Talk:Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Trains / in New York City (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incremental improvements[edit]

Re [1] actually, yes, you can move them one at a time. The rest of the articles are not somehow balanced in a house of cards, and the redirects will make everything continue to work while the encyclopedia is incrementally improved. Please see WP:PRECISION and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:IGNORE. If you rename one article, it will not lead to an explosion. However, it's a system of 500 articles and hundreds of templates whose names were designed on the basis of several ideas. If you have other ideas and you wish to destroy the existing system, at least let's discuss it on the project page. Vcohen (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I'm familiar with WP:IGNORE. None of the system of 500 articles or templates will be harmed, let alone the system destroyed, by following WP:PRECISION. Local consensus (in the train project) is the problem. Discussing it there will not solve the problem. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Some previous discussions:
--JHunterJ (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
What a strange world it is! Many people may spend years creating something, and one person may come and destroy it in one day, and this person will be right. Vcohen (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
God dammit! You're pulling this shit again?! Your defiance of the current naming convention reduces the article to nothing more than a non-notable street! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
And once again, this renaming IS NOT an improvement! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Misrepresentation of WP:PRECISION, because the article title has now lost its clarity. The subject is not an "Avenue", but it might have been acceptable to move it to "Parkside Avenue Station" as shown on the signage at the entrance. The only reason to change this would be if you were on some kind of evangelical mission, but then you wouldn't want to convert just the one. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree it's perfectly possible the article title "Parkside Avenue" could have been poorly chosen. "Parkside Avenue Station" is likely an improvement over "Parkside Avenue", which was an improvement over "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)". Removing the unneeded qualifier did not somehow magically change the article to a street (unless the article was a street before) -- if "Parkside Avenue" is a bad title, then "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)" is a bad title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
That really doesn't make any sense. "Parkside Avenue Station" is better than just "Parkside Avenue," but it's too generic. Since it's on the BMT Brighton Line, that should be part of the title. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
It really does make sense. Things that should be part of the title because otherwise the title is too generic shouldn't be in parentheses. Parenthetical qualififers are for things that the title doesn't need but Wikipedia does, because of ambiguity. If Parkside Avenue Station is not a good title (and I don't think that's a given, but it might be true), then Parkside Avenue BMT Brighton Line Station? But I think "Parkside Avenue Station" is not too generic for a title, and the article lede can give its context well enough, just like any number of articles on mountains, skyscrapers, etc. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No it does not make any sense. "Parkside Avenue" is a bad title because it describes a street. "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)" is a good title, because it describes a New York City Subway station on the BMT Brighton Line. Your recent attempt to rename Ashland Avenue (Metra) station is example of a bad name, which I promptly reverted. "Ashland Avenue" simply describes the street. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
"Parkside Avenue Station" is a better title. olderwiser 13:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
And now Ashland Avenue leads somewhere, yay! Until the trains naming convention is updated to reflect the broader consensus (WP:PRECISION) and produce good titles, I anticipate this type of incremental improvements to continue. The article itself contradicts your claim that "Ashland Avenue" simply describes the street.: "Ashland Avenue is a commuter rail station..." You might want to update that so that it stops describing the street as a station. "Ashland Avenue Station is a commuter rail station..." would work. And then we can move it to Ashland Avenue Station! -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If anything, "Ashland Avenue" should lead to A STREET with that name, or at least a US or State Highway which contains that name. The only reason "Ashland Avenue" even exists as an article is because YOU created it, because YOU didn't like the parentheses used for railroad stations. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Let me provide some information. In the NYCS the stations are called by their names along with their trains or lines, no matter if a station has namesakes or its name is unique. For example:

It means the current name of this article (Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)) is the real name of the station. The brackets are part if this name, they are not a disambiguation as accepted in wikipedia. Vcohen (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not see the sequence of characters "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)" there. I did see "Parkside Avenue/BMT Brighton Line", which I suppose could be used, if that's the way the station is most commonly referred to in reliable sources. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
This is one example of the four I provided. If you want to see the most commonly used form, you have to find more examples and calculate the average of them. I think it's better to use line names than train letters/digits, and it's better to use the former company prefix (BMT) than not to use it. Vcohen (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
If you believe the current naming convention is wrong (which it might be), you should dispute that, rather than moving one in a series. But conversely you just can't qoute blogs and fan sites for a name which may have been created by the same people who set up the Wikipedia naming convention. This discussion has now deteriorated into illogical POV. Yes it is! No it's not! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. WP:PRECISION and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS dispute the stations naming convention, and the dispute is raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations). Incremental improvements (such as moving one article at a time) are central to the Wiki process, and I will continue to move titles of the form "Foo (Bar)" to just "Foo" when "Foo" doesn't exist or redirects to "Foo (Bar)" as I encounter them. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:38, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The first line in Wikipedia:Article titles states: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." The move to "Avenue" was improper since the article is about a "Station". You've just made my point that WikiZombies will never reach consensus! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean "as I encounter them"? You don't have even a list of articles you are going to rename? If you are so unfamiliar with the problem, how can you hope you are going to build and not to destroy? Vcohen (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz, I'd welcome any additional incremental improvements, such as moving Parkside Avenue to Parkside Avenue Station, but my move wasn't improper since the earlier title "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)" was not "Parkside Avenue Station (BMT Brighton Line)". Removing the unnecessary qualifier did not magically change the meaning of either the title or the topic. Vcohen, "as I encounter them", right, I don't have a list or agenda. Wrong, that does not make me unfamiliar with the problem, since I am very conversant with the broader consensus WP:PRECISION. You continue to use that word ("destroy"). I do not think it means what you think it means. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, if you don't like the word destroy, I will say vandalize. Vcohen (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I like the word just fine. I just know what it means, and neither it nor "vandalize" apply here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:DISRUPTPOINT does apply. Vcohen (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
More previous discussions:
Note especially that Durham–UNH station exists and nothing is destroyed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
One more:
That was my first attempt to explain that the "(BMT Brighton Line)" is part of the station's name. Vcohen (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll add it. I don't see any explanation that parentheses are used in any reliable source's referral to the station, however. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There are 4 examples on this page. 3 of them use parentheses. Vcohen (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC) Sorry, 2 of them. Vcohen (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources do not include wikis, etc. None of the non-reliable sources appear to use "(BMT Brighton Line)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
There are no wikis in my list. One of the sites uses a wiki-like engine, but it is not edited by everyone. Anyway, if you have (I hope you do) another list of sources, you are welcome to reveal it here. Vcohen (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
No, I am not hiding anything from you. My improvements come from simple examination of the article title "Foo (bar)", a check to see if "Foo" exists (it didn't), and the obvious fix of bringing the title to the simpler form "Foo", per WP:PRECISION. If "Foo" was a poor title before I found the article, the move does not prevent its improvement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
So, you don't have sources. It's bad. Vcohen (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
So, what's bad about the title I moved it to, exactly, that isn't bad about the title I moved it from? (That is, the sourcing on each title is the same.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to summarize all I've said till now, adding a little more.
Each station of the NYCS may have several variants of name. The name appearing on different maps, schedules, announcements etc. may differ. It's true for both the name itself and the line/train designation that goes after it. That's why several years ago the naming convention was created. If you are going to change it, you are expected to be familiar with all these data, in order to be sure you are giving each article the most appropriate title. Yes, this convention sometimes contradicts more global rules, but it was done this way only because of WP:IGNORE, namely "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
You don't seem to wish to deal with maintenance. You are planning to make some random changes, break the existing consistency, and leave the troubles created by you to somebody else. Therefore I am inviting you to develop a proposition, publish it on the project talk page and discuss it. I have some ideas too, I did not implement them because I didn't want to make drastic changes, but if we are going to perform something serious, then let's collect and perform all ideas all of us have. Vcohen (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Almost all I deal with is maintenance. I have no particular changes planned. None of my changes are random, although they might be prompted by a click on "Random article" (that makes the article random, not the change). I create no troubles -- you continue to misunderstand incremental improvements as "trouble". None of the changes I've made are drastic; instead, they are simple applications of the broad consensus for article titles. If you'd like to have a local consensus contrary to the broader consensus, you are expected to be familiar with WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and discuss the benefit to the encyclopedia of your proposed exception with the broader audience, not demand that all other editors who are familiar with the broader consensus come to your house. So far, you have not identified any reliable source that uses the title "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)". -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Do you really not understand? Your incremental improvements are not trouble, but they are random. I am speaking about this system of articles and templates created by many people and about your attempts to break it. You can not and will not maintain it, because you don't even want to learn how it works. It is not just local consensus, but something that has been developed by many people. And so on. Try to understand what I say. Vcohen (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way, the WP:PMW rule says, "If you think a page move might be controversial, its best to make a move proposal on the article's talk page." Vcohen (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I have an idea: Move all NYCS station articles to [[{{{station}}} metro station|{{{station}}}]] or [[{{{station}}} Station|{{{station}}}]]. Only if necessary, include the name of the line as well (e.g. Kings Highway (BMT Brighton Line) to Kings Highway metro station (BMT Brighton Line), Kings Highway Station (BMT Brighton Line), or something like that. It will ensure that people know that these are subway stations. One disadvantage is that people do not know which line it's on, so let's leave it as is. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 00:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a good suggestion, but I don't see the disadvantage. How will people not know which line it's on? "Parkside Avenue is a local station on the BMT Brighton Line of the New York City Subway." (the first sentence in the article) The title is not supposed to take the place of the lede, otherwise this would be Parkside Avenue (local station on the BMT Brighton Line of the New York City Subway) (or worse), to avoid the disadvantage of people not knowing which subway system the line is part of. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I think Epicgenius is agreeing with you about the naming convention, except to move them all. Could you explain your comments? Are you being sarcastic? Note that New York uses "Subway Station" (not "metro") or just "Station". Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
What I am trying to say is that any NYCS station article that goes like [[{{{station}}} (IRT {{{line}}} Line)]], [[{{{station}}} (IND {{{line}}} Line)]], [[{{{station}}} (BMT {{{line}}} Line)]], or [[{{{station}}} (New York City Subway)]], just by looking at the title part, a reader can deduce that the article is about a station on the NYC Subway. There is no need to rename them, as the stations on NYCS lines are fixed; whereas the services move around all the time. On the other hand, systems like the WMATA and CTA do not distinguish between "lines" and "routes", so therefore they are just [[{{{station}}} (WMATA station)]] or [[{{{station}}} (CTA station)]].
As a side note, if one wanted to get an article for the 33rd Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line) station they would get 33rd Street (New York City Subway) or 33rd Street, disambiguation pages, under JHunterJ's plan. Overall, it's best to leave the articles be (no moving of articles). Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 15:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree, about not moving any of them. To move just one makes no sense. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the distinguishing of CTA stations; 1)There are Clinton (CTA Blue Line station) and Clinton (CTA Green and Pink Lines station), and 2)Western (CTA Blue Line Congress branch station) and Western (CTA Blue Line O'Hare branch station). So sometimes there are distinctions there too. I'd only rename a station article if there were a genuine rename by the MTA. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Why are you using the plural form? My first comment here was "let's discuss". Vcohen (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I tried the opposite on the Moscow Metro (e.g. Kuntsevskaya to Kuntsevskaya (Moscow Metro)). Apparently, Bagrationovskaya (Moscow Metro) isn't disambiguous enough—it got moved back to Bagrationovskaya within hours of my move. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 00:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Another note: Moving NYCS station pages would really mess up the platform layouts transcluded onto the page, as these platform layouts use templates that are transcluded onto the platform layout template. These templates rely on the page title to work. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 15:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I do like the naming convention, but it User:JHunterJ is right, it doesn't match WP guidelines. Your best bet is to get the guidelines fixed to specifically allow this for train stations, because of the common problem of real-world ambiguity even where no WP ambiguity exists. There have been discussions to and fro about "anticipatory DAB," but none that I recall that affect a large group of related articles such as this one. Dovid (talk) 04:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your idea. "Real-world ambiguity even where no WP ambiguity exists" is exactly the case. Vcohen (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Just to throw in my own two cents here, maybe I missed a policy or something, but I certainly don't think that the "real world vs Wikipedia ambiguity" is as clear cut as JHunterJ makes it out to be. There are lots of situations where names are ambiguous, but not on Wikipedia necessarily, and I can't see why disambiguation is inappropriate, even after having discussed this a bit at wt:at. Like for instance California Proposition 29 (2012) is the only California prop 29 on WP, but there are at least 3 other identically named "California proposition 29s" from other years with no article yet. I guess maybe technically "california proposition 29" isn't ambiguous on Wikipedia which just has the one article, but for our readers it sure seems ambiguous to me (because how do they know in advance what we have articles about)! I'm having a hard time parsing out the exact way the trains stations could be ambiguous; if it's ambiguous because someone might think the station is a street then it might need a different disambiguator than if it's ambiguous because there's another station with the same name on a different line. The "(bmt Brighton line)" part is excessive if its only purpose is to convey that parkside avenue is a station and not a street. But regardless, if there is actual need for specificity for our readers, I don't think the "rules of Wikipedia" prohibit doing so. I would agree with jhunterj if the title was not supposed to have any informative purpose at all, because it is always true that it's clear once you read the lead what the article is about. But really, I just can't see how anyone or anything is helped by not just being clear in the title and the lead. AgnosticAphid talk 17:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Please note that an article on the street in Brooklyn has been created... that article has been named Parkside Avenue. Since the subway station (the subject of this article) is named after the street, the street should be considered the primary topic. Thus, this article does need to be disambiguated in some way... My suggestion: I think the old subway company designations (IRT, BMT, IND) are somewhat archaic, and overly precise. Why not simply entitle this article Parkside Avenue (subway station)? Do we really need to be any more precise than that? Is there another subway station named "Parkside Avenue"? Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you proposing to raname all the stations? Note that natural disambiguation is preferable to parentheses and the format "XYZ subway station" would be preferrable. I think the street is not notable and that article would not survive an AFD. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC) - Signs at the station entrances are simply formatted as "Xyz Avenue Station" Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Not proposing anything... just making some suggestions. To be honest, I think the NYC Subway is one topic area where we have to be somewhat flexible, and allow exceptions no matter what "rule" we create. Trying to make one rule that would be perfect for all NYC subway stations is just too difficult... what works well for one station, will not work well for another. Some stations not only need disambiguation, they need extensive disambiguation (the various "23rd Street" stations are good examples)... others don't. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
What about Seventh Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line), Seventh Avenue (IND Culver Line), and Seventh Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)? There are two stations named 'Seventh Avenue' within the same borough, and two of the stations that I listed (not the two in the same borough) are IND stations. Maybe company disambiguation is necessary.
(See also: List of New York City Subway stations#Stations with the same name) Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, there is no need to reinvent the wheel. The appropriate rule exists, it matches all the existing cases, and there are more than 400 articles that almost follow that rule. Maybe several particular articles require renaming, but certainly not all of them. Vcohen (talk) 06:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The example of a "/" in a name should be avoided if at all possible for technical reasons. While the subpage feature for articles on a "/" is disabled, it is not so for their talk pages. This causes problems with talk page maintenance see AC/DC and talk:AC/DC which is a sub page of Talk:AC a totally different subject. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have come here because of a heads up at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Train stations & subway stations and precision. A problem that discussing disambiguation and article areas with which familiar is that it tends to distort ones view of the subject in general and so does not necessarily lead to supporting the best solution. I think it may be helpful for the people in this debate to read Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 34#hopelessly vague title. There are several other section on the issue of pre-emptive disambiguation in that archive, but I have highlighted that one because I think that the comments around churches is a good approximation to the problems around stations. Notice that St. Botolph's Church has still not been created and is an example of why pre-emptive disambiguation is frowned upon as often the dab page is ignored. While red base names are not a problem for searches, it is a problem for disambiguation bots as they check links against disambiguation pages! If I put some text into a page and it includes a red link to a station I assume that no article has been written about the station not that there are half a dozen about different stations one of which may be the one I want! I assume the same with links to biography articles, because the usual way is to write an article and then move it if later if a disambiguation is needed, or a hat note is added if the name is the primary one. -- PBS (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius keeps trying to close this discussion, which I'm fine with doing if we can move it to a sensible title, like Parkside Avenue station. Are we ready to do that? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Can I move it to WT:AT? Someone will move it once you agree to talk on the talk page for article titles, and not on here. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 15:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to close the discussion, especially before any changes are made. Though I would definitely say we're ready to move the article to "Parkside Avenue Station".--Cúchullain t/c 16:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
You may be ready. We are not. Vcohen (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Renaming the article Parkside Avenue station is really stupid. It's a subway station, so it should be Parkside Avenue subway station. It's on the BMT Brighton Line, so it should be Parkside Avenue subway station (BMT Brighton Line). That's too long of a title, so it should be Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line). So, we're leaving it as is. Case closed. Talk on AT if you want to discuss further. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 18:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
No, renaming the article Parkside Avenue station would get it more in line with what the thing is called in reality. What's "stupid" is the argument that readers benefit from the made-up present title when typing in "Parkside Avenue Station" brings them no where. So, we're moving the article, sooner or later.--Cúchullain t/c 18:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Naming it Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) is really stupid. It's a subway station, so it should be Parkside Avenue subway station (if you think "station" is insufficient). It's on the BMT Brighton Line, but that's a detail for the article lede, unless needed to disambiguate the station from some other line's Parkside Avenue subway station. Note that Mount Fuji is at Mount Fuji, not Mount Fuji (Honshu Island), and "Hell Money" is at Hell Money, not Hell Money (X-Files episode). The title is just the thing's common name, not a full encyclopedic description of the thing. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
@JHunterJ: @Cuchullain: I thought that I said to talk on AT. And JHunterJ, you are wrong because neither Mount Fuji nor Hell Money are in subgroups of subgroups of groups. So in this case, you would want to simplify to the most specific subgroup possible. Parkside Avenue is, in this case, on the BMT Brighton Line, on the New York City Subway, which is a railway. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 22:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
And Epicgenius, you are wrong because "Park Avenue" is not on the BMT Brighton Line, since we've previously agreed that "Park Avenue" is a non-notable street. "Park Avenue station" is on the BMT Brighton Line, but "Park Avenue station" isn't ambiguous, so it doesn't need the qualifier, so the simplification is "Park Avenue station". And stop trying to close this discussion, since there is obviously no consensus to do so. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
'Park Avenue' station? That's not even in Brooklyn. Park Avenue is in Manhattan and the Bronx, and there is no NYCS station named 'Park Avenue'. Park Avenue , while notable, still has the qualifier Park Avenue (Manhattan). (Or had—it was moved some time ago.) Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 14:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Obviously "Parkside Avenue was intended". Look, the fact remains that readers typing in or clicking on the perfectly reasonable search term "Parkside Avenue station" turns up nothing. Not the article, not a dab page; nothing. Even if it did exist, it would be pointing to an article with a pointless longer name.--Cúchullain t/c 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
And no, discussion on this specific article is better here, just as discussion on the broader problem can continue at WP:AT. Seriously, don't close this again.--Cúchullain t/c 15:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Case closed. I'm glad you can work out all these problems, and now let's talk on WP:AT. No more talk here about this topic. Seriously, don't post on this again. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 02:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Cute. There's nothing wrong with discussing a topic. There is something wrong with trying to prevent others from discussing a topic. And obviously an article talk page is the place to discuss changes to the article.--Cúchullain t/c 05:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
This is about an entire topic that we are talking about, not a single article. And it's about the renaming of 400+ articles, not a single article's requested page move. If you had thought otherwise, you wouldn't have even ended up on this page. If you want to talk about issues on this article only, be my guest and post here. If it's about a broader topic, DON'T talk about it here about a solitary page's talk. Being an admin, you should know the Wikipedia policies. This is one of them. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I do know the policies, thank you, and you ought to review them yourself before you start lecturing. There can be discussion of changes to specific changes to one article at that article, and generalized discussion of changes to a group of articles, occurring at the same time. It's really not that hard.
Back to the actual discussion, if you want it shut down so bad, is there an agreement for a move?--Cúchullain t/c 17:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes! Refer to the sign in File:NYC Subway Parkside Ave Station.jpg of the station entrance. It is clearly called Parkside Avenue Station. The End! Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Well, I oppose a move because it's too much work! Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 21:46, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Me too. I mean, it's too much work to develop a new list of titles for all the ~500 articles. The move itself is a relatively small part of this work. Vcohen (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, all the way. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 23:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Time to make all the pages on Wikipedia "read-only". It's too much work to complete. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
While developing new titles, there is no need to edit anything, so your cynicism is not relevant. The only necessary thing is to think before doing, especially in such complex issues. Vcohen (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
The necessary thing is to improve the encyclopedia, not shrug off improvements because we've out-clevered ourselves, so your approach's laziness ("too much work") is not relevant. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Please don't think you are improving something, when you just rename articles one by one "as you encounter them". I want to show you something. About a year ago editors of the Russian wikipedia decided to rename ~500 articles about the New York City Subway. Those articles had been translated from the English wikipedia, but their titles had remained in English. They started a discussion, in which I participated. The discussion was very long (4 months, look at its size: archive 1, archive 2, remainder), but very effective. As a result we created rules and filled in the table of titles, I took my bot and renamed all of them. Note that it was a process of translating existing titles, here we are talking about inventing new ones, so the discussion is expected to be even longer. I am ready to such a discussion. If somebody is too, they are welcome. As the first step, I would bring the full list of articles. Vcohen (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Please don't think I'm not improving something when I improve things that need improvement "as I encounter them". If you need a full list of articles to also rename, you are welcome. Instead, I would suggest a step of removing the bad code assumption from the template, so that the incremental improvements don't reveal its shortcomings. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Vcohen is actually right – the articles have to be renamed to a completely new set of titles (which we still have not decided on yet, which we would have if we had talked on WT:AT). Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 14:52, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's only right if you assume ensuring templates work is more important than making sure articles are at titles where readers can actually find them. Since the titles the templates are based around were bad to begin with, that reasoning is circular.--Cúchullain t/c 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Cúchullain is actually right. The incorrect parameters in the template(s) can be disabled until they can be repaired. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I did not speak about templates. Vcohen (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes you did! This discussion has now deteriorated into childish yatter. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If you have something to say, say it. Vcohen (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody has anything more to say. Yap, yap, yap! and now I'm wasting my time too. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I've a solution: DON'T MESS AROUND WITH THE TEMPLATES. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 19:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Claiming that it is too much work to change what was a bad idea in the first place is a particularly poor excuse not to do something. olderwiser 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, certainly.--Cúchullain t/c 17:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop playing around and start discussing ideas already. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 19:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing left to discuss. This article is incorrectly named and needs to be moved. The only problem with that is that one or more templates made bad assumptions and would need to be updated. Everything else here is just yapping now, as Secondarywaltz pointed out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's your opinion, but there is no consensus here. Vcohen (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus to deviate from the article title guidelines, correct, and the only reason given for possibly doing so (the template problem) is not sufficient for ignoring that broader consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:42, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
There is no default consensus for every specific title. Every title is being worked out by thought and discussion. We are speaking about a large group of artciles that a large group of people already has developed titles for. Moreover, we are trying to explain you the reasons. If you don't want to hear and are only speaking about one article and global rules, we have a real trouble. Vcohen (talk) 12:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The real trouble stems from you not wanting to hear the broader consensus. There is a default consensus for how parenthetical qualifiers are used in every title. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
No consensus can be so compulsive. See the WP:IGNORE rule. Every default can be overridden by some reasons. Vcohen (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
*CLAP CLAP CLAP* Congratulations! You have just received the 'World's Most Dogmatic Admin' Award. (Just kidding.) But seriously, what default consensus are you suggesting? Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 18:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
See: "Natural disambiguation is preferable to parentheses". "Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC) . . . . But, let me make myself clear. Although I may have corrected some misconceptions, I am not in favour of blindly changing articles randomly, or even messing with the current American naming conventions. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. This continued discussion, by both sides, is an example of what is wrong with Wikipedia. There are more productive things that need to be done here rather than this petty squabbling - or get a life! Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The fact that someone who types in the perfectly natural and reasonable title Parkside Avenue Station is still taken nowhere shows that the current system, such as it is, is entirely broken and needs to be fixed. Perhaps we should start an RM, though the problem is already pretty obvious to most editors already.--Cúchullain t/c 00:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. 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: No consensus. Though if there was a convention, or a larger discussion as to NYC station naming conventions that looks like it would please a number of users. But on this single page move there is no consensus either way so the status quo prevails. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)Parkside Avenue station – It appears there's consensus for this above, but an RM should settle it. Essentially, "Parks Avenue station" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. The appended "(BMT Brighton Line)" serves no purpose, as the concise, natural and recognizable base title Parkside Avenue station doesn't even exist as a redirect. Adding the parenthetical is an internal Trains WikiProject norm that doesn't seem to be written down anywhere or have a wider consensus, and it's directly against the article title policy that titles should be concise, no more precise than necessary to distinguish from existing articles, and avoid parenthetical disambiguation when natural disambiguation (let alone the actual base title) is available.
It's true that this format has been enforced at various other articles, but that's not a reason to keep it here when it's so out of line with policy and wider practice. Similar moves previously found consensus at Talk:Pennsauken Transit Center and Talk:Durham–UNH station; other articles that eschew the unnecessary parentheses include Trenton Transit Center, Rosa Parks Transit Station, and 30th Street Station, to name a few. Cúchullain t/c 17:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Durham-UNH was an improper and unilateral action by an administrator. The existing system of article names is like this for a reason. Knock it off and stop systemically going against WP:Trains. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Pi.1415926535, and Strongly Oppose this move. The only rename which Cúchullain mentioned that could've possibly been justified was Pennsauken Transit Center. 30th Street Station is already the existing name of the station and Trenton Transit Center was given this name after being rebuilt from the previous Trenton Rail Station (New Jersey). ---------User:DanTD (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:TRAINS doesn't own the article and unwritten internal conventions don't trump project-wide policy and consensus. It's telling there's argument against the fact that the proposed title is the WP:COMMONNAME and that there are no existing ambiguous articles it needs to be distinguished from.--Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The use of parentheses isn't only for disambiguation. We're keeping this name for the same reason we don't rename Florida State Road A1A as "Route A1A." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
No, parenthetical disambiguation is only for, well, disambiguation. There's no policy that supports the present title while WP:COMMONNAME and WP:AT are against it. It's also totally unhelpful to readers considering that typing in "Parkside Avenue station" still gets you nowhere.--Cúchullain t/c 19:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
If this is the problem, it can be solved by creating redirects. Vcohen (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It's clearly not the only problem. However, the fact that the necessary redirects and dab pages don't exist for the vast majority of these articles show that a higher premium has been placed on forcing consistency than on ensuring readers can actually find the information.--Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with dab pages? We cannot use the same title for both a dab page and one of titles listed on it.
Also, one of purposes of the article titles is to show up on the status bar when the mouse is moved over a link. In all those complicated explanations about the NYCS trains and their routes across time and space, the reader gets serious help when he puts his mouse over a link and reads the coordinates in this standard format: the station name and the line name. Vcohen (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You're not following. There's nothing wrong with dab pages. In fact (part of) the problem is that WP:TRAINS editors rarely make the effort to create dab pages and redirects to guide readers to the articles, even as they fight to keep articles off the natural base title. In this case, no dab is necessary as it's the only Parkside Avenue station. Even still, you only created that redirect today. --Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I created it today, to show that I support creating redirects. Vcohen (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
None of which resulted in consensus to actually move anything. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
In fact, all of them resulted in the editors who actually work with these articles saying "No, this is a terrible idea. The naming conventions are used for a reason." And yet you keep coming back and trying to ram this down our throats. The existing parenthetical system is the only useful way to have a consistent naming convention. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, all the Jacksonville Skyway articles did find consensus to remove unnecessary parentheses from the people actually working on the articles. It was only opposed by one train-focused editor who has never made an edit to them.--Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose; this fits a long-standing, broadly agreed upon naming convention for these stations. No compelling reason to change except for pedantic adherence to a guideline without actually understanding the rationale for the naming convention. If this is to be done, it should be done in a large scale multi-move, not one article at a time, which has been rejected multiple times before. There is no reason to do only this one station, except as an attempt to use it a precedent for further moves, which is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. oknazevad (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavish adherence to an arbitrary, idiosyncratic format is not a good reason to use a problematic title.--Cúchullain t/c 20:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I find it pretty hard to call a horoughly systematic naming convention "arbitrary". oknazevad (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It's arbitrary in that it's based on the whims and preferences of members of one WikiProject. It's certainly not based on any intrinsic usefulness or Wikipedia policy or practice. The fact that it's widespread doesn't mean it's not arbitrary, let alone that it should be kept.--Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose this move, per oknazevad, especially because it's a move of one article. Support a broad discussion of the entire series of articles (400+ for existing stations and 200+ for former ones). Vcohen (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support It's high time we ditched the unnecessary disambiguation from transport article titles. Let's make some precedent. --BDD (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The New York City Subway is not a good test area for precedents, since some of its stations do need disambiguation and others are commonly used with disambiguation (such as "the Parkside Avenue Q station") even when they don't need it. It may be worth another discussion, but it is definitely not a good example for a precedent you are looking for. Vcohen (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Addressing this local consensus to ignore general site-wide practices is long overdue. olderwiser 02:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. It is high time that we get back to some reasonable naming conventions for stations. The fact that no one realizes where Las Vegas (Amtrak station) is is another symptom of the problem with the projects naming convention. What works for professionals does not work for the average reader! So we need to focus on names that work for the non expert readers. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This discussion is about Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line), not Las Vegas (Amtrak station). The difference is described above. Vcohen (talk)
  • Support. Simpler is better. I’ve been a subway enthusiast for 50 years, and I still can’t tell you which line any given station is on without looking at a map. Useddenim (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Nobody claims that the article title replaces a map. If you need a map, you may open it. Vcohen (talk) 07:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If this is to be some sort of precedent then pray, what is the naming convention? The station is named either Parkside Avenue or Parkside Av. It's pretty clearly not named Parkside Avenue station. Is the convention to add station? How is this reconciled with Rosa Parks Transit Station, a pretty clearly violation of WP:NCCAPS? There are thousands of articles on train stations in the United States. They are named consistently. Whether people like it or not, that is the definition of a convention, foolish though it may be. For the record, I think parenthetical disambiguation is terrible. However, I think arbitrary naming is even worse. This discussion doesn't set precedent, despite the haughty and insulting tone some have shown here. It solves nothing. It does I suspect reaffirm, in the eyes of WP:TWP editors, that there is a segment of the Wikipedia population which holds them and their work in contempt, and has no interest in working with them. This does not provide a way forward. Having one article named differently from hundreds is not a convention. I've tried to push a convention of my own for some time. It's at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations). I never seem to get much input or interest in establishing it, despite all the people here who seem so eager to move this one article as though they've all accomplished something. Edit: I apologize, my temper got the better of me. Short version: we need a convention before we move this. I've proposed one at User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations). Mackensen (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually "Parkside Avenue Station" is the name on the sign shown in the infobox image, and yet I don't think we should randomly mess about with any series of names - like this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, but probably done for display purposes. I tend to think Parkside Avenue station is a sensible choice, but see again all my shouting about having a convention. Mackensen (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In my proposal I noted that "Parkside Avenue station" is the common name in the sources. It returns 330 hits on Google Books, not bad for a subway station. The fact that it's in such wide use immediately makes it a clearer, more natural alternative than "Parkside Avenue" or any title involving a parenthetical. The ostensibly WP:OFFICIAL NAME matters much less, and conformity with the broken wikiproject standard matters even less than that.--Cúchullain t/c 04:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Regarding Mackensen's suggestions, I think the only one I like is San José Diridon station, although I might be willing to consider Church Avenue station (IND Culver Line), Church Avenue station (BMT Brighton Line), Church Avenue station (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line); Or possibly Church Avenue (IND Culver Line) station, Church Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) station, Church Avenue (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line) station. Chicago Union Station has already been renamed. To be honest, the only mass renaming of stations I want to do are the Max Light Rail, Sacramento Light Rail, and MUNI stations. I've mentioned this before, but one day while scanning through some "Recent changes" I saw a station article that I thought was in the UK(Broad and Plymouth), but was a MUNI Metro station instead. If it had the name Broad and Plymouth (MUNI station) or Broad and Plymouth (SF Muni station) or something like that, I wouldn't have had the wrong impression. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I think your comment is better made on the proposal page itself since it doesn't have much bearing here. It would help if you could clarify there the principle behind these renames, which is what I'm trying to get at with my proposal. Mackensen (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

DanTD has raised an interesting idea. I'd like to ask JHunterJ: do you see parentheses in the middle of a title, such as Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) station, as a disambiguation that should be removed? Vcohen (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources that call it "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line)" or "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) station"? If not (and I'm assuming not), then yes, the parenthetical is just a Wikipedia construct that should be removed as unneeded here, per WP:PRECISION. In cases where it is needed for disambiguation, it would go at the end, like Parkside Avenue station (BMT Brighton Line). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a source that calls it in a similar way. Vcohen (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
"Station: Parkside Avenue (Brighton Line)" is of course not "Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) station". And either way, it's been demonstrated that "Parkside Avenue station" is much more common.--Cúchullain t/c 13:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This difference is a matter of style. Such examples cannot dictate us to use the word station before the name only or after the name only. There cannot be two different things, one of them called the X station and the second Station: X, both are the same name. Vcohen (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Unofficial. "Disclaimer - is not sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit or any other transit agency. None of the pages contained on the site are provided by transit agencies and are not to be considered official, unless specifically indicated." Did your "source" copy from Wikipedia? Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It seems it didn't. Their page titles slightly differ from our page titles, for example they call IRT East Side Line and IRT West Side Line what we call IRT Lexington Avenue Line and IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line. Vcohen (talk) 14:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Even so, it's only one source compared to the hundreds that use "Parkside Avenue station", and it's different from the current title at any rate.--Cúchullain t/c 17:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose single-page move; support massive page move – if only this page is moved, then we would have an inconsistent pattern of Wikipedia page titles all around the NYC Subway. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 18:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    Although, again, there is no benefit to the enforcement of an arbitrary pattern of page titles. The pattern right now is inconsistent on Wikipedia, since the consistent site-wide pattern (WP:PRECISION) is being specifically varied from by the station naming conventions as a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That's not a reason to avoid moving any one of them, although of course you're welcome to make your own separate group nominations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    Let's move the NYC Subway pages all at once, then. I am fine with that. Epicgenius(give him tiradecheck out damage) 21:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    I agree with Epicgenius. Vcohen (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    I am fine with that too. Please link to that separate group nomination, and I will support it as well as any individual incremental improvements. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    It doesn't exist yet, we have to create it. Vcohen (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    Right. Once you've created it, please link it here and I will support it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    What does it mean "you"? Don't you want to participate in its creation? Vcohen (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    "you" means Vcohen and Epicgenius, the editors who would prefer to see it done all at once. I am happy to support you in it, but I am not one of the editors who objects to improving the encyclopedia incrementally. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    Just a moment. Are you ready to support a huge list of renames that you have never seen before? Vcohen (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    Of course I would read the multimove proposal before I !vote, but I support the approach. That doesn't mean I'm going to work on the proposal myself. But this is a conversation for that RM, not this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
    I'd also support a multi-move. But as shown by this nomination, I have no problem with incremental improvements like this one.--Cúchullain t/c 16:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I am disengaging from this conversation because it is going nowhere. Epicgenius (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I have changed my mind – it should be Parkside Avenue Station so I can add the {{ja-stalink}} template. I know, it's supposed to be used for Japanese station articles, but… Epicgenius (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
DeKalb BMT sta east jeh.jpg
By the way, if we are looking at signboards, we should remember that some of them read "Subway Station", rather than "Station". I believe there are stations having both kinds of signboards. So, which of them will determine our decision? Vcohen (talk) 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
None of them determine our decision. All of them inform our decision. In this particular case, calling it either way is fine with me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this is just bait. A strawman to deflect an ongoing non-consensus discussion about renaming all these articles. Until that's resolved, I don't think this request is even appropriate. Dovid (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I hope you're not referring to User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations), which was reopened after this discussion. --BDD (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that participants can indeed undo a participant's incorrect attempt to close a discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • There have been no replies in seven days. Indeed, it can be closed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, it can, but not by an involved editor. JHunterJ is doing you a favor; you'd be torn apart at WP:MRV. Put in a request at WP:ANRFC if you want to request a close. Having no discussion in a week is by no means ground for a "procedural close" by an involved editor. --BDD (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
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.