Talk:Adrienne Arsht Center station: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 11:54, 29 December 2015

Trains: Stations C‑class Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

Requested move 15 December 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move (in fact, the result is closer to a consensus against the proposed moves). I note that "station" as used in the proposed titles as a common noun rather than part of a name, and should therefore be in a parenthetical either way. bd2412 T 00:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Several months ago, a wide group of editors put together a new guideline for American train station names in hopes of getting our station articles in line with the general article titles policy. The new WP:USSTATION guideline achieved fairly clear consensus, but has not yet been implemented widely. It's time to change that: as can be seen from this "test" list, our current station names typically don't follow policy in regards to WP:COMMONNAME, WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE, WP:NATURAL, and often WP:RECOGNIZABILITY (the current titles aren't based on any written guideline or consensus). These simple changes will make things a lot clearer for readers; I'll also create dab pages for the articles where more than WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION is needed. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Greenbelt Station#Requested move, the last set of station articles to be renamed conforming to the new WP:USSTATION guidelines. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Government Center station Government Center station has many uses. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As the Government Center request has been updated by the nom to include "(Miami)", I this particular objection has been addressed. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support standardization per WP:USSTATION. Not sure if the IP above opposes all, or just that one, but I do agree that the Government Center station will need disambiguation. --Scott Alter (talk) 14:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see there's another Government Center station in Boston. I've updated the RM and will convert the base name to a dab page. That should solve the problem, but let me know if there are others.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – having looked at the conventions, are how seldom they are applied, I don't see the advantage is making these names less precise and recognizable by removing what kind of station they are. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the convention is "seldom applied" because it's new. However, regardless of anything else, the proposed titles better fit the WP:AT policy; the current titles do not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:46, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – It is nice to see a good consistency applied, per the approved WP:USSTATION guideline. WP:CONCISE also comes into play, as the proposed names are simply better, and more in line with how people talk about such things. RGloucester — ☎ 01:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The suggested titles for the articles listed here all use "station," while the suggested titles for the moves recently proposed by User:BDD based on WP:USSTATION all use "Station." Is it clearly the case that "station" is not part of the name here? Dekimasuよ! 20:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These stations don't appear to have "Station" in their official name, which is likely the reason they are in lowercase. The previous RM used capital "Station" based on the station signage. But based on Dicklyon's revert of my recent addition to WP:USSTATION, "We go by publications, not signage," maybe all of these the articles (and in the previous RM) should have "station" in lowercase. Is there precedent elsewhere on Wikipedia for signage vs official name capitalization? If so, it should be applied here and added to WP:USSTATION. --Scott Alter (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an independent issue. This RM doesn't show capitalized Station in any of the old or new names. Where is this other RM discussion you refer to? Oh, I see, they are new ones yesterday, presently listed at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#December_23.2C_2014. They seem like real bad ideas to me. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I found the situation being referred to, this recently closed RM: Talk:Greenbelt_Station#Requested_move. I have asked for a review of that close at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2014_December#Greenbelt_Station (thanks Dekimasu, for calling it to our attention, and for your work in closing these things, but I think you'll see the problem). The proposal was to move to lowercase "station", which got a lot of support, but then it got changed to uppercase "Station", got one more supporter, and got closed, with apparently few or no editors noticing the switcharoo, and now it's being cited as a precedent for uppercasing based on signage, which an editor tried to retroactively put into the new guideline! This needs to be looked at. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uppercase versus lowercase might also apply here. While I think I favor lowercase, is there guidance in Wikipedia for using publications instead of signs, and that official signs created by an oversight body might say one thing, while the actual name/capitalization is something else? The signs at these stations listed here use "Station" in uppercase (see File:Adrienne Arsht station.jpg). The Metromover website does not have the word station in any of their station listings, so there is no clear official use of the word station on the website - which leads to the presumption that it is not in the official name. Yet the signage does include "Station" capitalized. So again I ask, is there precedence elsewhere on Wikipedia? One way or the other?

Whichever way this ends up, it needs to be put "retroactively" into the guideline for clarification. The guidelines are still new and the current examples are based on articles not yet conforming to the what is stated. So further clarification as pages are moved will be needed. Based on the previous RM, capitalizing "Station" if the signage is capitalized seemed to be the new standard (which was not previously discussed at all). If this will not be the standard, then not capitalizing based on signage will be the new standard, and that will need to be added. Either way, something needs to be added to WP:USSTATION to address this. --Scott Alter (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Signage was a novel idea, never discussed, but used to flip that RM discussion after all the support for lowercase; certainly it can't be taken as any kind of precedent. It is natural that when signs go up to help people find a station, the words on the sign are capitalized, as most words on most signs are (lowercase words on signs are pretty uncommon), so that really gives no clue to the official name. Looking at reliable sources for official names makes sense, as in the rest of WP content sourcing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Metromover, the official pages such as this one show no sign of "Station" as part of the name. In guide books and such, caps are inconsistent, sometime "Brickell Station" and sometimes "the Brickell station". Per MOS:CAPS, if sources are inconsistent, caps are not necessary, and we go with lowercase. I believe the railroad articles have a general guideline about using lowercase station when the evidence is mixed, too. Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. One, the signage is not a primary source. Two, there is nothing wrong with the current naming system, which is more descriptive anyway. All articles already contain "station" in the title, plus the system is mentioned right before the word "station". Three, the new names are more confusing, i.e. Which system in the world is this station located in? WP:USSTATION is a suggestion, not a policy. Four, "station" isn't even part of the official name anyway. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 21 December 2015

Template:Requested move/end must be substituted

It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved.

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Move logs: source title · target title

This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}}

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED; NON-CONTROVERSIAL as stated in evidence, the move has reached a positive consensus on all pages alike to this one. TheJack15 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– Per the use common names and natural disambiguation policies and the local WP:USSTATION guideline. There has been broad consensus to avoid preemptive disambiguation in favor of common names and natural disambiguation, as shown in a number of recent RM discussions: here, here, here, here, here, here, and most recently here. Currently, the articles on Miami Metromover stations are the only ones still including unnecessary disambiguation in Category:Railway stations in Florida. Stations in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and elsewhere have also shifted over, as well as those in RMs I mention. Some Metromover articles still need disambiguation; for that I picked (Miami) as it will likely be more recognizable to readers than other options like (Metromover). Dab pages are already in place for those articles as well. If I missed any, let me know and I'll add them. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: I think you should act boldly here and just move the pages yourself. It is not controversial in any way at all because as you stated above, all of the other 'stations' have been moved, and I'm closing this discussion. TheJack15 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 :''The following is a closed discussion of a [[WP:requested moves|requested move]]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a [[Wikipedia:move review|move review]]. No further edits should be made to this section. ''
-The result of the move request was: '''NON-CONTROVERSIAL''' as stated in evidence, the move has reached a positive consensus on all pages alike to this one.  [[User:TheJack15|TheJack15]] ([[User talk:TheJack15|talk]]) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
+The result of the move request was: '''MOVED; NON-CONTROVERSIAL''' as stated in evidence, the move has reached a positive consensus on all pages alike to this one.  [[User:TheJack15|TheJack15]] ([[User talk:TheJack15|talk]]) 11:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 ----