Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)

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)

• CommentCompletely agree with the proposal to capitalise the "S", and "R" should it remain. Just wondering why the discussion on this, even though the majority of people agreed was never implemented. Sgreen93 (talk) 00:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • As noted here, this debate (which was last commented on over three years ago) is effectively closed with general acceptance of the conventions described on the project page. Should you (or others) feel that the convention should be changed, I think that a new thread should be started. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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/Archive 6#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)

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

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the discussion was WP:POINT wikilawyering.

Did this proposal become policy when all the relevant articles were rearranged to conform to the policy, or does consensus have to be reached? 03:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• As I read it Wikipedia:How to create policy is clear. Consensus is the goal. Not brute force. AlistairMcMillan 03:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: If you look at the edit history, the original discussion died out in May 2006 without consensus being reached. Then discussion started again in March this year, where consensus has clearly not been reached. AlistairMcMillan 03:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to engage in Wikipedia:wikilawyering, go ahead. This page is a disputed guideline. You can't come around six months after the fact and tag it {{proposed}} just because you don't agree with it. Chris cheese whine 16:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This is simple. If consensus was reached on this page then please point to it. AlistairMcMillan 17:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT. The article moves and creations over the lifetime of this page being predominantly unopposed (and this guideline being cited successfully in various WP:RM discussions) suggests well enough for those editors who are not disrupting this page that said moves and creations were consensual. Chris cheese whine 18:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at "Glasgow Central station" as an example. The page was moved twice to conform to this proposed policy in the last year. Neither time did the editor doing the move point other editors to this policy, or mention on the Talk page why he was moving the page against the consensus that was formed in January 2006. Then after the page was moved recently, and another editor started a move request, five editors cited this policy as a reason to oppose. None of them actually linked to the policy. This policy was not added to the "Wikipedia naming conventions" category, nor was it mentioned on the "Wikipedia:Naming conventions" page. Please show us where the editors at "Glasgow Central station" were invited to comment on this proposal. Please explain how they were supposed to even find it when it wasn't listed in the suggested places. AlistairMcMillan 18:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Again with the wikilawyering. The heart of the matter is that you disagree with the standard. That is not a reason to unilaterally downgrade it. Propose a better idea, or stop whining about it. Chris cheese whine 18:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

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.. I would interested to know exactly where you can see the name Glasgow Central from Argyle Street? --Stewart 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

In my personal opinion, the word "railway" should be removed from all titles, and the "S" in station capitalised at the same time. Sgreen93 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As noted here, this debate (which was last commented on over three years ago) is effectively closed with general acceptance of the conventions described on the project page. Should you (or others) feel that the convention should be changed, I think that a new thread should be started. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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)

Do we need more than WP:NAME and its existing subpages, especially WP:COMMONNAME? If so, what? That line of analysis should lead to a good convention. If nobody updates it in a reasonable time, this one should be rejected; someone with a new proposal can always remove the tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

I agree and would add that avoiding the word 'underground' in favour of 'under ground' improves clarity / reduces ambiguity.

"Tube" is a nick name, which while well understood is vaguely defined. TfL's own "Tube map" shows all TfL train services, not just the Underground, and even at one stage include Thameslink, which is not run by TfL or its agents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal 1962 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

Overground

We really need to provide for a difference between a mainline railway station and Overground (and perhaps Crossrail and Thameslink) stations. What exactly is the difference between a metro station and a mainline station? Operating company, frequency, monopoly, reach of services? The Overground is London only, has high frequency in most areas (12tph in core section of the ELL), is operated by a soul company under TfL, like the rest of the underground and DLR which have their own conventions. Given its unique station I do think Overground stations should have a distinct convention like the tube, DLR and tramlink. x overground station. Crossrail should likewise have x crossrail station as, like the overground, it would have a distinct segregated service with dedicated stations, limited geographic scope and a high train frequency (more than the DLR I'd note) with much of it underground (it is essentially a long tube line with a wider loading gauge). Thameslink I admit would be going too far as multiple companies use those stations and the frequency on most of the line is below metro frequency but surely we can stop labelling TfL stations the same as network rail stations.- _J.Logan`^t: 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:LONDONNAMES have first call; what they decide has usually been taken as precedent here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been referred from project London to here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Station naming conventions).- _J.Logan`^t: 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, they're passing the buck hey? Alright then, let's get started: personally, I don't want to see further distinction created. The London Overground "system" is really a marketing branding for several existing National Rail services. Indeed, you'll find the East London line in the National rail timetable (Table 178 is the relevant one), which doesn't list London Underground times, so my choice is xxx railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So what is your distinction between metro and rail?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not National Rail claim it as their own; which can usually be determined by whether they produce a downloadable timetable. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What Redrose said. London Overground is just a new brandname for the old Silverlink franchise, and should be treated as we treat every other mainline operator. – iridescent 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can't define a rail system by an organisation's time table. The EEL was underground, it was extended and suddenly it is now NR. You really saying this change is down to it appearing on NR's timetable? Indeed, even as Silverlink it had a unique status from NR as being adopted by TfL on the map along with W&C before it was transferred. Now it is owned by the same company as LU and DLR, it operates at a higher frequency and it is entirely within London as a semi-orbial metro service. It is only like NR in track size, though Metropolitan is also quite large and Crossrail will essentially be a tubeline at NR gauge also even though having a dedicated line under TfL with a long central tunnel and numerous central london underground stations. Crossrail is clearly a high capacity tube and Overground likewise.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And I likewise point out that TfL have claimed it, and own it, as their own (as per Oyster map, "TfL lines" vs the national rail lines listed). So if it Is TfL, then it cannot be NR.- _J.Logan`^t: 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

London Overground is not "owned by the same company as LU and DLR", and I've no idea where you've got that idea. It's owned by Network Rail in exactly the same way as every other mainline other than HS1, and operated by a consortium of Deutsche Bahn and MTR of Hong Kong. Saying it deserves some kind of special treatment because the ELL used to be owned by London Underground is like saying Windsor and Southend should be treated as tube stations because the District Line used to run there. – iridescent 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As with Merseyrail I dont think theirs a distinction, its seperate from the national network but a national rail service not a light rail. In Greater Manchester the local rail services appear on local transport maps, doesnt mean their claiming it as a seperate from the national rail network. Likewise national rail lines appear on the Oyster Map http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/oyster-rail-services-map.pdf , does it mean Tfl is claiming those as not part of national rail too? Ownership isnt an issue, form and function are, are HS1 stations not stations because their not owned by Network Rail? WatcherZero (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry not owned, but it isn't actually an NR franchise anymore. Responsibility for franchising it out was given to TfL. Even so, Crossrail is owned totally by TfL since they bought out DfT's stake. If you don't draw a technical distinction and instead draw the line as NR or not, then future Crossrail stations should not have the railway distinction at least? Can we not just get rid of the "railway" distinction? There is no other "Westminster station" for example than those with tracks.- _J.Logan`^t: 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation II

The convention is not particularly clear, in my view, on the question of what to do when two or more stations have identical names. The starting point it would seem would be the official name, e.g. Appledore (Kent) railway station. However, what to do in the cases where there is no official disambiguation term, for example in the case of closed stations? Would it be Appledore (Devon) railway station or Appledore railway station (Devon) or another variation using commas? All three variations are to be found. My question is prompted by this page move which looks to be contrary to the convention. Lamberhurst (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

For me, the words "railway station" should occur last. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We never got consensus on implementing the naming convention so it may have holes in it. I have seen lots of variation in the disambiguation used but I would agree with Redrose64 that "railway station" should be last in the name. On the page move I would have used Hampshire in full as Whitchurch (Hampshire) railway station. Keith D (talk) 22:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the problem there is that National Rail already have their own disambiguation, so the form with abbreviated county Whitchurch (Hants) is at least verifiable as official. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the current inconsistencies, it might be an idea to resurrect the discussion about whether this is a policy or merely a proposal. Am I right in thinking that the last discussion was the one above in March 2007? Lamberhurst (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I think so it has been left for some time without any progress, though there appears to be some consistency of late in capitalisations. Keith D (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it depends if we can determine the official name of the station. Is it "Appledore (Kent)", or is it "Appledore" which is disambiguated as being in Kent? In the former case, the title should be "Appledore (Kent) railway station", but in the latter case my feeling is that it should be "Appledore railway station, Kent" which would be in line with the way most UK things are disambiguated by location in Wikipedia. It may be difficult to differentiate these two cases: the fact that the name is listed somewhere as "Appledore (Kent)" doesn't really prove anything one way or the other. A listing in a reliable source as either "Appledore (Kent) Station" or "Appledore Station (Kent)" would help settle this. -- Dr Greg  talk  19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the ORR lists it as simply Appledore and the other has been closed 100 years, wouldnt it be better to use the current name and disambiguate the older (less common) usage? This could then be carried through to policy as the primacy of the currently open over closed or more commonly used station. But then to open a whole new complexity Ince railway station is disambiguated to Ince (Wigan) railway station but the two official links on the page to the same organisation National Rail Enquiries call it 'Ince (INC)' and 'Ince (Manchester)(INC)' while the ORR calls it simply 'Ince'. WatcherZero (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Appledore (Kent) is fine as it is the official name. The problem is with other stations that have no official name, but need to be disambiguated nonetheless. If official sources use brackets after the station name, would it not be logical to use them here, regardless of how other UK items are disambiguated on Wikipedia? For example, were Appledore in Devon still open today, it would be shown as Appledore (Devon) in the National Rail source. Brackets also deal neatly with the situation where stations are disambiguated according to operator, for example Wotton (GCR), rather than Wotton railway station, Great Central Railway. Comments? Lamberhurst (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

But as I said official sources, at least National Rail Enquiries arent consistent, they use several variations of Ince in different places on the same website Ince (Wigan), Ince (Manchester) and simpy Ince! WatcherZero (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

My personal preference is to dab by bracketed county. The undabbed title should be a dab page. Mjroots (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ince should be Ince (Manchester). But what's the situation with Newmarket? Lamberhurst (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that it's not just an issue of brackets versus commas, it's also whether the disambiguation term goes before or after "railway station".

The link quoted above by Lamberhurst above doesn't really prove that "(Kent)" is part of the official name; it could just be a disambiguation term. In fact, this map labels the station as "Appledore". -- Dr Greg  talk  18:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That was my point, National Rail Enquiries isnt consistent using different names on the same website. WatcherZero (talk) 18:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The maps show a section of the country, in which Appledore is the only station of that name. The same argument was used in the Whitchurch case where the map section only showed Whitchurch (Hants) and not Whitchurch (Shropshire), so there was only a reference to "Whitchurch". "Appledore (Kent)" is also confirmed by the toc. To return to my original question above, what would be the correct title for Appledore in Devon. Brackets or commas, before or after "railway station", using the county to disambiguate or the original railway company? Lamberhurst (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Brackets, after the name but before "railway station" (i.e. Appledore (Devon) railway station). – iridescent 21:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should drop nrackets altogether and where disambiguation is necessary, give [insert name] railway station, [county], with a link to the other named station or disambiguation page at the start? This seems to be the convention with many article names in other countries. The official name could be just bolded in the lead. Simply south (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What about two stations with the same name in the same county? Here, I imagine we disambig by railway company - is this also de-bracketed and put at the end, e.g. Wotton railway station, GCR or Wotton railway station, Great Central Railway? Lamberhurst (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If historically then yes disambiguate by company. Otherwise by borough\district. Simply south (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just thought of a reason why "railway station" should come last: {{stnlnk}} relies on that form. So, {{stnlnk|Appledore (Devon)}} expands to [[Appledore (Devon) railway station|Appledore (Devon)]] --Redrose64 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) The use of stnlnk is not compulsory. (2) If the term in brackets is for disambiguation rather than an official title, then in many contexts no reader-visible disambiguation will be needed e.g. [[Appledore railway station, Devon|Appledore]] -- Dr Greg  talk  22:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not compulsory, but it certainly avoids typing out the whole article name + pipe. There's another template which calls for the station in brackets after the name: {{s-rail-national}}, where the county1 or county2 parameter is used to disambig. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Station disambiguation (June 2014)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Station disambiguation (June 2014). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Pomona Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015. Thanks. Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 23:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Metrolink stop renaming proposal

A proposal has been made to rename all Manchester Metrolink stations from the 'X Metrolink station' format to the 'X tram stop' format. A discussion is being held at Talk:Manchester Metrolink#Metrolink station renaming proposal.. G-13114 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

proposal agreed, and stops renamed. TomHennell (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Would it be possible to merge the Metrolink line and templates in the table with the Trams line as they now use more or less identical naming conventions? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket#Requested move 14 November 2016

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket#Requested move 14 November 2016. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

UK station disambiguation RM

I've started a discussion on UK station disambiguation here to try and find consensus for making disambiguation methods more consistent. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC on WP:UKSTATION disambiguation

I've started an RfC on making disambiguation consistent in the WP:UKSTATION. It's located here. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

New disambiguation wording

The RfC on disambiguation for British railway stations has closed with the consensus that British railway stations requiring additional disambiguation should generally follow the "Xxx railway station (Location)" format. I'll update this guideline to incorporate more specific disambiguation guidelines that follow this consensus. Hopefully this will help us to finally bring consistency to the way UK stations are disambiguated.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Merging naming conventions for stations

Hi. I am proposing a merger of all naming conventions for stations. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Merging naming conventions for stations. Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)

There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing conventions for tram-trains

Hi, not sure this is the right noticeboard for this, but I feel it's clear there is an urgent (okay, that might be a tad overstating it) need to clarify tram-train naming conventions in the UK, as currently we've managed to be inconsistent with only two stations (quite the feat!). As the extension was a Network Rail project, and is national railway infrastructure, and the tram is notionally in "train" mode in Rotherham, acting as a railway service, it would make sense to me to use railway rather than tramway terminology, matching Rotherham Parkgate railway station. However, it is noteworthy that with the Underground and Metro, we've used primary-service-network style conventions before, which would lead to tram-based conventions here. To me, however, it doesn't make as much sense to see it as a tram-train if it isn't a train when it's a train and is still a tram? Along with the fact this is seen and operated as a different style of operation, where normally services follow their many of their own operations (Metro's speed signage et al. are still in kph, etc.), this is instead "a tram running as a train".

Either way, Rotherham Central station and Rotherham Parkgate railway station are inconsistent and some consensus should be reached, especially before these operations become more widespread, which looks like it may even happen by 3035 Shadowssettle_(talk) 12:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Anomalously, Rotherham Central station has National Rail services but Rotherham Parkgate railway station doesn't. Certes (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't call the fact Central has railway services any more anomalous than the original problem. If tram-train services are railway services, as their infrastructure is Network Rail and it's seen as a "train" operation, then Rotherham Parkgate railway station makes sense. Otherwise, if tram-train services are still trams, then Rotherham Central station makes sense as it is multimodal, as per a move discussion (discussion) and these guidelines. Shadowssettle_(talk) 17:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Issue is we might get tram-trains which don't operate on NR rails with the lines being taken over entirely or operating on heritage rail lines. WatcherZero (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Manchester Metrolink took over several previously heavy rail lines with little change to the physical infrastructure and stations on those lines follow tram stop naming conventions. This suggests that articles stations on lines taken over entirely by tram-trains would be treated similarly and renamed tram stops. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Rotherham situation, we have four options here - regard tram-trains as:

1. trains throughout (Parkgate railway station, Central railway station)

   Sheffield tram stops don't have articles but if they did, "Nunnery Square tram stop" would become "Nunnery Square station")

2. trams throughout (Parkgate tram stop, Central station)
3. tram-trains throughout (tbd)
4. trams part of the time and trains part of the time (Parkgate railway station, Central railway station).

My first instinct is to go with option 4, however the Tyne and Wear Metro interworks with National Rail services and naming conventions there are basically option 2 (St. Peter's Metro station, Sunderland station); and London does the same (Kilburn Park tube station, Queen's Park station (England)). Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I guess it's somewhat similar to Crossrail. Although it's not a tube line (or is it?), it acts as one, but we're taking all the stations to be railway stations (Canary Wharf railway station) even if it's a tube-like service, because the underlying system is the National Rail network. So whether or not the tram-train becomes part of the National Rail network is really the question. I don't see any of the Metrolink conversions or the like as a similar situation, it's not relevant what it was part of, that's all clearly the tram network now, but this is a tram-train, so do we do something different? Shadowssettle_(talk) 21:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Crossrail is a tube in the same sense that the Northern City (Finsbury Park - Moorgate) is a tube: the tunnels are of circular cross-section and have a single track. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Well yeah, but by that logic the Channel Tunnel is a tube line. If we're going with London Transport analogies, a better one would be the outer reaches of the Metropolitan Line, where London Underground and Chiltern share the tracks, and we use "station" rather than "railway station" for those which both LU and NWR services serve (so Chalfont & Latimer station, but Northwood tube station because the Chiltern trains don't stop there). Regarding the original question, I would say the fact that they share track is a red herring and Option 2 is the one which best fits Wikipedia's naming conventions. (When it comes to this kind of thing we're never going to have neat answers, since as long as we differentiate "tram", "metro" and "railway" by operator rather than by infrastructure, reality itself is messy. A LT S8 stock doing 60mph through the Buckinghamshire countryside is far closer to what a normal reader would consider "a railway" than a Parry People Mover ambling through Stourbridge, even the people who use them every day generally couldn't explain who operates Merseyrail and London Overground, and I'd challenge anyone to give a clear answer as to whether the Dartmoor Railway is a heritage railway, a freight line, or an operational GWR route.) ‑ Iridescent 07:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Iridescent: The Channel Tunnel strawman aside, I agree with you that this does make sense given the current situation, however, I still think there may be a couple points that maybe should be considered if these become proper internetworks. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: It's not quite the same at all, I'm well aware Crossrail is not a tube as I said, however the naming of the final service the Elizabeth line shows how fine that line is, and how it's the underlying "network" that's important, which was my point! Even bringing up the Northern City line also shows that it's not the infrastructure (ex-Tube) but the network. So the question of railways is what "network" they are "part of", not what they physically are.

This leads us to how we treat tram trains: Take a look at Baden-Baden station in Germany. Now naming conventions for German stations don't differentiate between interchanges and railway stations, but there's no question that's a railway station. However, the Karlsruhe Stadtbahn services it, which, as you probably know, is quite an extensive tram train, and you can catch a train there from a number of tram stops in Karlsruhe. Why is this important?

So, yes the obvious answer is that of the Underground and the Metro, however they're generally not considered part of the National Railway network. However, let's take Karlsruhe, and say the trams in Sheffield were extended to Doncaster, would that make every station along the line now a station a tram stop? If it is truly a tram-train, then probably not—look at Kassel, and some proposals in Liverpool here for Merseyrail tram-trains: it would not only make the entire thing a mess, but would not accurately represent that the services are running as trains.

No, I am not saying that we should call these railway services, especially since the Sheffield service is effectively a short extension of the tram network over a bit of mostly-underused railway, rather than a tram-train network proper, but if (and that's a big if, because, Crossrail's not even finished yet and look how long that took) tram-trains slowly start to become the norm, you may find such an approach not only becomes a mess, but no longer accurately represents the network or the operation of tram-trains. Which leaves me with the original question: Do we treat tram-trains as both trains and trams, or just trams?

So yes, for now it'd probably make more sense to not take this any further and go with the simplest option of considering them trams, but it is something which should at least be considered and not curtly dismissed as a (very, very) future concern that might come around and cause a mess. Shadowssettle_(talk) 09:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the trend in North America (although not applied uniformly) for light rail is that a stop is (usually) on-street and has minimal infrastructure (a sign and possible a canopy or minimal shelter), whereas a station is more substantial. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Which is the distinction here between Bus Stop and Bus Station. WatcherZero (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

What have buses got to do with anything? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation clarification

When disambiguation by railway is required, should the railway's initials be used or should the name be spelt out in full? e.g. Newton railway station (SER) or Newton railway station (South Eastern Railway)? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we normally use the initials. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

An RfC to repeal the October–December 2017 RfC

Should the paragraph beginning Following an October–December 2017 RfC be removed? 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• Per my previous commment, [11], at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station:
  1. There is an argument to be made that precision, unambiguity, and recognisability (by using the official name, which is what most people will know the station as, since this is how it appears in the vast majority of documents and sources: timetables, ...) are more persuasive (especially when all together) than mere internal consistency, especially in light of no. 2:
  2. It is not Wikipedia's job to create consistency ex nihilo where none exists (i.e. Wikipedia usually follows the usage of sources, and if different criteria lead to different results, we should favour the title which is consistent with sources); and this leads to the reason why the guideline as written needs to be repealed:
  3. Guidelines should not lead to results with are inconsistent with the article title policy and should follow practice, not impose it, especially if this conflicts with policy

Therefore, support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Question: Is the proposal to remove the single paragraph beginning "Following an October–December 2017 RfC", retaining "UK railway stations requiring disambiguation..." and all following text, i.e. to remove the explanatory preamble but leave the guidance unchanged? Certes (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Certes: It is to remove the entire paragraph, and any material which is clearly dependent on it (such as UK railway stations requiring disambiguation should use standard parenthetical disambiguation: Xxx railway station (Location). The term in parentheses should follow this guide:, which should probably simply read Where required, parenthetical disambiguation should follow this guide:). I'll note that the guideline as currently written is also self-contradictory and rather toothless: i.e. "mid-phrase disambiguation [has been deprecated]" vs "mid-phrase parentheses may be used in some cases where it is demonstrably part of the WP:COMMONNAME" (which already indicates that this should be something done on a case-by-case basis). Since it is not always followed in practice, for good reasons (the broader article title policy), it would just make sense to rid of it entirely and let the case-by-case considerations stand on their own. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Before !voting, I think we need to know exactly which text is "dependent material" to be removed, and what (if anything) would replace it. Certes (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Certes: Beyond the sentence I identify above, with the suggestion I give; and the paragraph itself; I don't see anything else. The "examples can be kept as is; the introductory paragraph (with the reminder to follow the usual disambiguation guideline) can also be kept as is. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support for the reasons given by the proposer. @Certes: - I believe so; the reference is to the 2017 RfC which added the disambiguation paragraph to the guideline. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose just removing the guidance without replacing it with something. There should be some degree of standardization amongst titles, as that serves our readers well. If there was a cogent alternative proposal I think that could garner support, but just flat out getting rid of it with no replacement seems ill-conceived. Not that I'm comparing RandomCanadian to Republicans – I quite like you RC don't worry :) – but I'm reminded of the long quest of American Republicans to repeal Obamacare. They never provided an alternative to what they sought to repeal, and predictably never could repeal it. The last RfC, much like Obamacare, was an attempt to solve a problem. Perhaps a less than ideal solution, but a step in the right direction. It wouldn't make sense to take a step backward by removing any such guidance.

I would be amenable to removing the parenthetical disambiguation however, since we don't generally use parenthetical disambigs unless necessary. Instead, I suggest just adding a comma delineated location, with the caveat that it would not be necessary if the location were apparent from the name. For example, "Timbuktu railway station", is obviously in Timbuktu; but "Smith railway station" could be anywhere, and thus "Smith railway station, Timbuktu" would be more appropriate. I do prefer flat out saying "railway station" at some point, again unless it is apparent: "Springfield Grand Central Terminal" is fairly apparently a railway venue. But merely saying "Early station" could be confusing, since there is in fact a city in the US named "Early station", could be confused for other cities with station in their name. It could conceivably be a bus station or a radio station too. So tldr: some level of consistency is good and useful, but it doesn't have to be an iron rule; I oppose simply repealing the RfC without coming up with an alternative. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: The alternative already exists: it is WP:DISAMBIG, and the remaining part of the guideline (which would be retained: the para. beginning In cases where stations have ambiguous names,. This RfC is an attempt to avoid instruction creep (legislating for every potential case when that is not required) and standardise by pointing people directly to the existing guidelines and policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCDAB suggests parentheses rather than commas, except for placenames. So: Early Station, Indiana, but Early station (Indiana) if such a railroad facility existed. Certes (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support per all of RandomCanadian's comments here and my comments at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station#Requested move 18 October 2021. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support, article titles should be determined only by what the most common name is in reliable sources. If an article's subject is frequently referred to in reliable sources with such midsentence disambiguation, that is what the article title should be, even if it results in some inconsistency. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  Seraphimblade, might I point out that WP:CONSISTENCY is, by policy, one of the pillars of deciding on an article title? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have no problem with consistency as more or less a tiebreaker, if there are several plausible choices. But if a certain name is consistently preferred by the best available sources over all others, consistency should not justify deviating from that. Accuracy is more important than consistency. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support but for slightly different reasons. The paragraph in question doesn't actually change the convention, it's merely a bit of history ("we used to do X but now we do Y") when really all it needs to say is "we do Y". The paragraph above and the examples below make it sufficiently clear that we generally don't use mid-phrase disambiguation or comma-separated disambiguation, and there's no disagreement that WP:COMMONNAME, as a policy, trumps any naming convention guideline for special cases like High Street (Glasgow). WaggersTALK 12:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Waggers: The use of parentheses is more widespread than just "special cases". Just looking at the stations beginning with "A" served by CrossCountry, there are eight: Acton Bridge (Cheshire), Ashford (Surrey), Adlington (Cheshire), Althorne (Essex), Appledore (Kent), Adlington (Lancashire), Alresford (Essex), Ascot (Berks) and Ashurst (Kent). All of these have been moved in the last few years on the justification of the paragraph in the guideline which this RfC is seeking to remove. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lamberhurst: And where these moved solely on the justification of the paragraph? Some of these seem obviously ambiguous (Adlington); while others less so (Acton Bridge, Ascot...). Obviously, there's probably a few cases where the COMMONNAME differs from the official name, especially if it is unambiguous. If however, in ambiguous cases, the guidelines are followed just because they are guidelines and no effort is made to look at the reminder of the article title policy, then this is an obvious case of misuse of rules. Consistency is a (one amongst many) means to an end (having articles at a clear title for our readers) and not an end in itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Nor does this or any other guideline (beyond the basic disambiguation one) address cases which are ambiguous outside of the selected regions (i.e. Ascot railway station - should it be Ascot railway station (Australia), and then Ascot railway station (England) [or (United Kingdom)] - as it stands, these two are inconsistent...? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@RandomCanadian: - if the official name includes a disambiguator, who are we to remove or change it based on the perception that either no disambiguator is needed or that a different one is required at the end of the article title? Ascot (Berks) is the official name (see here), so it should not have been moved. Others go the same way - Appledore (Kent) official name, yet moved in 2018 on the basis of the guideline. It's the same case with practically all the others except Acton Bridge. 100% consistency is not going to be achieved internationally as countries may have different approaches - see Georgetown railway station (Scotland) and Georgetown GO Station. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• We have at least two reasons for disambiguation, which may benefit from different treatment:
  1. Multiple British stations, e.g Newport railway station (Essex) vs the primary Newport railway station in Wales. Wikipedia disambiguates these by county, as do Network Rail, TOCs, etc. with "Newport (Essex)".[12]
  2. One British station with others abroad, e.g Fairfield railway station (England) vs Fairfield railway station, Sydney and others. Wikipedia disambiguates these by country. Network Rail has no ambiguity to resolve and simply uses "Fairfield".[13].

There is also an edge case where the only UK alternative is in Northern Ireland. Wikipedia treats such cases like Fairfield, e.g. Bangor railway station (Wales) vs Bangor railway station (Northern Ireland). Despite covering only Great Britain, Network Rail etc. use "Bangor (Gwynedd)".[14] Certes (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. The 2017 RFC was the culmination of years of agitation on this issue, and it has been largely stable and calm since then. There is a lot more detail as to why this is the case at the previous RFC, but the fundamental argument still applies, and that is that including "(Glasgow)" after the name of a station does not mean that is its "official" name in any sense, it is simply a disambiguator in the same way as we apply a disambiguator. We know this because the name on maps and on the signs at stations simply give the name, not the name with a parenthetical. So National Rail have their own way of disambiguating, but it doesn't and shouldn't map to the way Wikipedia disambiguates. In particular, we don't (except in rare cases) put a parenthetical in the middle of an article title. Thus "Sutton (London) railway station" simply doesn't match our style for disambiguation. And also, our disambiguation has to take into account the existence of similarly named stations outside the UK, which National Rail wouldn't be concerned about. So again, for consistency with those, we should disambiguate the way this guideline currently tells us to. There are exceptions, and High Street (Glasgow) may be one of them, given the generic nature of the name itself and the fact that this really is the High Street in Glasgow. But more generally, the current convention works and should be retained.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  For the reasons extensively detailed and linked to above, the current convention does not really work well in many cases, and the official disambiguation is no less part of the official name than the other parts of the name. We cannot just ignore it because we don't like it or think that our way of disambiguation is somehow superior. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Actually the guideline works much better than the previous status quo. We were constantly having arguments over it, people applying the formula to other stations willy nilly, and even disputes about which disambiguator to use. Sometimes tickets differ from the website. And no, they are not the official names of the stations. Otherwise the station signs would say that.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  Why are station signs more official than timetables? Or tickets? Or journey planners? Or TOC or Network Rail station lists? Official names are abbreviated all the time when context is clear. The only people arguing over using the official disambiguation were those who disliked it or didn't understand that it wasn't a misplaced Wikipedia disambiguation but the official disambiguation - we don't decide what naming format to use based on uninformed misundstandings. Thryduulf (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as official disambiguation from our point of view though, that's the point. The purpose of the disambiguator is to identify the station to our readers, and not just those who are familiar with railway jargon, but all readers. The use of a location should be consistent, and not just within the UK but internationally. That means having our own internally consistent format across the board, not borrowing a National Rail system that wasn't meant for this purpose, doesn't reliably cover closed stations, and isn't even always consistent (see [15] and the title of the page at [16], which disagree over whether Sutton is in London or Surrey). They all agree that the actual name of the station is simply "Sutton station" or "Sutton railway station" though, only employing a disambiguator when necessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation clarification again

This was asked above at #Disambiguation clarification, but could I request that the wording of this section should clarify whether initials or full names of railways should be used? The two examples here at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)#Examples which use initials are now redirects to articles using the full name: Banbridge railway station (BJR) and Banbridge railway station (BLBR), having been moved in 2018 with coment "use full railway name for dab". I've recently moved Skellingthorpe railway station (Great Northern Railway) and Skellingthorpe railway station (Lancashire, Derbyshire and East Coast Railway) to these names from versions which had the disambiguation in the middle of the title, but now wonder whether they should use the initials. It would be helpful if the guidance came down one way or the other. PamD 11:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My first thought is that we shouldn't be using initials where they are ambiguous between railways, which would logically lead to always using full names for consistency. However, that doesn't hold up when the full name is ambiguous (e.g. Great Northern Railway is a dab page). Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf Hmm, I suppose it's really only a problem if there are two different Skellingthorpe stations on two different Great Northern Railways, as the disambiguation is only added to distinguish between stations of the same name (and uniquely-named stations don't have any mention of which railway they are on). But that same logic would apply to adding initials, up to the point where two stations of the same name are on different railways with the same initials. For disambiguation between, eg, Skellingthorpe stations, "(GNR)" and "(LD&ECR)" would work fine. We could say:

"If the stations are to be disambiguated by railway, use the railways' initials (eg "(GNR)"). If this does not disambiguate, then use the railways' names in full (eg "(Great Northern Railway)")."

PamD 14:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thinking further, I agree that different Great Northern Railways with stations of the same name isn't frequent enough to be controlling. I think ideal would be to use the form by which the relevant railway is most commonly known, e.g. FR for the Furness Railway seems much less common than L&Y for the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. Perhaps something along the lines of "use the railway's initials unless these are uncommon in sources or do not provide sufficient disambiguation, in which case use the railway's full name." (but worded better)? Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Back again: this was never resolved, and the examples in the guideline are still of stations whose articles have been renamed (the two Banbridges). Now there's a little matter of whether the Stockton which isn't Stockton railway station (County Durham) should be Stockton railway station (S&D) (as it is now) or Stockton railway station (Stockton and Darlington Railway). It would be helpful if we could clarify whether the examples in the disambiguation page are the currently "approved" format! PamD 10:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)