Talk:Union Station (Washington Metro)

why not merge?

Is there any particular reason that this article should be separate from Union Station (Washington, D.C.)? --Jfruh 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it's about the metro station, and all the metro stations have their own articles. However, this is one case where I could possibly see an overlap, since it's, well, a train station.. in a train station. Worth discussion at the very least. Schuminweb, what do you think? --Golbez 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems to me that this is one big train station (and yes, I've been in it). As it is, the overlap in content between the two is a bit confusing. Union Station (Washington, D.C.) states that the Red Line stops at the station; Union Station (Washington Metro) says that connections to MARC, Amtrak, and VRE are available at the station. Do we want to talk about them as if they're two separate entities? If not, why do we need two articles about what is essentially a single complex? --Jfruh 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the Metro station specifically, which has a fully different history and is operated by a completely different entity than Union Station. Basically, this is the Metro station serving Union Station. Unlike Amtrak, VRE, and MARC, the Metro station is not within Union Station itself. I am all for NOT merging the articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, the text on both pages needs to make it clearer that these are different entities. As it stands, you could look at either page and not realize that the other exists. In particular, the succession box on the Metro station page implies that that MARC, VRE, and Amtrak trains are available at that station. --Jfruh 16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Clarification of the text can always help. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Conduit

Hi, i am french, i don't speak very good english^^.

This metro station is represented in The Conduit, and i think that is good to speak about it.

Amicalement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.63.140 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and minor appearances in video games do not really pass muster. Provide a citation from a reliable source. Prove notability for it. Otherwise, it will just keep getting removed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And after reviewing video of the game, it definitely isn't even Union Station, let alone a notable appearance. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your video is not exact, it is the second mission, look this video of the 7th mission at 6:05 to 7:30.

(i can't use wikipedia correctly)

While the game designers certainly deserve props for their accurate depiction of architectural details, it's still not a notable appearance as far as the real-life station is concerned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shady Grove (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Washington Union Staton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was do not merge. Consensus developed to not merge the two station articles. Rainclaw7 (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

---

Old discussion, I know, but I think this station should be merged with Washington Union Station. It's already confusing in itself having two Union Station pages about 2 stations that are located at the same spot. Even with disambiguation's. The entrance Pylon for the Washington Metro is literally at the entrance of WUS. Other stations such as New Carrollton and Rockville have shared pages so why not this one. Isntabelle (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

(Will merge after a week and no objections) Isntabelle (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't see a reason to merge these articles. They're two separate stations with independent histories that are located near each other, as opposed to New Carrollton station and Rockville station where the metro and mainline stations are a single complex with a shared history. Convention is generally that major stations and nearby metro stations with separate histories have separate articles – see Grand Central–42nd Street station/Grand Central Terminal, South Station (subway)/South Station, and Drexel Station at 30th Street/30th Street Station for comparable examples. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  A different history between the services, not the station itself. It's located right below WUN and as mentioned before, the Washington Metro entrance Pylon is right there at WUN. Further implying they are the same station. I also don't see how they are aren't comparable with the station I mentioned as they work the same. You exit the metro then connect to whatever railroad you want to go to. From what I viewed, this could also apply to the stations you mentioned. However, I am not as familiar with those areas or metro's so I wouldn't be able to give a proper opinion on those. Isntabelle (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with Pi.1415926535. The situation is the same in New York and Boston: the metro stations are physically accessible within the same structure. Washington is not unusual in that respect. More important than that is that it's unwieldly to handle the topics within the same article (see for example WP:SUBARTICLE). Mackensen (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  There is very little history to be imported from the Washington Metro page so it would probably be very easy to do so. And if we are still comparing articles, why can't we do what L'Enfant Plaza Did? They seem to be labled as separate stations from the Metro and VRE but still on the same page. Isntabelle (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support Honestly I think the NYC and Boston articles could be merged as well; Union Station (Los Angeles) is another example of a single article, plenty of other examples of multimodal train stations like that. The 30th St. example is weak because the two are not actually connected but in DC they are. There's not that much content on the metro station page and it could easily fit in the Union Station page to reduce duplication and to present it in a unified manner. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

  Major railway stations tend to have a lot of history, and so do their subway stations. Even if you theoretically could merge them, it doesn't serve any real benefit to the reader: they have different physical structures, and usually different histories. You either end up jumping back and forth (which is confusing for the reader), or writing sequentially (in which case you have two separate articles mushed into one). Per WP:TOOBIG, Grand Central–42nd Street station (7161 words) and Grand Central Terminal (11251 words) would absolutely not be suitable for a merge on size alone. North Station and South Station in Boston, and their accompanying subway station articles, are all likely to be >5k words each once I take a good crack at them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per @Pi.1415926535. QuincyMorgan (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Pi, Mack, et al. Plenty of precedent for having separate articles for major mainline rail stations and the separately constructed adjacent rapid transit/light rail stations built to provide local connections to city residents. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.