Talk:163rd Street–Amsterdam Avenue station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 24 February 2017[edit]

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.
WP:SNOW close as a train wreck. There is clearly no consensus for what was proposed. There clearly is consensus that further discussion needs to happen about WP:USSTATION's wording and interpretation. That discussion should happen at that guideline's talk page (not a wikiproject page). I suggest an RfC, and a focus on ensuring that USSTATION is consistent with site-wide policies and guidelines, which should get rid of interpretational problems and other conflicts. Be aware that lower-casing any unnecessarily capitalized elements is expected by MOS:CAPS (see also mass RM of "Line" to "line" closing with "Move all per overwelming consensus."), and that WP:AT and WP:DAB do clearly expect removal of unnecessary disambiguations, and avoidance of parenthetical ones where natural wording will suffice. So, how to make USSTATION clearer is pretty obvious.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  23:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

– Remove unnecessary disambiguators and add "station" per WP:USSTATION Pppery 17:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This list was automatically generated by looking at all articles in Category:New York City Subway stations and subpages, and then selecting those whose proposed targets without the "station" either are red or redirect to the current title. Pppery 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Originally this move requested titles without "station". Pppery 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses[edit]

  • Oppose all in option 1 (without the disambiguator "station"); oppose procedurally on option 2 (with disambiguator) pending a project-wide discussion. For option 1: Some of these are compound names, where the parts of the compound do have articles. Second, some of these targets may be notable in their own right in the future, not just as a subway station. Third and most importantly, it does not make obvious that the article is about a station, unlike current WP:NYCPT guidelines or even WP:USSTATION, both of which are more feasible and present a more uniform solution. epicgenius (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Why does it matter if this is a compound name for parts that have articles?
    2. When/if another article would be created that has a title conflict with a subway station, the station can be moved back to the disambiguated title.
    3. I have no objection to adding "station" to the title where it is absent or some other non-parentetical method of indicating that.
    Pppery 18:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Because they are also known by other names as well, and most commonly they are known by their component parts. Like this station. It is known as 163rd Street, which is also the name of a street (arguably, that's just a redirect). But with examples like 34th Street–Hudson Yards, there are other stations named 34th Street (e.g. 34th Street–Herald Square, 34th Street–Penn Station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), 34th Street–Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line)). Oh, and also Flatbush Avenue–Brooklyn College (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line), where articles exist for both Flatbush Avenue and Brooklyn College.
    2. It's misleading to begin with, so let's not go there. For instance, how do we know that Brook Avenue is about the station, not the avenue?
    3. Me neither. I agree with Station1 in this case. (We can just add the word "station" to the proposed titles listed here and add the word "station" behind the disambiguators in all the remaining articles. Problem solved! Seemingly.) But the addition of the word "station" in the title is not what the RM is about. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      On the first point, the isn't the part after the dash a form of natural disambiguation? Pppery 19:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      They could be, but are often known by their components as well. The part after the dash can be removed at any time. For instance, 34th Street–Hudson Yards (IRT Flushing Line) is colloquially also known as 34th Street (IRT Flushing Line). But my main quibble is that the proposed new names talk about the stations as if they were streets or intersections. epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: The word "station" should be added to the proposed title in each case. These articles are about the stations, not the nearby streets by which they happen to be identified. This is especially important for cases like Cypress Avenue, which was once and could possibly again be about the street in Los Angeles. Station1 (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. It is unnecessary to change the page names, it would go against the current naming convention/consensus. The current standard makes it clear that these articles are about subway stations (as opposed to actual streets) and what line they are on. I'd also like to emphasize the flawed naming you are proposing. First of all, you would be giving these articles names that are ambiguous in both context and location. I guarantee there are numerous "160th Streets", "Jackson Avenues", "Navy Streets", etc. in the United States, if not the world, and plenty of locations that could be referred to by those names, so giving a station article sole possession of that name is just incorrect. Second, you would be creating two naming conventions for stations: station articles which are "disambiguated" but clearly defined because they share names with other articles; and stations with vague names simply because they don't have a similar name to another article, or because the street that stop is located at doesn't have an article for it (yet). The alternative would still create two standards (disambiguated and not) which is unnecessary. Tdorante10 (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not trying to create two standards, and what you are saying, that some are disambiguated, is the general way articles are titled on Wikipedia. Adding disambiguators for titles without conflict was explictly rejected by an RfC in September. Pppery 19:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current names do seem contrary to the guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations). Station1 (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does that have to do with my reply, and why did you double-indent it? Pppery 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Purely a typo (now fixed), sorry. I agree the current titles should be changed to conform with policy at WP:AT and guidelines. Station1 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The current names were devised before USSTATION was created. The guidelines are at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention, and need consensus from the project to override with USSTATION. However, this can be discussed at a later RM. epicgenius (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, a Wikiproject consensus would not override a WP-wide guideline, and a newer guideline would override an older guideline anyway. And neither could override policy at WP:AT. Station1 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, the project consensus can override the guideline since it's not policy. Policy can override everything, though. Not seeing anything in AT that would preclude the current naming guideline from being valid or comprehensible. epicgenius (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all fails WP:TITLE 5 criteria. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all As mentioned above, all of these names are flawed. The new titles would be referring to streets, which can have articles created for them. Also, as mentioned, there are several stations that have the same name. Then you would have some articles that have disambiguated titles, and others without, which would be confusing, and which would mess up necessary templates in all articles. If anything has to be done, I could understand adding the word station to the existing titles, as this would clarify things, and as Station is included on some signs. Your name changes would go against WP:NYCPT naming conventions. This change would not help anything at all. It would make things harder and more confusing.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    [H]av[ing] some articles that have disambiguated titles, and others without, is not confusing; it is the standard way articles are titles on Wikipedia. The current titles, go against a more general RfC. Pppery 20:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is confusing if they're all part of a series, use the same infoboxes and article layouts, and fall under the same wikiprojects. Also, your proposed titles don't make it clear that the articles are about stations. epicgenius (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And, as I said earlier, I would support the titles with station at the end to. Should I change the request to add that? Pppery 20:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine if you added it to all the proposed titles. epicgenius (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per epicgenius Tdorante10, Kew Gardens 613, and I opposed the renaming rampages within US Stations for the same reasons. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. This should be taken up as a project naming convention discussion if at all. The NYC subway has conventions that are OK (there's no policy against so-called unnecessary disambiguation) and that predate USSTATION, so that's OK for now. Changing to be more like USSTATION would also be OK, but is going to be a ton of work for the project and may have important ramifications that should be worked out there, not in a one-week general RM discussion where the key issues are going to be hard to resolve. My two-cents: over-capitalization of "Line" and "Subway" are a bigger problem, and should be addressed at the same time (see sources and sources). Dicklyon (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, just because everyone else is and it seems therefore that the sooner we snowball this the better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we certainly should add "station" per WP:USSTATION and for recognizability (titling something like 130th Street makes it look like a street, not a station, even if we don't happen to have an article about that street). Having said that, though, the general proposal is a good one. The titles do a poor job of identifying the subject at present. As a non-American, I can honestly say that I would have no idea these articles even pertained to the NYC subway. Most of them are unnecessary as the nominator says, and add nothing for readers, which a simple "station" wouldn't add just as well. I find the knee-jerk opposes above a little baffling, given that the present names self-evidently don't satisfy WP:CRITERIA. Just take a moment to think about the situation logically, rather than worrying about what we've done before or the amount of work involved in renaming. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As one of the opposers (who has opposed a similar renaming of WMATA articles in the past), what concerns me is not the new names themselves, but the lack of a standard for all of the articles in a given railway system. I'd prefer that there be a standard first because there are a lot of templates that depend on the article name itself, and I don't want myself, or anyone else, to have to unnecessarily rewrite templates. epicgenius (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would templates have to be rewritten? The old titles would still exist as redirects. Station1 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
        • Because the templates are based on the page name itself, particularly based on a string that is present in the title. For instance, {{NYCS Platform Layout IRT Jerome Avenue Line}} looks for the string "IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line" and changes the output accordingly. epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. In real life NYC Subway stations are not called just Queensboro Plaza or Bowling Green, but Queensboro Plaza (7/N/W) or Bowling Green (4/5). While naming articles, we have to follow real names of objects, and we do, with one remark: we replace service names with line names, per epicgenius, "because services change very frequently." So, these additions are not our internal disambiguators, but parts of real names reflecting real life. Vcohen (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination. As one who has used the MTA for over 50 years, I find the above parenthetical qualifiers [especially the numerous ones which needlessly, unnecessarily and pointlessly specify simply, "(New York City Subway)", e.g. Times Square–42nd Street/Port Authority Bus Terminal (New York City Subway)] to be prime examples of WP:Unnecessary disambiguation. All of these entries can stand alone without the qualifiers. If anyone wants a list of the outdated line designations, all such details are available under Category:New York City Subway or Category:New York City Subway lines. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 15:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose removing the line disambiguators per Vcohen. As people use the word "station" in common language and we can't use service names, I'd suggest using the line names without the original agencies (23rd Street station (Broadway Line), Fulton Street station (Crosstown Line), etc.) — Train2104 (t • c) 23:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With IRT 59th/CC a transfer station with a generic title, there should be no obvious conflicts between IRT Broadway and BMT Broadway. Just make sure 23rd Street station (Seventh Avenue Line), etc redirects to the right station. BMT Broadway / BMT Broadway Brooklyn is avoided because WP uses "BMT Jamaica". The other cases are all abandoned stations. In the small handful of those cases, the open station should stick to the standrdized scheme (Rockaway Avenue station (Fulton Street Line)) and the abandoned station either uses a parenthetical of (abandoned) or (BMT Fulton Street Line). — Train2104 (t • c) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why would the demolished station be labeled "abandoned" in the title? That implies that the two stations were on the same Fulton Street Line, when they aren't. epicgenius (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out there are abandoned stations on existing lines, most notably City Hall (IRT Lexington Avenue Line). Speaking of which there's also the distinction between stations along the IRT Lexington Avenue Line and former BMT Lexington Avenue Line (some of which are still being used on the BMT Jamaica Line), thus the naming conventions between the ones on the IND Fulton Street Line and BMT Fulton Street Line should remain in tact. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Do Create the alternate titles as redirects.

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.

These moves eventually happened after this June 2019 NYC Subway RfC. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]