Talk:Newcastle Central railway station/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Substituting {{UK stations PTE}} 2 Name of article 3 Requested move 3.1 Survey 3.2 Discussion 4 Opening paragraph

Substituting {{UK stations PTE}}

I had to subst the {{UK stations PTE}} template in order to include an additional disclaimer that the usage statistics don't include the Tyne and Wear Metro. I know this will make it a bit of a pain to edit, but it wasn't as bad as creating a completely new template! (The same will only possibly be needed at Sunderland station and Heworth railway station.) --RFBailey 17:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Might not be necessary as Central Station Metro station has its own article and is clearly indicated as such.DrFrench 20:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Name of article

I've just moved the article back to "Newcastle Central Station" from "Newcastle Central station" for the reason that "Station" is part of the formal name of the station, as in Grand Central Station (Chicago) and Grand Central Terminal. It is known as "Central Station" but only rarely as "Newcastle Central" (in contrast to, say, Sunderland station). Anyway, if there is disagreement about this, let's hear it. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be confusing the Metro and National Rail stations? The official name of the Metro station is Central Station and this is the name given on station signs and in timetables. Although the National Rail station is colloquially referred to as Central Station, this isn't it's official name and I'm fairly certain only Newcastle appears on the station signs and timetables. The naming convention for UK railway stations seems to be Placename railway station, so the article should be called Newcastle railway station or Newcastle Central railway station - but certainly not Newcastle Central Station DrFrench 22:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, no confusion. Yes, only Newcastle appears on the signs at the station, as there is only one main station in the city. As I mentioned above, the word Station is part of the name of the station (it's not "Central" or "Newcastle Central") and should thus remain capitalized, in contrast to other UK stations where "Station" is not part of the name. Have a look at Tyneside sources, you won't find "Newcastle Central station" anywhere - it's always "Newcastle Central Station." (I should point out that one of my main cleanup tasks on Wikipedia is to put unnecessarily capitalized headers and article titles into lowercase, so recapitalizing a title is not something I do often...) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Station" in the context of National Rail stations is never a proper noun. Chris cheese whine 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - I've moved it back. It's generally considered bad form to use the admin tools in the way that you did. Chris cheese whine 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What admin tools are you referring to? I moved back an article that had been moved without discussion, something anyone can do. I will do it again now, as the article has been moved without discussion to another title.

As far as your objection goes, Newcastle Central Station predates National Rail by 150 years. If you can convince Geordies to start calling it "Newcastle Central" or "Newcastle station" then fine, but otherwise it should remain at its common and official name, Newcastle Central Station. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the deletion log, you deleted the redirecting page to perform a controversial move without discussion, whereas the move you were undoing was in line with the established de facto convention for naming British station. You used the tools to get your way in a dispute, which is not allowed. Chris cheese whine 01:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I reverted a move that was made without discussion; I then opened up discussion about the article name here (the subsequent move to "Newcastle station", while also well-intentioned, was also made without discussion, and should probably also be reverted). Please also pay attention to WP:CIVIL when writing your edit summaries. As far as the name of the station goes, it is well established that "Station" is part of the name; unlike, say, "Sunderland station" or indeed the generic "Newcastle station". "Central" is an adjective modifying "Station". I have no objection to the use of "Newcastle" or "Newcastle station" in contexts such as templates where brevity is an issue; there's no need to refer to the building by its full name as it is the only major station in Newcastle. However, the full name of the building is "Newcastle Central Station" and you will find it written and capitalized this way in any reliable source you care to look at. Hence my objection to the odd capitalisation of "Central station". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that you used the tools to get your way in a dispute to which you were party. Chris cheese whine 12:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

PS - you are in no position to chastise others over "undiscussed" moves

. Chris cheese whine 15:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with the page name being Newcastle station, as National Rail refer to the station simply as Newcastle (not Newcastle Central or Central Station).   johnwalton   (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it's an iconic building in Newcastle, and perhaps the finest piece of Victorian rail or industrial architecture standing in the UK, and "Central Station" is its common name. There are numerous other stations on Wikipedia where Station or Terminal are part of the official name; it's "Los Angeles Union Station" not "Los Angeles Union station." ProhibitOnions ^(T) 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It says on on the Naming Conventions to be accurate where necessary, on all of the google search results it always brings up the term newcastle central station, not Newcastle Station. The station is the central station becasue it is in the centre on Newcastle Upon Tyne, their are other stations in newcastle which are not central, this is making it very confusing. Tellyaddict 11:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect National Rail only refer to it as "Newcastle" simply because it's the only major station in the city and they don't need to disambiguate like they do with other cities such as Manchester or Edinburgh. Newcastle United F.C. are very often only refered to as just "Newcastle" for the same reason, but the article is given the full title. The same should be true for Newcastle Central Station. Dbam 12:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the station isn't called "Newcastle Central", it's called "Newcastle". We already have a naming standard, and if you disagree with it, the proper venue for such discussion is on that page, not this one. Chris cheese whine 12:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we have a proposal. It's not a standard. And the proposal suggests, rightly, naming stations "XXX station" if it is named only for the city. However, Newcastle Central Station has a more specific name, and this is not addressed in the current proposal. Hence my request for a discussion on the matter.

Chrisfc, please do not use misleading or rude edit summaries. Your recent "rv error in grammar" in the case of a content dispute was inappropriate. The likes of "fmt to match the title, and insignificant things like the rules of English" are addressed in WP:CIVIL. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC

It was an error in grammar. The word "station" is not a proper noun, hence it is not capitalised - end of story. Chris cheese whine 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

True, by itself it is not a proper noun, but it is a proper noun in this context. Just as, say, "garden" and "city" are not proper nouns by themselves, but they are proper nouns when they form part of Welwyn Garden City. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm ambivalent about whether it's called Newcastle or Newcastle Central. However, whatever the consensus turns out to be, the article name should end in railway station and not just station. The naming convention only seems to suggest station for multi-modal stations that share a name, otherwise railway station should be used. Compare with London King's Cross railway station and King's Cross St. Pancras tube station if that helps. DrFrench 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

DrFrench, I would agree with this in most cases. However, as the formal name of the station is "Newcastle Central Station", and while "Newcastle Central railway station" might fit a proposed naming scheme, it implies that the name of the station is just "Newcastle Central", which it is never called -- it's universally known on Tyneside as "Central Station", and as you point out, this is also what the Metro station is called. "Station" is thus part of the name in the short or long form, and thus capitalised. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 14:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable citation for this "formal name"? Just that my research suggests the name is simply "Newcastle", and your logic fails in the final sentence. Chris cheese whine 14:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See below. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say locally it's more known as the Central station, in which context station is not a proper noun, and shouldn't be capitalised. However, I think it is a bit misleading to consider what the station is known locally as. If you're in Manchester, you'd refer to Oxford Road or Piccadilly stations, not Manchester Oxford Road or Manchester Piccadilly. The official name is Newcastle, and it's a station, therefore in my opinion the title of the article should be Newcastle station, or alternatively Newcastle railway station if the Metro station is considered to be a separate entity (as per the current naming convention).   johnwalton   (talk) 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd have a look at see what other articles do in situations like this. The only similar example I could think of is Leeds. The station's article is called Leeds City railway station and the fist line starts "Leeds City station (frequently just called Leeds station) is the mainline railway station serving the city of Leeds in...". On that basis and to have some semblance of consistency, I think naming this article Newcastle Central railway station with a first sentence worded as "Newcastle Central railway station (frequently just called Newcastle station) is the main National Rail station serving the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in Tyne and Wear..." will be suitable compromise, that hopefully everyone can live with. DrFrench 15:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But I don't think it is "frequently just called Newcastle station", its only National Rail who refer to it as this on their timetables and that's probably just shorthand because they don't need to add the "Central". It would be more accurate to say "Newcastle Central railway station (usually refered to locally as just Central Station) is the main National Rail station serving the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in Tyne and Wear...". As for a source for the formal name "Newcastle Central Station" here's a photo of the plaque in Central Station, if that's any good. Dbam 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And of course timetables don't print the names of Leeds City railway station or Edinburgh Waverley railway station in full either. I'd therefore support Newcastle Central railway station as being the correct name for the article. It's patently obvious what people are going to call it locally. Having said all that, I could make almost as good a case for Leicester London Road railway station, as that's how they've filled out the legal fire safety stuff, but that one would obviously be a bit of an archaism. the Solipsistic Snallygaster warns you not to click on this link 10:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

(Resetting the left margin) For a few other reliable examples of "Newcastle Central Station", try the Royal Station Hotel (in the station) [1], the famous Centurion Bar in the station [2], GNER and Virgin Trains, the main railways serving it [3] [4], Newcastle City Government [5], the Ministry of Transport (1960 accident report [6], the BBC [7], NewcastleGateshead Convention Bureau [8], Newcastle International Airport [9], Port of Tyne Authority [10], Gateshead City Government [11], Northumbria University [12], Gateshead College [13], North East Councils [14], the BALTIC Centre [15], the Newcastle Arts Centre [16], Eldon Square [17], The Sage Gateshead [18], Tyne and Wear Museums [19], the UK Tourist Information Centres [20], Nexus (in this document, "Central Station" refers to mainline services) [21], Go-Ahead bus lines [22], Stagecoach buses [23], Acas Newcastle [24], the Bowes Railway [25], the FA [26], the Royal Victoria Infirmary [27], the CBI [28], London 2012 [29], and Structurae [30]. There have been several books about the station, such as [31]. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that because those tightly connected with it capitalise it, and because it appears capitalised in the title of a book, and everyone else then makes the mistake of capitalising a common noun, that we should do so too? Chris cheese whine 23:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No one listed above is making a mistake. "Newcastle Central Station" is the correct name of the station, and has been for nearly 160 years. When a word appears as part of a proper name, it is capitalised. Or, to repeat my example above, do you really think it is "Welwyn garden city"? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your example fails because it is a false analogy. "Welwyn Garden City" is a single proper noun, "station" is a common noun. Chris cheese whine 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But on the flip side, "Newcastle Central Station" is a single proper noun and "city" is a common noun. Dbam 19:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a factual error in your statement, near "is a single proper noun". Chris cheese whine 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So go on then, what's the error? Dbam 21:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, the error is the bit where you say "is a single proper noun", which it is not. Chris cheese whine 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This argument has become totally ridiculous and has now been reduced to petty squabbling. The moot point is essentially this:

• Is "Central Station" (a proper noun) the commonly-used name for the station, by the people of Newcastle? The (albeit circumstantial) evidence would certainly suggest so. If it is, then "Newcastle Central Station" is an appropriate name for the article. (If this is the case, then the "Welwyn Garden City" analogy is a valid one.)
• However, if it is not, and it is commonly referred to as "the station" or "the railway station", then "Newcastle station" (or "Newcastle railway station") is fine. In the majority of towns (let's take Harpenden as an arbitrary example), the station probably does not have a common name, so Harpenden railway station is quite acceptable. As this is almost certainly the case in most places, then there is nothing wrong with the (proposed) naming convention in the majority of situations. But is it the case with Newcastle?

Finally, whatever name is decided upon, all the other possible names should redirect to the chosen one. But the squabbling needs to stop. --RFBailey 22:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well as far as I can see, the last major contribution to this discussion was the posting of many citations of the correct full title "Newcastle Central Station", as requested by User:Chriscf. That was six days ago, and despite clearly having ample opportunity to do so, has not put forward any kind of serious argument to dispute them, neither here nor at the associated discussion at the station naming convention talk page. So where do we go from here? Dbam 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

What "citations of the correct full title" would those be? Some were biased (being based at the station themselves, and therefore not independent), some were patently incorrect (e.g. London 2012, which capitalised all uses of "Station"), some were book titles (in which context the capitalisation would be correct), and some were schizophrenic (GNER, Virgin Trains, BBC, etc. could not make up their mind whether or not it was capitalised). The official name would be that given by the owners or the operators, which in this case would be "Newcastle", as evidenced by the GNER source above, and a glance at National Rail's knowledge base. Chris cheese whine 20:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. Let's move it back to "Newcastle Central Station". I guess some of the sources I pointed to were "biased" inasmuch as they were "based at the station themselves"; what on earth is that supposed to mean? I assume this applies to the plaque Dbam referred us to on the front of the station as well, put there by no less than the City of Newcastle upon Tyne itself. (Personal attack removed) "Newcastle" is only the short form of the station name, used on timetables and the like where brevity is important; we'd also find "Birmingham" rather than "Birmingham New Street", "London" rather than "King's Cross", etc., but this in no way implies this is always the name of the station. Even the disputed guideline he is fond of mentioning states "The official name of the station should normally be used with the appropriate suffix, except where this would be ambiguous." "Newcastle Central Station" is the official name. Case closed. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The plaque is in all caps, and therefore tells us nothing about the capitalisation. The case is not closed, and I see you have yet again abused the admin tools by using them in a dispute in which you are engaged. The official name is "Newcastle", and as a multimodal interchange, we suffix "station". To WP:AN/I we go ... Chris cheese whine 21:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well this is obviously getting us nowhere. Some editors are never going to accept "Newcastle station" and some are never going to accept "Newcastle Central Station". So I think what we should do is look at the hard evidence we have so far:

• "Newcastle" is the official name given to the station by National Rail[32], and is used on all timetables and platform signs.[33] What we don't know, is the logic behind the name. Is it shortened for brevity? Do NR refer to the destinations themselves, only adding station names (eg. Waverley, Lime Street, etc.) when disambiguation is necessary?

• "NEWCASTLE CENTRAL STATION"[34] and "NEWCASTLE CENTRAL RAILWAY STATION"[35] are the names given on two heritage plaques placed in or on the station by Newcastle City Council. What we don't know is whether "railway" and "station" are capitalised.

Personally, I favour "Newcastle Central Station". That is how I have always known it and it is clearly how most sources on the internet write it. The two plaques appear to give the full formal name and, as such, it should be all capitalised like "Welwyn Garden City", "Empire State Building" or "Golden Gate Bridge". However, it's clear that it can and will be argued that this is simply a widespread assumption.

But on the other hand, I think that because it is most commonly known as "Newcastle Central Station", then the name "Newcastle station" is totally inaccurate and I suspect it would be questioned at some point in future. With all that in mind, I think that the most all-round acceptable name for this article would be the one first suggested by User:DrFrench, "Newcastle Central railway station". But only with either "commonly known as Newcastle Central Station" (regardless of alleged incorrect grammar, this is how it is commonly written) or "locally known as Central Station" in the very first sentence of the article.

I think this title would be best all-round for two reasons:

• It would be exactly (regardless of capitalisation) what is written on the second plaque - the full formal name.
• It would conform to the proposed naming convention.

I know that this naming convention thing is being discussed elsewhere and seems to concern a lot more articles than just this one. But until that is resolved, I think this is the best solution for this article, at least for the time being. Dbam 10:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously I'll concur with Dbam as he approves of my suggestion :-) But being serious, I've given it some additional thought since I posted the Leeds example above on 2007-03-24. Do Liverpudlians refer to their main stattion as Liverpool Lime Street railway station in everyday speech, or just Lime Street Station? - I'd guess the latter. Do people in York refer to York railway station or just The Station? In everyday speech (like when booking a taxi) I too refer to Central Station. But is what locals call the station in everyday speech relevant, in terms of the title of an encyclopaedic article? Having a predictable naming convention makes it easier to find an article (especially if you are not familiar with such local conventions) and it makes things much easier when designing sucession templates. Newcaste Central railway station gets my 'vote', so long as we adopt a 'Leeds-style' solution in the opening parargraph. DrFrench 11:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Newcastle Central Station" is what it is nearly always referred to as by, and as far as I can tell also how it is officially termed by the railway companies. With the vast number of Metro type stations in the vicinity, I think renaming the article to its original and correct name is the most sensible. Bob talk 13:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The current naming convention is for unimodal railway stations in the UK to be named "Xxx railway station", and until a change to that convention is agreed, this article should follow that scheme. (I am taking it on good faith that it really is separate from the Metro station.) This article has been renamed from Newcastle station, Tyne and Wear to Newcastle Central railway station as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 17:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

I removed the sentence "Within the city it is commonly referred to as Central Station" from the opening paragraph, as I thought this was too obvious to be worth saying. You wouldn't expect to see in the Manchester Piccadilly station article "Within the city it is commonly referred to as Piccadilly Station", as this would be fairly obvious. If the station had a local name that wasn't obvious (e.g. if it was known as Dobson's station or the Grainger Town station) then that would be noteworthy. DrFrench 13:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My original edit was actually just "(commonly known as Central Station)" as I had in mind your previous comment about the local name being obvious, but RFBailey changed it to the sentence you removed. What I meant was that Central Station is the common name for the station, whether it be used locally by itself or whether it be used elsewhere with the place name added (eg. Newcastle Central Station or Central Station, Newcastle), my meaning probably wasn't very clear though, hence the subsequent change. Anyway, is obviousness really good grounds to remove something? The Newcastle upon Tyne article states in its opening sentence "most usually shortened to Newcastle", isn't that rather obvious? Or even the Leeds City railway station example given by yourself as a possible solution for this article - "frequently just called Leeds station" seems pretty obvious to me, why not remove that? I just think that the article name is only Newcastle Central railway station so that it fits in with the proposed naming convention, otherwise it would almost certainly be called Newcastle Central Station - by far its most common name. Even though its locally or commonly known name may seem obvious, stating it, just as a little clarifier, may help to avoid further disputes over the article's title in future. Dbam 20:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Leeds is both a good and a bad example. As the Leeds City railway station article goes on to explain, in the past there were a number of main stations in the centre of Leeds (Wellington, Central, New and City) - with Leeds City being the only one remaining in use, the suffix has become somewhat redundant. As for the main Newcastle upon Tyne page, just because something is not done in the best way in another article is no reason to copy it here - and even then (bearing in mind the number of places in the UK called Newcastle), the fact that most people would assume 'Newcastle upon Tyne' is being referred to when they hear 'Newcastle', rather than any other place, is perhaps noteworthy. However, despite all that (even though I feel it is redundant), I think the text that you orginally added "(commonly known as Central Station)" (without any bolding) is probably a reasonable compromise. DrFrench 20:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well since "(commonly known as Central Station)" has already been altered once for lack of clarity, it probably isn't much good at all. I also agree that a "locally known as..." type edit is a bit pointless too. So bearing in mind that this type of additional text isn't massively important to the article and isn't really worth elaborating on, we might as well just leave it out. Dbam 22:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)