Talk:Bakersfield station (Amtrak)

	Trains Portal
DYK	November 11, 2020

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 articles

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 February 2016[edit]

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: Move. Something happened to this RM and it fell off the log and was never closed. I participated, but am closing anyway, as the support is unanimous and in line with WP:USSTATION. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:USSTATION. System disambiguation is the only option with three stations in the same city. Mackensen (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are really just moving the word "station" around. How could anybody object? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a triple move, and there's no previous engagement with the CHSR stations. Also, I think the ground is less settled with disused stations, and there's no harm in letting this run its course. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this improve Wikipedia in any way? Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which, the move or the discussion? In both cases I think yes, else I wouldn't do it. While readers likely won't notice a difference, that's true for lots of things we do here. The more natural disambiguation removes a bone of contention between TWP and the rest of the project, which is why I started the discussion that became the USSTATION guideline. This move request is a natural outcome of eliminating preemptive disambiguation. As for starting a request instead of just doing it, I prefer discussion when there's any possibility of doubt. In this case, that's mostly with the former SP station. The guideline is unsettled (though not a subject of disagreement) in that case, and a couple move requests with discussions will help build consensus. Mackensen (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support all per WP:USSTATION. I'll create the dab page now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and applicable guidelines. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 18:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Just to make it clear, after my sarcastic comments above. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I very much dislike the lower-case 's' in the context of the station name, but I realize that this is a decided matter. For consistency Merced should be included in this batch of moves. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done; no unsettled questions there. Mackensen (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per USSTATION. epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2016 (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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bakersfield station (Amtrak). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110523174505/http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cfm/routes/san-joaquin/ to http://www.amtrakcalifornia.com/index.cfm/routes/san-joaquin/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:12, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]