Talk:Arden railway station, Melbourne

Notability

As discussed in Help:Maintenance template removal, for notable features wikipedia states that "the general notability standard thus presumes that topics are notable if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". As this page sources primary and secondary sources and has received significant coverage, it is therefore notable. Also worth mentioning is that train stations, proposed or built, are common articles on wikipedia. There are even lists for proposed stations such as those Proposed railway stations in England and these also link to articles with information about the proposed stations, such as in Leeds/Bradford Airport railway station. Similarly, Sydney has articles for proposed stations such as Pitt Street railway station and Victoria Cross railway station. Therefore this article, with its primary and secondary sources and the precedent established by other significant proposed railways, does meet wikipedia's notability requirements. Accordingly the notice will be removed. Ruperthetherton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2017

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: no consensus on where to move the page to, or what to do with the page that's already there, so it stays where it is for now. (closed by page mover) Bradv 04:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

---

Arden railway station, Melbourne → North Melbourne railway station – So the new names for the Metro Tunnel have been announced today, and the government has said that the existing North Melbourne railway station will be renamed West Melbourne, and this underground station will be named North Melbourne. But there's no timeframe on the rename and the Opposition has threatened to rename all the stations anyhow if they win the election. So I feel like someone could reasonably disagree with this naming proposal and hence list it here. Source: this Age article pretty much covers it Triptothecottage (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Bradv 04:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is (proposed) the Wikipedia standard for name change situations such as these? I would argue that the name isn't really "proposed" at this point, even if the opposition is threatening to change them. I think the name North Melbourne railway station (Arden) better represents the station. Demi Zenith (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I intended the "proposed" disambiguator to refer to the station, rather than the name; I do see your point though. I chose it because the article is in Category:Proposed railway stations in Melbourne, which seems to be the Wikipedia standard practice. I don't think "Arden" is a good idea because it doesn't unambiguously refer to the new station; a Melburnian who hadn't been following the situation would be likely to think "North Melbourne station is nowhere near Arden St!" What about North Melbourne railway station (Metro Tunnel)? Triptothecottage (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean, though I would hope that at this point the station itself is more than just "proposed" itself! But that's probably getting too close to a irrelevant political discussion. My suggestion for (Arden) was because that is how the government has referred to the station until now and it still carries that label on the official website for the project. I suspect that the "Arden" tag will continue to be necessary for official communication regarding this station until the West Melbourne name change takes effect. My expectation is that people wouldn't assume that the title of the article was incorrect based on their own knowledge as tags in parenthesis on Wikipedia are used to distinguish different entities with similar or the same name. The article itself explains (or will explain) the situation regarding the name as well. (Metro Tunnel) is a good alternative, but I personally feel (Arden) is still more appropriate considering the history behind that name. Demi Zenith (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

This makes good sense. @Demi Zenith:, is there a specific way to change the RM nom? I do think this is probably the best option for now at least. And, given that every second person who catches a train around here ends up at Spencer St instead of Southern Cross, it might be this way forever! Triptothecottage (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I had a quick look at some of the established guidelines: WP:PLACEDAB, WP:NCDAB, WP:ATDAB, but it doesn't seem like our case was addressed, although there is likely an example we can use from elsewhere. At this point however, I'm perfectly fine with any of the above disambiguations. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 05:02, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose move. Leave it until the current station is renamed, otherwise it just creates a confusing mess. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife: unfortunately it's going to be a confusing mess whatever we do here. Leaving it as is will only create more confusion. In terms of the naturalness demanded by WP:CRITERIA, North Melbourne is what it's going to be called by official sources from now on and so likely what it will be called in new references added to this article (or most likely something like "the new North Melbourne Station..."), so it'll be the first choice of readers and editors. Precision and recognizability, admittedly, are problems here, but without really very much precedent for this kind of situation it doesn't make any sense to have an article about a station to be named something different to what the station is being called. Ultimately, however, both are best fulfilled by having the main part of the title refer to the station's actual name. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Support Per nominee's reasons. Station will be called North Melbourne; it makes sense that this page will carry the same title, even prior to the current North Melbourne station's renaming. I believe having another name for the page (Arden) will only lead to more confusion down the track.Ljgua124 (talk) 07:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ljgua124: Do you have a preference for the disambiguating term? It's really what we're trying to figure out now. Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI my current preference is (Arden) as suggested by Demi Zenith. "down the track" haha Triptothecottage (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think (proposed) is clearer and more in line with disambiguation terms on Wikipedia, and also shows the station is not yet in existence (which would help distinguish it from the current North Melbourne station.Ljgua124 (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This morning's Age is the first use of a natural disambiguator I've seen in media sources, and runs: "It was unclear why interchanges were not planned for South Yarra and North Melbourne (Arden), to save commuters..." (article not yet online, I will link it here when it is.) So my position remains in favour of North Melbourne (Arden), per Demi Zenith above, and now per WP:COMMONNAME, since it seems that at least one reliable source has adopted this disambiguator. I haven't seen anything in the Herald Sun yet, but if I do I will leave it here. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: We could place a redirect at (proposed) to be deleted when West Melbourne gets its new name. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose give that appears not a done deal, suggest retaining the status quo and revisiting when it becomes reasonably certain that it will occur rather than end up with a series of redirects. Turingway (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think having a series of (proper) redirects has ever been an issue here. - Pizza1016 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - either to the (proposed) disambig or something similar (like (future), (planned), or (Melbourne Metro Rail Project)). I would've suggested having the suburb as the disambiguator except the suburb is North Melbourne too and that would be even more confusing… Keeping it as Arden Station is inappropriate as all reliable sources since the name change refer to it as North Melbourne Station and will likely continue to do so (see WP:NAMECHANGES). Ultimately, the confusion here arises from the rename itself, and not from a failure of our naming policy. Kb.au (talk) 08:53, 12 December 2017 (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.

Citation style

Turingway, per WP:CITEVAR, please don't make changes to the established citation practice on a page, which in this case is Citation Style 1.

On another note, can I suggest that both Arden and North Melbourne get a mention in the lead sentence? It will make the situation a little more clear to readers. Also, I'm going to add North Melbourne to the other_names parameter of the Infobox; I trust this won't be too controversial. Triptothecottage (talk) Triptothecottage (talk) 07:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed the crap you removed in the title, which I suppose was your intention. My point re citation styles stands, though. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Station name

While the consensus is against changing the article title at this time, can we come to some consensus as to what the station should be referred to as within the article itself per 203.87.102.153's most recent edit? It's clear the government is now referring to it as North Melbourne within the context of the Metro Tunnel project and fully intends to go ahead with the rename of North Melbourne to West Melbourne.

Is it correct to refer to the station as North Melbourne in places such as the infobox? Should the name North Melbourne be positioned closer to the beginning of the lede? Kb.au (talk) 06:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

I think using the name North Melbourne in the infobox tends towards WP:POINTy editing. Given consensus is not yet to move the page, I think Arden should be the first name in the lead and the infobox; North Melbourne can be added to the other_name parameter.

For the lead sentence, can I suggest "Arden railway station (to be known as North Melbourne railway station on completion) is... Triptothecottage (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Excellent idea. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Updated article to reflect your suggestion. Kb.au (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)