield Midland) that the arguing happens. People don't get worked up and involved in massive arguments about Harpenden, Leamington Spa or Port Sunlight. Because of this, we have what has become a de facto naming convention has been adopted nearly everywhere, and we have articles about the more well-known stations at highly non-standard names, or (worse) these articles moving frequently, neither of which is of any benefit to either users or editors.

One side of the argument is that stations such as the ones I mentioned have common names which are well-understood, either by locals or beyond. In this case, redirects can be put in place. However, if the argument is simply over what the common name is (such as at Glasgow Central's talk page), or whether the word "station" is part of the common name and therby decided on whether it should have a capital "S" (such as at Newcastle Central's talk page), then having an agreed naming convention would be a suitable way to resolve this kind of dispute. (Again, redirects can be put in place for both versions.)

Regarding the list posted above by Pyrotec, in many cases the word "railway" is missing from the title as they are multimodal stations (e.g. Manchester Piccadilly, Sheffield, Nottingham also have tram stops).

Finally, any discussion about station naming should take place here, not spread across several articles' talk pages simultaneously. --RFBailey 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi RFBailey, my proposal is more about removing the word railway from the title, rather than a small or large s in the word station. Articles aught to be written so that it is obvious whether, e.g., Manchester Piccadilly is a railway station or a tram stop. I used Piccadilly a lot in the 1970s so to me it is a train station, but I have used the tram once or twice in the 1990s and 2000s. The tram system does seem to have messed up Manchester Victoria, which I think is a pity. Pyrotec 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come back to this: I found a very good article on Manchester Piccadilly railway station, it is called Manchester Piccadilly station; there is a Tram stop outside (a bus stop plate fixed to a mast - sorry), I can send you a picture if you want, but no article on this tram stop; there is a bigger bus/tram interchange sited at Piccadilly Gardens but this article does not mention buses or trams; there is a two sentence article Manchester Piccadilly bus station, which is located between Piccadilly Gardens and Piccadilly Plaza, there are no articles on the tram stops at either Manchester Piccadilly station or Piccadilly Gardens; but there is a single article on Manchester Metrolink. I find it difficult for anyone to read an article called Manchester Piccadilly station and confuse it with a bus station, bus stop, tram stop or tram station. However, dissambiguation links could be provide to these other articles, if they ever get written. And to crown it all the station article is Manchester Piccadilly station. If I convince you all to change the naming convention, this one will not need doing. Pyrotec 11:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The content of the article is not the question. The problem is locating the appropriate article in the first place, without having to read through it to see if you have the correct article. If you are looking for the tram stop then you should not have to read the article named 'X station' to find out that it is not called that. You need the title of the article to indicate the mode of transport that the article covers, that is assuming that station refers to a mode of transport and not something else like a radio station. For mixed mode articles with just the word station I would expect that redirects from each of the individual modes to be supplied. Thus a place that is a railway station and a tram stop would have redirects from 'X railway station' and 'X tram stop' to the article at 'X station'. Keith D 12:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

From what I recall, the "tram stop" at Manchester Piccadilly is rather more than "a bus stop plate fixed to a mast" (it's in the basement of the railway station), but that wasn't my point. My own personal point of view is that the original naming convention, as proposed a year ago and the one which is used as the de facto one at present, is the right one to have. Any other common names can have redirects (with or without the capital "S"). A standardised naming procedure is surely the best thing for both users and editors. Finally, because the majority of the 2000+ articles follow this convention already, it wouldn't require any work to move them. --RFBailey 14:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent start, people. >Radiant< 08:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

When people come to read these articles, how are people supposed to know that not having "railway" in the title is meant to imply the station is more than just a railway station? Please don't suggest this convention has anything to do with readers. The intro of an article is supposed to summarize the article, not the title. If a station is a railway and tram station, that should be in the first line of the article, not the title. Especially not in code.

I think there is a fundamental problem here. We are trying to find a standardized formula to name articles about stations that don't have standardized names? Most of the stations aren't even consistent within themselves. Sorry to keep bringing up Glasgow Central, but it's the only station I'm totally familiar with. Standing on Argyle Street you'll see the station name in big letters "Glasgow Central". Heading into the station across the Caledonian Railway Bridge, you'll see the station name again in big letters, except now it is called "Central Station". The station isn't even named consistently within itself. And from watching discussions on other Talk pages, I know this problem isn't limited to Glasgow. AlistairMcMillan 19:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic but the title of the station of the Hielanman's Umbrella is CENTRAL STATION in capital letters. ^[1]. I would interested to know exactly where you can see the name Glasgow Central from Argyle Street? --Stewart 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ Glasgow Central - Central to Glasgow - page 35; Strathwood (2006) ISBN1-9052-7605-2

Ah well, that's what I get for not checking before hitting "Save page".  :) Anyway there are signs within the station though that say "Glasgow Central".[9][10] AlistairMcMillan 20:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any stations that were built as combined train and tram stations. Birmingham got rid it its trams in the very early 1950s, Bristol and Glasgow kept their's a bit longer. The rebuilt Birmingham Snow Hill station had a platform stolen to accommodate a metro line; Manchester Victoria was heavily vandalised and lost a lot of platforms, some of this cleared space is used by one of the metro lines; the basement of Manchester Piccadilly has a metro line passing through it. Possibly Sheffield, but I've only been there once and they only had buses then. Possibly Newcastle. London possibly has some; particularly if the Docklands Light Railway is regarded as a metro. However, see comment by Prohibit0nions, above.Pyrotec 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse with this reply. My point was that according to this proposal if the word "railway" is excluded from the word article name that is supposed to signify that the station is more than just a railway station and includes something else (forgive me for using a bad example when I said tram). My point was that the only people who are going to understand this are people who have read the naming policy. My point being that we can assume that almost none of our readers are going to have read the naming policy. My point being that accepted official policy is to name things for readers not editors. AlistairMcMillan 00:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My proposal was that the use of the word railway in the title was unnecessary, because it is obvious that the place is not e.g. a police station, radio station, petrol station, etc. It was then suggested that the same place might be a tram and train station, so I listed some to refute the argument; basically I'm not aware of any railway station articles that also have a tram station article of the same name. It has also been suggested that there may be radio stations of the same name as railway stations. Well I can think of lots of radio stations with FM in the name (Classic FM, Orchard FM); radio stations with radio in the name (Radio 1, 2 and 3, Capital Radio); sound in the name (Somerset Sound); radio names that sound railway companies, e.g. GWR, but I can't think of a radio station with station in the name. So I'm beginning to suspect that it is not me being obtuse, perhaps it is those who wish to maintain the de facto standard X railway station, or perhaps my proposal needs to be restated: Dump the word railway, (I'll accept, having listened to the arguments, a small s for station) (having listened to the arguments: Don't waste time moving articles, use redirects). Pyrotec 12:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want us to get distracted by individual stations because what we are trying to develop is a general rule, there will always be room for exceptions to this, but I recognise the issues surrounding Glasgow Central.

Looking at Glasgow Central, Newcastle etc, I think as part of this convention we should consider what name we use for a station. The proposed convention says that when in any doubt "the name given on the station platforms should be used". However, as has been noted, the station signage sometimes leaves the name unclear. Perhaps we could consider the National Rail website as a good source for the name? Certainly the name they use is likely to be what appears in timetables so may be what most readers are familiar with and would consider to be the common name. Adambro 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your National Rail suggestion was one of the main points disputed at the Newcastle talk page. National rail just call it "Newcastle" and that's how it appears on platform signs and timetables. But it was argued that the full formal name is "Newcastle Central Station" and a quick google search shows that this is by far the most commonly used name. If we're going to go by NR's timetables then I think some exceptions will definitly be needed, certainly in the case of Newcastle. Dbam 16:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Manchester Victoria, Manchester Piccadilly, Sheffield, Newcastle Central and Birmingham Snow Hill should be taken out of this discussion as they are multimodal stations. Therefore i am meaning they share other forms of transport with stations so it is logical to leave them as just station. Simply south 11:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is it original research to see what's on the signs and use it?

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Issues/exceptions. --NE2 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is fascinating. When people have been arguing about a consistent naming policy for stations, across various pages, continuously for at least three years with managing to find a solution, is there not a simple message there? AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we need to try harder. Ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away, rather than discussing it for however long it takes to reach consensus, is not going to resolve the issue. Unless a standard convention is implemented, there will be no consistency and lots of edit wars, and possibly fragmented repeats of discussions like this on station talk pages all over the place. Much better to have a central discussion here and thrash out the issues. Waggers 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

Why is there such controversy over whether e.g. the S in station is capitalised in a name? Simply south 11:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a controversy over the s in station. My proposal is to remove railway from the name; which is why I proposed the use of the naming convention X Station with a capital S, except where a small s is needed, in which case a redirect page was to used from X station to X Station. There appears to be a preference to use the small s, i.e. X station, to avoid wholesale renaming of articles, and to use more re-directs. The controversy appears to be whether railway is need or not. Pyrotec 08:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And then to bring up some evidence, look at lets shorten it to BNS. Simply south 11:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

OK by me, but I still prefer the 1854-1967 Birmingham New Street station to the concrete monstrosity that replaced it. Pyrotec 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why there's such a controversy but there is one. Basic English dictates that if something is part of a name or title, as "station" is in this case, it should be capitalised. I've never seen a station sign in the UK with a small "s" for station when referring to the name. We don't use lower case letters for other similar entities (X Country Park, X Stadium, X Bridge etc.) and no reason has been given for using a lower case "s" in this case, other than the sheer number of articles that would require correcting (a very poor excuse, in my opinion). Waggers 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected

It appears that this has been discussed to death and no consensus is likely to be reached. I suggest considering this proposal rejected and should be marked ASAP. --Kevin Murray 10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the proposal as it currently stands, but I believe it's important that there is a naming convention (just not this one). So my preference is to allow the discussion to continue, modifying the proposal itself as required, rather than rejecting it at this stage. Waggers 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tube

Two points here. Firstly, I don't think a qualifier is needed unless it's to disambiguate. (So it should be "Caledonian Road Station" not "Caledonian Road Tube Station" but if there are to be separate articles on Waterloo, they should be "Waterloo Station" and "Waterloo Underground Station"). The second point is, as I've just alluded to, the official name for the Tube network is the London Underground. I know some people may be confused by references to an above-ground station as an Underground station, the name should be "Underground" not "Tube". The confusion only arises if people don't know the difference between "Underground" (which is a name) and "underground" (which is a word meaning below the ground). Waggers 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This proposal is not a convention for London articles these have already been covered and agreed at Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. Keith D 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so that needs to be made clear in this proposal, which at present does include a convention for the naming of these articles.-- Waggers 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glasgow has an the Underground as well as the Subway

Although it may not be publicised much, Glasgow does in fact have an "Underground." The low level platforms at Queen Street and Central stations are traditionally called "the Underground" by many Glaswegians. This was the reason for renaming the Subway the Subway (from "Underground")- to distinguish it from the underground.

Therefore, the convention must include "Glasgow Central Underground Station" & "Queen Street Underground Station" to be totally correct. Dewarw 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Those two stations (Queen Street and Central) (as i understand Glasgow) are somewhat the exception, similar say to the underground stations on mersyrail or even city Thameslink (in London) - ie they are mainline stations thus "x railway station" still applies. A quick look shows that (for now anyway) the sections within the broader station articles are so small, that there is no need to create a seperate page (such as Waterloo is split 3/4 separate stations - international & mainline, east and tube). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)