Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The station naming convention seems like a good idea, but it wouldn't work for some systems where there are multiple stations with the identical name on different lines, which may or may not be at the same physical location. Strangest example (perhaps) is on the B train in New York City, where the train stops at two different stations, both signed "Seventh Avenue". One is on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn and the other at 53rd Street in Manhattan. There are no fewer than four 125th Street stations, three on the IRT Division, one on the IND Division. You also have a number of transfer station where the station has a different name on different lines. Same deal in Chicago, which has very long avenues. Cecropia 01:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input; since my experience is limited to the Washington Metro and the London Tube, I didn't know about such issues with New York's. In which case, it would seem that mentioning more defining information is appropriate; for the above, you would get "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Brooklyn)" and "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway, Manhattan)" and disambiguate further as needed, maybe even mentinoning the intersection. A disambiguation page could exist at "Seventh Avenue (New York Subway)".

Okay, after reading the rest of your post, I'm growing to hate New York. ;) In which case, it would seem the best way to do it is go to the least ambiguous fashion necessary, that is:

  • Metro Center (Washington Metro station)
  • Pulaski (Chicago Metro station, Blue Line) (aside: should this be Chicago L, not Metro? Guess I should find the page on that... not my choice to make, that's a different convention altogether)
  • Pulaski (Chicago Metro station, Green Line)
  • Pulaski (Chicago Metro station, Orange Line)
  • 7th Ave (New York Metro station, B and E Lines) OR 7th Ave (New York Metro station, Manhattan) OR 7th Ave (New York Metro station, at Flatbush Ave)
  • 7th Ave (New York Metro station, B and Q Lines) OR 7th Ave (New York Metro station, Brooklyn) OR 7th Ave (New York Metro station, at 53rd St)

Personally, I prefer the first format - better to describe them by lines, I think. I must again reiterate my distaste for New York's system, it looks absolutely horrid to navigate, yet millions manage. ;)

As for the Chicago example of having the SAME station having a DIFFERENT name on different lines, can you give an example, since I'm not familiar with their system?

I also need to point out that I think this should be a format for other forms of transportation too, including passenger (and possibly cargo? is that logical?) rail, ferries and perhaps bus, if not local then perhaps national/Greyhound. --Golbez 03:34, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To answer the easiest part first, "Chicago L" or "CTA" are the most common usages. Only some more recent systems in the U.S. use "Metro."

The least ambiguous way to describe New York stations would be by station name, system, traditional division, tradtional line name"

  • Seventh Avenue (New York subway, IND 53rd Street Line)
  • Seventh Avenue (New York subway, BMT Brighton Beach Line)

and

  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, IND Fulton Street Line)
  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, BMT Canarsie Line)
  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, BMT Jamaica Line)

Of course, even that doesn't explain that the first two are nowhere near each other, but the last three are at the same location (three different physical structures).

  • Seventh Avenue (New York subway, IND 53rd Street Line, at 53rd Street, Manhattan)
  • Seventh Avenue (New York subway, BMT Brighton Beach Line, at Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn)

and

  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, IND Fulton Street Line, at Broadway and Fulton Streets, Brooklyn)
  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, BMT Canarsie Line, at Broadway and Fulton Streets, Brooklyn)
  • Broadway Junction (New York subway, BMT Jamaica Line, at Broadway and Fulton Streets, Brooklyn)

Mind you, there's also a Broadway and Fulton Street in Manhattan, and a subway station nearby. Confused? Sorry, but NYC is complex and I could entertain (or annoy) you with lots more examples and anomolies. Cecropia 03:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I'm banning New York from this project. ;) Let's see here... I think the best solution would be to go with the most ambiguous title that still maintains unique names. In other words, so long as the first listings of 7th Ave and Broadway Jct give unique results, I don't think we need any more unique stuff in the name. --Golbez 05:02, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

D'oh... this page is typoed. It's supposed to be "Naming conventions (stations)". Worth changing? --Golbez 05:30, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you like, it's free! :) Cecropia 06:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Already existing conventions

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject_London have defined this for London stations etc. The format we use is 'X tube station', 'X DLR station', 'X railway station' or 'X station' if the station is an interchange between networks. I don't think there will be any enthusiam at all for us to change to a verboser format. Morwen 08:02, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Oy, now ya tell me. ;) OK, let's see... Well, really, the only difference is the parentheses. I figured that since the words "tube station" aren't in the actual name, they should be separated, but that's a minor issue.

OKAY then, we get back to the original issue. Let each line dictate the necessary amount of disambiguation (Which would seem to be a much larger problem for New York and Chicago than for London) and have the line outside parentheses, but the disambiguation inside. Using the above examples:

  • Seventh Avenue New York subway station (IND 53rd Street Line)
  • Seventh Avenue New York subway station (BMT Brighton Beach Line)
  • Metro Center Washington Metro station
  • Charing Cross tube station

See, this lets the London stations stay as-is. Fortunately, "tube" is pretty unique, and I don't think any other system uses that. DLR is unique as well. Metro, unfortunately, isn't, so the city must be there. There may be a problem with "railway station" but we'll get into that as more railways are added. I suppose we should work on the Railway naming conventions, though that wouldn't seem to be such a major problem...mentioned.

Any comment on this from the non-Tube folks? ---Golbez 08:22, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please tell the other city wikiprojects as well. Wikiproject London people have only found out about this via word of mouth. Your proposals will affect all city wikiprojects. Secretlondon 18:46, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know the projects like London handled this, though I suppose it makes sense. After all, there will be very few systems outside of major cities, and those cities might have things like this. And remember, they are merely my proposals; I'm hardly the final arbiter of this. I just stumbled across it...
Since such systems are city-dependent -- except for regional/national lines -- perhaps we should leave municipal rail up to one useful format per city. Not every city will have the same disambiguation requirements. As for regional lines, we'll figure that out when we get to it.
I guess that could render this convention pretty defunct. Do you still think there's a use for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations? --Golbez 19:21, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Can we agree that the name must include the name of the system? "tube" is unique enough, but that's rare. --Golbez 19:23, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Ya know, now I'm not even sure of that one, having browsed the pedia some more, that seems stupid, doesn't it. There's "Lawrence of Arabia (film)" but "Bridge over the River Kwai". Why does one have (film) but not the other? Because the other doesn't need it.
I guess what I'm getting at here, we don't need a naming convention, do we. "Metro Center" is sufficient, "Charing Cross tube station" is sufficient, and if we need more detail, we'll use it. All I did was follow a link to an empty page and start work, but if others agree, perhaps we should pack this up and go home.--Golbez 20:09, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shall we abandon this convention then? If no one objects, I'll just put that on the main page and be done with it. --Golbez 22:36, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Eureka

I think I've got a compromise, after looking at the stations for Paris Metro.

  1. There should be a page for the station name only; example: "Metro Center". If this is not possible, add a link to the page.
  2. There should be a page with the system name if necessary; example: "Rockville (Washington Metro)"
  3. Parentheses, no parentheses, don't care, let God sort them out. The London group is just doing with "tube station", the Paris stations include "(Paris Metro)". Since both already have a large number of pages, it would be cumbersome to rename now. I suppose it's up to each city, if a city project exists, and if not, one may in the future, and renaming is always possible.

So, this lets London stay the same, AND lets Paris stay the same, and still provides enough disambiguation. The only difference is, there are some tube pages (like Rayners Lane tube station) that have no generic counterpart (i.e. there is no Rayners Lane). This is easily repaired with a redirect, though. The question is, in a case like this, which should redirect to which - the "with tube station" to the regular, or the regular to the "with tube station"?

Eithr way, congratulations me. You've come back to right where we started. If I owned this site, I'd nuke this page, but let it remain as a testament to my lack of vision. :P --Golbez 08:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous system names

What should be done for stations that are on multiple systems, or not on any current system? I'm thinking of stuff like Amtrak stations that are also used by commuter lines. --SPUI 08:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In that case, I guess the best way would be to not include a parenthetical system name, or if necessary, pick the most prominent system. --Golbez 15:41, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New proposal

After some discussion in Talk:Wilmington (SEPTA station) and other places, I'd like to throw up the following set of guidelines for discussion and revision. Bold indicates article name, italic indicates optional disambiguation. Guidelines are listed in rough order of precedence.

[edit] Major named stations

Articles on major stations should simply be Name (city). This includes all stations named Union Station. Current examples include Pennsylvania Station (New York), South Station (Boston), Union Station (Chicago), 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania Station (Newark).

[edit] Local rapid transit stations

Articles on metro, subway, and other rapid transit stations should be naed according to the guidelines established by the relevant competent (city) WikiProject or talk page consensus.

[edit] "Station" or "Terminal" in the name

"Station" should only be capitalized if it is part of the station's proper name. Stations with "Terminal" as part of their name can omit "station" if it is called for in a guideline.

[edit] Currently operating stations

Articles on stations should be of the form Name, State station. Disambiguation should be enough to distinguish it from other currently operating stations; disambig from defunct stations is unneccessary. Examples include Back Bay Station, Route 128 Station, Wilmington station (no active collisions), Trenton Rail Station, Ardmore, Oklahoma station (resolves collision with Ardmore, Pennsylvania station), Newark, Delaware station (disambig from Newark Penn Station et. al.).

[edit] Defunct stations

Articles on defunct stations should be of the form Name, State station (system), where system is the most prominent owner or tenant; abbreviations/AAR reporting marks are usually appropriate, e.g. PRR, SAL, UP, MBTA, NJT, Amtrak. Examples include Manayunk station (PRR), Philadelphia Broad Street Station (apologies for my limited knowledge of defunct stations; this is the guideline I feel least strongly about and would encourage its revision.)

--CComMack 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] New proposal 2

This page has been dormant for the last six months, while repeated move/edit wars over station article naming have broken out. I think it's time we at least try to establish a convention here, before there is more confusion and unpleasantness.

My latest thought on the matter is to have a three-layered convention.

Firstly, rapid transit is again excluded.

Secondly, stations with no name other than a city should be of the form City, State station (system) where system is an optional disambig for he most prominent owner or tenant's AAR marks. For example, White Plains, New York station or Manayunk, Pennsylvania station (PRR).

Thirdly, stations with a name should be of the form Name, City or Name, City, State (subject to consensus). For example, South Station, Boston or South Station, Boston, Massachusetts

Mainly I'm posting this proposal to spark discussion, but I really think we should move on this.

I close with the following note: Wikipedia is written for the ease of its readers, not its editors. Please keep this in mind in these discussions.

--CComMack 20:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is still no reason not to put station in the parentheses. Most links will be from railroad-related articles, where the word station is not needed. The pipe trick is a good thing. --SPUI (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not really convinced that that's true (the word station being unnecessary in context). Also, the Brits seem to have gotten along just fine without the pipe trick. --CComMack 19:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Okay after some thought and looking around it's time to comment. Every scheme I've seen so far has merit, and it's hard to say which should be the One True Way (tm). To summarize, the formats that I've seen include (numbered for clarity in the discussion only):
  • 1) City (disambig) railway station
such as Crews Hill railway station and Brampton (Suffolk) railway station
  • 2) Station Name (City)
like Union Station (Los Angeles) or Union Station (Denver)
  • 3) Station Name (System Station)
like Aldershot (GO Station) (although I don't agree with capitalizing "Station" in this instance)
  • 4) Station Name
like Lougheed Town Centre Station
  • 5) City, State/Province railway station
like Kingston, Ontario railway station, very similar to format 1
  • (probably others that I haven't noticed yet)
The question then is which shall we standardize on? From an editor's standpoint, I'm inclined to use either format 2 or 3 because I don't have to type the link text to use the pipe trick. However, format number 1 seems the most prevalent with 680 articles listed in Category:UK railway station stubs alone. Just due to the huge number of articles using format 1 so far when compared to the other formats, I'm more inclined to suggest that we adopt that naming convention as the standard for station articles. However, growing up in LA, I've always known the city's main station as "Union Station" and not "Los Angeles Union Station"; now that I live close enough to visit Chicago regularly, I hear Chicago's Union Station referred to more often as "Union Station" more often than "Chicago Union Station". So for North American station articles, it seems to make more sense to follow format 2, deferring to format 3 when there are more than one of "X Station" in a city, or format 4 if there's only one of a specific station name.
I guess at this point I'd say to continue with format 1 for British (and now I see some Australian station articles are following this format too) stations, and formats 2, 3 and 4 for North American stations as noted above. slambo 20:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK stations

As there still appears to be discussion in various places about the aprorpiate name of UK railway stations outside London I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Stations

The french stations could be STATION NAME (REGION) for regional stations and STATION NAME (TGV LIGNE) for TGV trainsChris5897 10:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)