Talk:Regent Street railway station

Untitled

My council-provided map of Sydney calls the street Regent Street. I imagine the railway station also has no 's' on Regent. Thortful 06:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is correct. The name comes from the first reference How & Why of Station Names: meanings and origins.... This book is an official publication of the State Rail Archives. In reponse to your query I have double checked the book. Please feel free to visit the station and take a photograph of the station platform with platform signs visible. Given the authority of the book, even if the platform sign said "Regent Street" I would want to check that the railway's sign writing department didn't get it wrong. I'm willing to be swayed, but only if the change is backed by indisputable sources. All my reliable sources say Regents Street. Please keep challenging the contents of Wikipedia! Only by such challenges will Wikipedia's accuracy improve. John Dalton 00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to believe NSW Railways are so stupid. Thortful 06:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? How are they stupid? It could well be that the street changed its name. Apostrophes and S's get dropped and added quite often. --Sumple (Talk) 07:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not so hard for a rail commuter in Sydney to believe! ;-) John Dalton 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've checked out the station platform. The seat on the platform has "Regent Street" painted on it. (no 's'!) As I said above, I would like to check that the railway's sign writers got it right as I consider the railway archives to be more authorative than a sign writer. It is interesting to note that the Geographical Names Board of NSW has no entry for Regent Street or Regents Street railway station. It has all the other stations listed (including Central). I suspect the only way a definitive answer is going to be obtained is to write a letter to whoever is responsible for naming NSW's railway stations. John Dalton 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Wikipedia should be prisoner to one book. Especially if that book comes from any part NSW railways. We should look more widely for answers to questions. Balance of probability is clearly in favour of Regent St. Thortful 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What you are proposing goes against every precept of scholarship and the correct use of sources and reinforces the oft quoted view that wikipedia (to its detriment) has no respect for genuine expertise. Without scholarship and reliable sources wikipedia is a worthless rag. The "one book" ("dumb book" as you put it) comes from the people (State Rail Archives) who are the experts in the field. Yes, it could be a spelling mistake in the book, but these are the sorts of things archivists go out of their way to avoid. I think they deserve more respect than being dismissed without reason. Scholarship (and science) isn't a democracy. It's not the sheer number of sources or number of people which hold a view that determines probabilities and rules the day. It is important to look at where each source gets its information from (they might have all read the same incorrect primary source). In this case I personally give more weight to a publication from an archivist than whoever told the signwriter to paint a name on that station seat. (a process akin to Chinese whispers?)

In keeping with the Neutral Point of View of wikipedia, I'm adding a note to the article pointing out that the station has different names depending on the source. John Dalton 00:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The Railcorp website only gives the "Mortuary" name. --Sumple (Talk) 10:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Scholarship certainly does not work by democracy. But when deciding what is "right" a scholar must listen to all the evidence before coming to a decision. To base a decision on one entry in one obscure book is not scholarship. In a civil court of law after all evidence is heard the decision is based on the balance of probabilities. Thortful 23:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suspect when it comes down to it, we are really arguing about not much at all.  :-) We both seem to agree on the need for scholarship, sources and that it is not a popularity contest. The difference of opinion seems to be on the obscurity, or authority, of "the book". "The book" is not obscure, but is (IMO) the definitive source for station names. It is published by the organisation responsible for naming NSW railway stations. Not only that, the author is a professional who's role within the organisation is to record that organisation's history. To call the book obscure is like calling Steve Waugh's autobiography an obscure book about Steve Waugh! I'm happy with the article mentioning both names, and by my understanding NPOV means we should not be trying to resolve a close contest between sources. Does this sit well with you? What we need is a slam dunk source, like the original paper trail from the NSWGR archives, showing how the station was named. Until then, I suggest that we agree to disagree and mention both names. (Feel free to add a redirect from "Regent Street railway station, Sydney" to the article, so it can be accessed under either name.)

Beats me how people can complain that wikipedia isn't accurate or well researched when we've just filled a page discussing the letter 's'!  :-) John Dalton 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

Today was open day at Regent St stn. I questioned railway historic society members, ticket sellers and general gunzels. Some said the name was Mortuary, and others Regent St. None would accept Regents St. One showed me the printed timetable for trains running from the station - it showed Regent St. Relying on one entry in one book sounds like religious fundamentalism to me. Shall add photos in due course. --Thortful 09:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I was there too. (I got some photos too! Let's upload our photos and select the best for the article.) It's not religious fundamentalism. If it was I would be dismissing your arguments, which I am definitely not. I did add the note about Regent street to the article after all and confirm myself almost three weeks ago that the station seat said "Regent Street (see above)". Are they the actions of a fundamentalist? I'm just giving the railway archives the credit that is due to them. I think the jury genuinely is out on the issue. Frankly if you were to change the name of the article I would not attempt to revert it as I think the probabilities for either name are 50/50. The one thing I would not accept would be omitting to record the fact that the book from the railway archives says the name is "Regents Street". Under wikipedia's NPOV policy I think we are duty bound to record the conflict. If you do change the article's name, please use the "what links here" page to propagate the change throughout wikipedia. Please don't take my 'inertia' personally. I don't mean it personally. I just want the article to be as accurate as possible and the only way to guarantee accuracy is to have the best possible references. John Dalton 12:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't plan to change the name of the article. I think it is a silly name and 99% likely to be wrong. I haven't figured out how to indicate copyright on my photos so I suppose a bot will delete them and send me another big red notice. Oh well, such is life as NK was supposed to have said. As I said to the people in the mortuary stn waiting room "we are all here waiting to die." --Thortful 13:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Add the text "{{GFDL-self}}" to the picture, like on this picture. By the way, cheer up!  :-)  :-) John Dalton 00:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Regent Street station

Regent Street station

Regent Street station

Rave Party Stuff

The rave party stuff is unsourced. I've searched for sources [1][2], but all I can find is references to a party in the ACT in 1995. Nothing for Sydney daytime in 1993. I'm removing the recent additions as they cannot be verified. If adding it back in please provide sources. John Dalton 07:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no record of these parties on the world wide web, as the Internet barely even had a working web browser back in 1993 [3]. Therefore you should check the usenet, specifically alt.rave [4] I know these facts would probably not interest the majority of train buffs, but it does illustrate how this historial site has been used in many weird and wonderful ways. In my opinion, this site was the host of some of the best boutique dance parties in Sydney, and has given a lot of Sydneysiders great memories. 221.186.75.248 08:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In that case use the items you mention as references. Give references to the Usenet posts and if there was any printed material (eg. handbills) refer to that too. References don't have to be online. There was no objection from "train buffs" to rave info appearing in the article. The only objection (as stated all the way through) was the complete lack of references to back the information. Please add it back in with references! It's really important to have the references as without them the accuracy of the additions will be challenged and probably removed. John Dalton 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll add this "rave party stuff" back in there, with references!. 221.186.75.248 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It's an interesting connection between a Sydney landmark and Sydney's underground scene. John Dalton 09:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Update: preservation work

As of July 2011, preservation work has begun on the site during business hours.