Jump to content

Talk:Edgewood station (MARC)

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

Moves

[edit]

I moved the article back to Edgewood station as DanTD's moves left a very convoluted arrangement, with the basename Edgewood station redirecting to Edgewood station (disambiguation), making it WP:MALPLACED. This is easily the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of all Edgewood stations; Edgewood Railroad Station (New York) is a stub on a station for the Ulster and Delaware Railroad that closed in 1932; it has no sources and probably shouldn't exist. Edgewood / Candler Park station is a partial title match that's only on the dab page in case readers know it as "Edgewood". And even if this article needed disambiguation, as Dan knows, Edgewood (MARC station) is a deprecated title, especially as this station also serves Amtrak.--Cúchullain t/c 19:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DanTD continues to make matters worse by revert warring. At this point Edgewood station redirects to this (badly named) station.--Cúchullain t/c 19:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, YOU are the one who is making matters worse by ignoring the current naming structure!! ---------User:DanTD (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the WP:USSTATION guideline and the article titles and disambiguation policies. You not liking the guidelines and policies is not a reason to revert war, especially when it creates a mess with the redirects. And refrain from personal attacks.--Cúchullain t/c 19:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you have been doing is manipulating WP:USSTATION so that systems within the names of the articles are practically illegal. Considering the true nature of railroad stations within the United States, with a few exceptions, this is an extremely troubling move on your part. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly condone these moves in the first place, either, but I do have to admit that these titles are more concise. epicgenius (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we can create a requested move here. In the meantime, no one move. epicgenius (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 January 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: Moved. This discussion has been around for ages, and nobody seems to be closing it, so I'm going to be WP:BOLD here and call the consensus for the moves. There's a lot of opposition, certainly, but I don't see a compelling reason as to why WP:USSTATION should not apply to these stations. Arguments that other former or future stations that don't have articles can be considered primary alongside existing currently used stations don't really cut it with me. Write the article and then have the debate, I'd say. And editor convenience when making links is not a valid reason either. Note that I'm moving the articles as suggested below - if any of these are not the best title per WP:USSTATION, please advise me on my talk page. One move (Edgewood) will require admin assistance, which I will request. Thanks. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


– For WP:USSTATION consistency, as mentioned above. WP:USSTATION is currently being implemented in parts, with a haphazard naming structure. Also, the new names are shorter and more direct. (The disambiguator "MARC" can be replaced by "Maryland" if needed.) epicgenius (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: this is a senseless move. It turns one consistent naming style into two. That means that every time I want to link to one of these stations, I have to look up what the name is, rather than knowing that '(MARC station)' is always the right postfix. It makes the backend templates for s-rail and other functional templates more difficult to understand for editors trying to start working with them. It requires a great deal of technical work to fix all the double redirects and other issues after. It breaks the match with category names on Commons (where USSTATIONS is not policy, and where parenthetical disambiguation is commonly necessary due to former stations of the same name / same site having separate categories but not separate articles). It will require many of these pages to be moved in the future: Seabrook, Edgewood, and several others are also the names of former stations in other states that will have articles at some point. Seabrook also fails the principle of least surprise: most users searching for 'Seabrook station' are looking for Seabrook Station Nuclear Power Plant and not the MARC station. So this move creates a host of issues for editors for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to editors or readers. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's really not a concern here. There's nothing wrong with redirects, article titles are decided based on serving readers, not editors.--Cúchullain t/c 21:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; per Pi.1415926535. Additionally, there used to be notable distinctions between each type of station. Those who are championing the current renaming campaign would acknowledge that the use of the system names are unnecessary disambiguations. I disagree, at least about the lack of necessity. The people who have been using USSTATIONS to justify the elimination of systems from the station names have overlooked the portions that justify the use of such a naming convention. And while epicgenius's use of "(MARC)" as a suffix seems reasonable, there's still the issue of using such parentheticals for other features, structures, etcetera that such a suffix would be better suited for. Back in 2011 many editors tried to standardize CTA station name parenthetical with other rapid transit systems' station name parentheticals, and did the same to Metra stations in 2014. Now all this is being obliterated. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:USSTATION – Implement the guideline as it is written for this set of articles. RGloucester — ☎ 00:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing on this IP editor's theme: thus far I've found evidence for the existence for former train stations in towns named Barnesville, Boyds, Edgewood, Frederick, Germantown, Jessup, Laurel, Riverdale, Savage, and Seabrook, plus non-train stations of various types in Dickerson, Point of Rocks, and Seabrook. Per repeated discussions at WP:TRAINS and deletion discussions, with sufficient research enough source material can be found to establish notability for any mainline railroad station, which means every single one of those is a viable (and in some cases very likely) future article. That means over half these articles require a parenthetical disambiguation anyway, many of which will be longer than the current system would impose! The entire goal of USSTATIONS is supposedly to simplify names, yet this is making it vastly more complicated. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is also dealt with using WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, as the current train stations are vastly more notable. epicgenius (talk) 13:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the one station I disagree with the anonymous IP on is Martin State Airport (MARC station). I think that should be left alone, and I don't think it should be redirected to Martin State Airport. Also, I don't see any point in playing USSTATION against UKSTATION and vice-versa. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, crud, you're right – I got confused between MARC commuter rail and Baltimore Light Rail for a second: I'll strike the above comment. On this general question, I'll simply remain neutral. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pi, as this would make things a lot harder to link back to and go against the standard naming procedures in the American naming system. I thought the examples I dealt with on the Phoenix rail were bad, but I think this takes the cake. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The US naming guideline is WP:USSTATION, which supports the proposed move.--Cúchullain t/c 14:23, 18 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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edgewood station (MARC). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 07:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edgewood_station_(MARC)&oldid=1196418010"