Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Canadian stations)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Discussion

  • Comment: I only created this comprehensive policy in response to others wanting to rename station articles. I am in favour of a policy of "Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it", but it's time the names of Canadian station articles were governed by one set of rules. It pisses me off when people want to change titles, without being willing to give any substantial contribution to content. It's all about quality content! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Huge shoutout to @Secondarywaltz: for putting this together, it was long overdue. One question I do want to raise is regarding intermodal stations (i.e. where multiple services and/or modes of transit come together). If an article about a station covers the multiple components of a station, should having "station" as the suffix be the overriding rule? Or should it be more multi-faceted? Some examples:
I realize this may be wading into a bigger question about article policy and whether some station articles with these multiple components should be merged, but let's keep it focused on naming convention and situations where one article exists for all aspects. --Natural RX 18:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I am obviously aware of all those. I was hoping that we could focus, focus, focus! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have added Lansdowne as an example of a railway station needing disambiguation, given that Canada has two railway stations named Lansdowne (plus another two in the Philadelphia area). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Canada has two railway stations named Lansdowne: one in Richmond, BC and one in Toronto for example. In this case, the one in Richmond, BC would be Lansdowne station (Richmond, BC) and the one in Toronto would be Lansdowne station (Toronto).
No. Not if you follow the current naming convention. There is nothing wrong with "Lansdowne station (TransLink)" or "Lansdowne (TTC)", since nothing has changed yet. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Why are you talking about individual stations? Please limit your comments to the naming convention as a whole and any problems in general. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Consensus for adoption

  • Support looks all good to me....will differ to the editors that edit these articles. -- Moxy (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Consensus for adoption was already got at Talk:Hinton railway station (Alberta). It was advertised at the relevant projects. No need to do this again. RGloucester — ☎ 20:04, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
There was no RfC for a new guideline....as this requires discussion and a high level of consensus from the "entire community" for promotion to guideline or policy. An RfC should be announced at the policy and/or proposals village pumps, and you should notify other potentially interested groups. No RfC from what I can see only a Requested move. All is good here just need it done properly....it will pass.-- Moxy (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No "RfC" is required by the relevant policies. The discussion was widely advertised at all relevant projects. It has already passed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:PROPOSAL--Moxy (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
The RfC you are referring to was a move request initially specific to one article, although later adopted to move a variety of articles, however it was not specifically for a new guideline or policy. Subsequently, that consensus at best represents support for an essay ("the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors"). An RfC is required to elevate this to a Guideline. The scope of this proposal does not, in my mind, qualify for elevation to policy. Currently, it is not even clear what the proposal is for (policy or guideline?), never mind that there is sufficient consensus for this elevation. It is entirely possible that an editor would have supported the move request, but object to this becoming a guideline or policy, or find something they wish to see changed in this specific proposal. Absent proper advertisement for this specific proposal, the appropriate consultation period, and widespread consensus for this specific proposal prior to closing (ideally by an admin), one cannot constitute this as a Wikipedia Guideline or Policy based on a move request. trackratte (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments: Pagename is very poor

Can this guideline be renamed to something else? When I saw the title, I thought it was a naming convention for Canadian radio and TV stations. WP:Naming conventions (Canadian train stations) or WP:Naming conventions (Canadian railway stations) or somesuch would be necessary. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, or Canadian transportation stations or something to that effect. trackratte (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not about bus stations though, so "transportation" would be bad -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Wrong! It will apply to all kinds of transportation stations. See WP:UKSTATION and WP:USSTATION for the basis of this name. Secondarywaltz (talk)
Then "transport" or "transportation" will be fine. (we need to) Just remember to rename this page. -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this ready for "Primetime"?

It seems like this proposal is mostly "good to go". I'd suggest making it "live", and consider it an actual guideline now, rather than a proposal. It doesn't seem to be getting any pushback... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Why did this go through without consensus?

Good day to everyone and sorry for joining the party late. I have taken a look at the conventions you have supposedly agreed upon and noticed this is WAY more complicated than any other naming convention - WP:UKSTATION, WP:USSTATION, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Australasian stations). This is not only complicated, it's inconsistent across systems, essentially eliminating the purpose of setting a naming convention like this in the first place, and I'm strongly against this. Besides, I see no reason why "x subway station" and "x metro station" should be rejected. Just as Secondarywaltz said above, it's the way UKSTATION was designed for - avoiding parenthetical disambiguation qualifiers (such as "(TTC)" or "(AMT)") while keeping the station name unambiguous (in most cases). It would also make it easy to identify stations using templates like {{metro}} and {{subway}}. I'm also suggesting the use of {{lrts}} to identify all light rail stations regardless of system, {{gare}} to identify railway stations in Quebec (as is done with those in France), and {{stn}} to identify shared mode stations without an official name. The official name convention, I'll keep, as that is how USSTATION works. Saying all this, I'm working on revising these conventions in my sandbox and will notify you when I have done so you can take a look and reconsider. Thanking you kindly in advance, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 04:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Some Gadget Geek: Well it didn't really go through. The response to my initial suggestion was very sparse. I had no time to push through some of the changes like TTC, and so I have just let it hang out here. This reflects the current situation, where there are naming conventions within each system. As you have noted, this should be more in line with UKSTATION in the use of station types like "railway station", "subway station" and "LRT station". Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Small change to convention

In this recommendation, you suggest naming the page "LRT = X LRT station" for TTC. However, we should not deviate from the official names (this is considered original research). For example, it is currently suggested calling it Leaside LRT station where the official name is Leaside Station[1]. If you want to keep it consistent with other station names on the list, Leaside Station (TTC) or Leaside (TTC) would be preferable. Mattximus (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree ! The main purpose of establishing naming conventions is for CONSISTENCY. Not clarification. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
This goes against the other recommended change: doing away with the "X (TTC)" naming convention. --Natural RX 14:17, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
That's fine too, like Some Gadget Geek above said, the most important thing is consistency. My recommendation was that (whichever format we choose) we use the official name only and not make up new names. calling it Leaside LRT station is original research, since it is officially called Leaside station. We can't invent new station names, whichever format we choose. Mattximus (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nitpicking but Edmonton LRT stations should be capitalised, as per the official site. For example, it should be Clareview LRT Station not Clareview LRT station, seen here [2]. This is a good example of when an LRT station is actually called "LRT Station", unlike the Leaside LRT station which is called "Leaside Station". 02:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

LRT Stations

LRT stations...I'm going to use "boarding areas" as the general term to prevent confusion. Sometimes these boarding areas are actually called "stations", whether they are on the surface, elevated or underground. However, some surface boarding areas are called stops. An example is the Eglinton Crosstown under construction now, where the official site calls underground boarding areas "stations", and surface boarding areas "stops". Should we tweak this part of the policy to reflect this differentiation? --Natural RX 14:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - using a new word you just made up is considered original research. If they are stops, they should be called stops. If they are stations, the should be called stations. We should only use the official terms found in the website you linked (which should be the ultimate source for naming these places). Mattximus (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mattximus: You misunderstand; I was using "boarding areas" to describe the issue and prevent confusion about my question, I am not proposing using it as part of the policy. --Natural RX 21:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I thought you wanted to refer to the stations/stops as a new term "boarding areas". I'm fine as long as official names are used, which means eventually we will have to migrate pages currently named such as Leaside LRT station. Mattximus (talk) 02:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Leaside is okay, it's underground. Sunnybrook Park LRT station and anything east of Aga Khan Park & Museum LRT station would have to be moved to a "stop" name though. --Natural RX 19:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, they all have official names and we should stick to it. Should we begin the migration of these pages now? Mattximus (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you going to change all LRT stations? Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa have LRT lines. Martin Morin (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I dunno, what do Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa call them? Stations? Stops? Posts? --Natural RX 13:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a naming convention for Canadian stations. What are you talking about? Martin Morin (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
My original question was asking if the policy should be applied to all LRT stations/stops (i.e. calling them "stations"), or if we should differentiate. I believe the discussion between myself and Mattximus just concluded that we should be calling them whatever they're called by the transit agency. In the case of the Eglinton Crosstown, surface = "stop", underground = "stations", as per the official site. So in the case of Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa, it should be whatever those respective agencies call them. --Natural RX 17:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, they are all 'stations' in Ottawa (as nothing there is on-road). I'm not as familiar with Alberta, but it looks like the Calgary downtown ones are street level and may be called stops. Radagast (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that they are actually called stations in Ottawa. Here is the official website: [3]. For example, Tunney’s Pasture Station is officially called "Tunney’s Pasture"... this is different from Edmonton which actually calls their stations "LRT Station". We can't conduct original research so we are stuck using whatever the official name is. Mattximus (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This is easy to solve, we just use whatever the official name is from the agency's website. In Edmonton they do use the term "LRT Station", for example Clareview LRT Station would be correct [4]. The only error I've found so far, is that someone named the Eglinton Crosstown stations incorrectly (some should be station, some should be stop, but none should be LRT station), so at the very least those would need to be migrated. Mattximus (talk) 22:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I've moved a few of the incorrect ones already, but since there are several Forest Hill Stations, have we agreed on the convention for disambiguation (Do we add (TTC)) or (Toronto))? Mattximus (talk) 22:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Also issues with Caledonia, and Mount Pleasant... the rest are all ok. I'll wait on consensus before making those changes. Mattximus (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • So you are not creating a Canadian station naming convention. You are just reverting to, whatever. . . . Martin Morin (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, can you be specific? We should use official names, whatever they are. I'm not sure this is controversial, is it? Mattximus (talk) 23:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Oh well, I tried. I forgot this is Wikipedia where the inmates run the asylum. I wish you all the best of luck in cleaning up this mess. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

What's the problem? The only changes made were to switch "stations" to "stops" for the stops on the crosstown line which is more logical and accurate. This was discussed above. Crosstown names now correspond to the official documentation, which should make searching easier. What specific issue do you have? Those two changes seems to have made things much cleaner. Mattximus (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree there is no problem. The only required modification to the policy is adding "LRT stop" to the naming convention. --Natural RX 14:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I think the only outstanding issue is what happens when there is a need for disambiguation? For example two stations on earth called "Forest Hill"... should it be "Forest Hill Station (TTC)" or "Forest Hill Station (Toronto)" or something else? It would be nice for consistency sake to have a single way of identifying the station when two share the same name. Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
According to the proposed policy, it would be "Forest Hill LRT station". If it needs disambiguation beyond that, I think a city would be precise enough. --Natural RX 13:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ignorance is bliss. You have broken every related navigation and succession template, because you are totally unaware of the impact renaming has had. The established Toronto Transit Commision naming convention was a suffix of (TTC). This has now been broken into multiple ways of naming, chosen by the mob, without discussion. Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I still don't understand your comment, not a single page that was renamed had (TTC) on the end of it. There was absolutely no change to any suffix. You seem to be really upset, but it's hard to figure out what you are talking about without being specific. Mattximus (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. You don't understand what you are doing, so I will leave you to learn. Farewell. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem more familiar with this process than many others here. We would benefit from your experience and insight, if you would be willing to share it; but that is asking too much, it seems. Radagast (talk) 23:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'm just going to ignore the passive aggression, and also agree that Mattximus, you were too hasty in moving those articles. Nothing we can't fix, however.
I would think that, after we finalize this policy, we could introduce changes to {{ttcs}} and other related templates so that they point to the right article title, even if we ditch the (TTC) ending. If we are to write {{ttcs|Sunnybrook Park}}, there must be a way to modify the template so that it points to Sunnybrook Park LRT stop instead of Sunnybrook Park (TTC), if that is the naming convention we agree on. Not saying it will be easy, or that I have the syntax knowledge to do it, but I am 100% sure there must be a way. --Natural RX 16:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Mattximus: Could you please amend the naming convention table to reflect your move of these Eglinton Crosstown line LRT stations. Thank you. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

TTC: So in essence, this is 'status quo'?

If I understand correctly, this is simply codifying our current naming process and no few stations or groups of stations will be renamed as a result. The Eglinton Crosstown stations will not get the (TTC) moniker, the current (TTC) stations will stay as they are, etc.

If that's the case, I'm not sure I can give my support. I think a more rigorous and systematic approach is needed. Radagast (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Corrected on further examination. Still not satisfied with what is presented. Radagast (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
What does that mean? Be bold and say something! I need more from you than this wishy washy response, otherwise we'll get nowhere. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity. This goes back to the discussion on Talk:Eglinton Crosstown line#Station article nomenclature where I felt the Crosstown and the Toronto subway should have a unified naming system, as the TTC is considering them in the same network. Others felt that there should be naming based on service type, and the (TTC) format should be replaced by 'subway station'. In fact, this seems to have been proposed on the project page but then replaced with the status quo. Personally, I feel some form of change is warranted here, and there is nothing here explaining the reasoning for not changing it. Radagast (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I understand. I felt that if we could agree on naming conventions which are currently in use first, and make any related changes, we could then tackle the ones that would require a major rethink afterwards. If you look at the older UK convention you will see the use of "tube station" and "subway station". The US has only been coming round recently to generally remove the suffix "Amtrak" from station titles. Do you want to take on TTC now? Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I am also wondering why we backed down on renaming TTC subway stations. One valid point I can think of is preserving the usefulness of {{ttcs}}, but it would be just as easy to modify it accordingly (if you know how to tweak the syntax). Why aren't we bringing it in line with our cousins across the pond? --Natural RX 13:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Secondarywaltz: if you're going to revert, can you please engage here? I'd a rationale as to why we're not changing this because I'm not seeing one. --Natural RX 17:35, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@Natural RX: Re your change to the naming convention. You can't use redirects. The article is either at the redirect title or the existing name. You can't have it both ways. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: Not exactly sure what you're talking about. I am proposing that the official naming policy is reverted back to having all TTC stations as "X subway station" instead of leaving them unchanged as "X (TTC)". I don't understand where/how redirects come into this. --Natural RX 14:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Natural RX: Rubbish! You changed the Eglinton LRT stations to redirects. They should show what the naming convention is and link directly to the examples. I asked Mattximus to do this, since he did most of the renaming, but got no response. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: Honestly mate, I don't understand what you're accusing me of. I didn't move any articles, I proposed a naming convention. --Natural RX 18:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
You used redirects to do that. Look at what I reverted here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Canadian_stations)&diff=733141986&oldid=733132676 I never said anything about you moving stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now I gotchya. The issue there was that those were the old article names, and I was unaware Maxxtimus had moved them. In my opinion, they should not have been moved to those names, as per this naming convention we're trying to hash out here. I was under the impression that our other discussion in the section below concluded that LRT names shall be i) "X LRT station" for underground stops, and ii) "X LRT stop" for at-grade stops. Instead, Maxxtimus has just moved everything to title case instead of sentence case (contrary to WP:TITLEFORMAT) and jumped the gun on moving everything without finalizing discussion here and the policy out front. This is still getting away from my original ping to you, however; I started this in regards to subway stations, not LRT stations. --Natural RX 19:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Good. We just had a little misunderstanding, but I think we are now in agreement. These articles should all have been nominated for renaming and discussed there first - not in private here. I have almost no time to spend on this, but if you do, why don't you go through the correct procedure and I will respond to any proper nomination once I see what is being discussed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. I'll try to find some time next week. Glad we figured this out. --Natural RX 23:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI, I moved the pages to the official names used by the TTC. I was sensitive to upper and lower cased used in all official documents. We can't simply rename a station however we want. For better or for worse, we are stuck using the names given by the TTC. If "station" is in the proper name, it should be capitalised. If it is added for some other reason, it should be lowercase. You can't rename "Caledonia Station" to "Caledonia LRT station" because it fits better with other stations, you have to use the official name, otherwise that is original research (making up a new name). Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Very good job, Mattximus - although I would personally not capitalize "station" - there is a reason SkyTrain stations like Stadium-Chinatown Station got moved. If we can do the same for the subway stations we can make this a consistent naming convention - as it was meant to be. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I don't really care too much about capitalisation or not, but check out some of these links. This [5] is how subway stations are used in the media, and this [6] is an example of how they are used officially. All online media I have found uses the exact same capitalisation, which is why I moved the pages to the naming convention used by both the media, and official documentation. Would it not be strange to go against the convention used by the TTC, Metrolinx, and Canadian media? Mattximus (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Maxxtimus. It's good that you are trying to be precise, but it's little things like this where official names are trumped by other Wikipedia policy; in this case "station" and "stop" should not be capitalized as per WP:TITLEFORMAT. I'd hold off on moving them though, because the next question will be whether "LRT" should be part of the title as well, consitent with how we denote a "subway station". I can see some conflicting policy on this, so it'd be good to have a formal move proposal discussion on it all and gather consensus. Cheers. --Natural RX 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
If you look at my links, I'm trying to convey with as much evidence as possible that there exist official proper names for these stations, which is inline with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Proper names have capitalisation. There is no conflict with any wikipolicy that I am aware of, all proper names are written this way. Now if you wanted to rename something say, King subway station. Well that would not be capitalised because the proper name is not King subway station. Mattximus (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
This will be a good point to raise during the proposed move discussion. Thanks. --Natural RX 14:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, do post a link to this related move discussion if you have it. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation for Forest Hill station and Mount Pleasant station

In both disambig pages, I have added the Eglinton Crosstown LRT stations. I forgot to mention that there is another LRT station on Earth named Forest Hill: it's in San Francisco's Muni Metro: Forest Hill Station (San Francisco) and Muni Metro is an LRT line with an underground section like the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:58, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the change. What do you think about renaming the page Forest Hill Station (Toronto)? In order to avoid confusion with the Forest Hill Station (San Francisco), but using the same naming convention as Muni metro? As it stands now, someone in San Francisco could look up the Forest Hill LRT Station and get a page for a Toronto station instead... Same could be done with Mount Pleasant, the only other station needing disambiguation. Mattximus (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Perfect, I agree completely. I think that works best for people from both cities. I was accused of acting too quickly up above so I'll wait to see if anyone disagrees before making the change. Mattximus (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Should be lower case Forest Hill station (Toronto). See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) which states: "Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name." This means that sentence case will be used except when the title is a proper name. 17:03, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I have made the Forest Hill LRT station article be a separate disambig page. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 03:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be wrong on this one. It should be capitalized, since the title is a proper name. Here[7] is a link directly to the official website. Note how the word "station" is used within the paragraphs. Forest Hill Station is clearly the proper name for this structure. Also notice how it is done in other jurisdictions Forest Hill Station (San Francisco). Mattximus (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

In Toronto, the railway station called "Union Station" as a proper title, while the subway station is simply "Union" in line with all other TTC stations. This TTC station will simply be "Forest Hill". The subject has been debated ad nauseum at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations), with mutiple archived discussions. The station name you cite is one that has not yet been brought into line with US naming convention. Look at Forest Hill station for better examples. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Since Ottawa and Vancouver already have the naming convention of just using "station", do you intend to bring other Canadian systems like Calgary and Edmonton into this simple naming convention? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
And another thing. There can't be Leaside Station and Leaside railway station without additional disambiguation! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
You will have to provide a source for your statement: "This TTC station will simply be "Forest Hill"". Every document I can find on google calls it "Forest Hill Station" and not "Forest Hill". Here is another document just for reference [8]. So it appears this station's name is not in line with US naming convention, but we cannot do original research and make up the name for them. We are stuck using the official name. Mattximus (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Also, I just checked and it appears that Edmonton is all properly named on wikipedia. There is no need to change anything, why would you propose that? For reference [[9]] matches perfectly with Clareview LRT Station. Same name, same capitalisation. Mattximus (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
OK. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move discussion: Eglinton line

Please see the formal move proposal for all Line 5 Eglinton stations and stops. --Natural RX 18:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Station vs. station

Sorry, am coming to this quite late and apologies if this has been asked before... but I found it weird when I noticed in the edit histories a few months ago that all the Vancouver SkyTrain station articles had had "Station" lowercased and this seemed the best place to ask. People here seem to basing capital Station vs. station on whether "Blah-blah Station" is a proper name or not. So if that's the case, and given TransLink refers to all the stations in the following capitalized "Station" way, why were all the SkyTrain station articles renamed? For instance, New Westminster Station to New Westminster station. If the authority that operates said stations refers to all of them as "X Station" and "Y Station", what's the rationale for not considering that their proper names? Who and/or what confers "proper name" status? Joeyconnick (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the casing should match the official name, whatever it may be. It looks like in this case, they should indeed be capitalised because "station" is part of the proper name of the station. Mattximus (talk) 12:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I would have to agree with that. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I'd agree too, but only if it is definitely and consistently used. If reference is only to the unique identifier (New Westminister), I'm of the opinion that it should be lower case as per WP:TITLEFORMAT. --Natural RX 15:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Rubbish! The proper names of the stations are without any suffix at all. The fact that upper case is sometimes used in the description is irrelevant. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I second Secondarywaltz - the WP:UKSTATION convention was the start of all this. They never use official station names, but more generic ones. I wonder if the following discussion may be of interest to this group: Talk:Manchester Metrolink#Metrolink station renaming proposal. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: Source? Joeyconnick (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry Guys! I forgot I had retired and don't have enough time for Wikipedia. Check out the USA naming convention for extended debates on this subject as well as UK. Just remember keep your stick on the ice and cleanup after yourself. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a mess

The objective of this page is to standardize and unify the way we title articles about train stations in Canada. As it appears now, it looks like we have made little to no progress in doing so - stations on each system still appears under their own, existing naming conventions. With that said, I'd like for us to bring this proposal back to life. I'm pinging two users whose guidance could bring us back on track to realize our goals: Redrose64 from WP:UKSTATION and Cuchullain from WP:USSTATION. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a mess, but it's fixable. I'd strongly recommend tailoring the guidelines after WP:UKSTATION, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland), and WP:USSTATION (when we wrote USSTATION, we likewised modeled it after the first two).
USSTATION has the benefit of being pretty uniform across a very large number of articles in a very large country - most stations are written in the format "Xxx station", as it was determined this is widely used natural disambiguation that eliminates the need for further disambiguation in probably 3/4 cases. Hence, we don't have to use "Xxx railway station" in some cases, "Xxx (CTrain)" in others, "Xxx GO station" in still others, etc., depending on (sometimes idiosyncratic) local use or what type of train it is. In virtually every case I've checked, this is the most common use in the sources anyway across the US. For the remaining cases where further disambiguation is needed, we crafted specific disambiguation guidelines to help distinguish the articles from others with the same name. We made these as simple as possible and crafted them after Wikipedia's standard parenthetical disambiguation practices. This further eliminated a lot of headache, once we started implementing them. And in cases where there was a common name different than the guidelines, we always defer to COMMONNAME per policy.
It appears to me that the "Xxx station" format, with additional disambiguation only as needed, would suit Canadian stations well. A cursory look across all the different systems here shows that this is common across Canada and is probably the most common way sources actually refer to these topics:
Etc. In cases where additional disambiguation is needed, we can craft some additional disambiguation guidelines to plug in depending on the circumstance. To start, I may suggest:
  • Dab by province (e.g. Hinton station (Alberta)). This would be helpful for stations served by intercity rail (Via, Royal Canadian Pacific, Amtrak, etc.), especially if the system serves multiple stations of the same name, or the station serves multiple systems. For example Georgetown GO Station serves both GO and Via and is ambiguous with other Georgetown railway stations, so the disambiguation could be Georgetown station (Ontario).
  • Dab by city (e.g. University station (Edmonton)). This is also good if a station serves more than one type of transit, or in cases where there are multiple stations of the same name in one province. In this example, (Edmonton) would distinguish from the University station in Calgary, Alberta. Bigger cities are often more recognizable, and precise, than the province.
  • Dab by system (e.g. Union station (TTC). This would be helpful for cases where there are multiple stations of the same name, especially in the same place. In this example, there are many other Union Stations, including another in Toronto. There are cases where the system will be more recognizable than the city; for example "TransLink" is likely more recognizable than Surrey, British Columbia when disambiguating Gateway station (TransLink).
In the end, this would result in a large majority of Canadian stations being able to avoid further disambiguation simply by moving to "Xxx station", and for those that need additional disambiguation, there would be a fairly straightforward, consistent way of handling it across all systems.--Cúchullain t/c 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone sum up for me why lowercase "station" is now the norm and not "Station"? In my experience with the TransLink articles, many editors default to capitalizing "Station" and that's a tendency/default I can definitely understand. When you take something like the SkyTrain station named New Westminster, obviously in many contexts you can't just say "New Westminster" as that could mean the city, the area, the station, etc. Same with Metrotown: the mall, the area, or the station proper? As I've noted above, TransLink refers to its SkyTrain station names fairly frequently with capitals, e.g. "New Westminster Station" and "Metrotown Station". I don't really get why we wouldn't capitalize "station" as it makes sense to consider it part of the location's proper name. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I think these suggestions are great. I like using "Xxx station" as the default and only disambiguate as necessary. My one suggestion: Dab by system should only be used in very special cases where there are 2 stations named the exact same thing in the same city, but all other suggestions I agree with. (Just a side note, there are not 2 Union Stations in Toronto, they are both the same building, which serves the subway, commuter train, and national rail, so really should just have 1 page). As for capitalization, I don't have a strong opinion, but if UK and USA both do not capitalize, I guess we should just follow convention. Mattximus (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
I support adopting the convention outlined by Cúchullain. It is very straight forward and logical. Mattximus (talk) 23:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
This also has my support. Logical, straightforward, and definitely preferable to the status quo. Radagast (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. Mattximus, the one thing to consider about system disambiguation is that there are cases where the system will be more recognizable than the city. Take for instance Edmonds station (TransLink), which is in Burnaby rather than Vancouver. Speaking personally, I know a bit about Vancouver as I'm travelling there next month. I know Vancouver and I know the local transit system is called SkyTrain. I was unaware that Burnaby is a suburb of Vancouver until just now; Edmonds station (TransLink) would be more recognizable for me than Edmonds station (Burnaby). However, it looks like it will be relatively rare that we'd have to deal with this - TransLink and Go Transit may be the only two cases where it would even come up.--Cúchullain t/c 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Good point, I hadn't thought of cases where the suburbs have not been amalgamated. In the case of Vancouver, wouldn't SkyTrain be a better disambiguator when compared to TransLink? I would think more people know the name of the system (SkyTrain) than know that TransLink is the authority responsible for transport in Metropolitan Vancouver? Just a though, I still agree with your statement. Mattximus (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "SkyTrain" would be much better IMO. In fact I just assumed it was when copied the name. I don't think TransLink is a good disambiguator.--Cúchullain t/c 21:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm also of the opinion SkyTrain would be a better disambiguator. :) —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Joeyconnick, on caps, it's what's become the general understanding based on WP:NCCAPS. It's not super intuitive to me, as it seems like station names are treated like proper names, which are capitalized. But sources don't consistently capitalize "station" (or "railway station", etc.), so the practice has been to default to Wikipedia's general preference for sentence case. This has been the understanding with the naming conventions for every other country (except in cases where it's always capitalized, as with, say, Adelaide Parklands Terminal or Grand Central Terminal).--Cúchullain t/c 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the summary... yeah, it rubs me the wrong way because I think of "Station" as part of the proper name. But oh well. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I always did too, and I'm still not sure decapitalizing is for the best. But it's important to be consistent not just within this set of articles, but with wider Wikipedia practice as well.--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mattximus: You have given a great example of why this is so messed up. Many contributors have no idea what they are talking about. Union Station, the railway station, is a large historic structure, while Union subway station is under Front Street. You actually have to go outside to go between them. And why mess with railway stations, which have a totally stable naming structure matching the UK, it's all the other kinds that have no consistency. I quit this project, and contributing to Wikipedia generally, when the inmates started running the asylum! Secondarywaltz (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz: I'd say there's no particular problem with "Xxx railway station", and it's perfectly suitable as a descriptive name. But two concerns come to mind that suggest to me it should be avoided: First, it doesn't seem to be the most common way sources actually refer to the stations compared to just "Xxx station". A few random examples include Hinton[10] vs. [11]; Belleville[12] vs. [13]; Chilliwack: [14] vs. [15]. Second, it encourages us to create a similar construction for every different type of station. This is done for the UK (where there are "Xxx tram stop", "Xxx tube station", "Xxx Subway station", etc.) but it would naturally get quite confusing in Canada where every city and province has a different name for its system (GO Transit, LRT, TTC, SkyTrain, etc.). Hence what we've got here so far, with "Xxx GO station", "Xxx LRT station", etc. My personal feeling is that it would be simpler to go with the simpler construction for all of them and only disambiguate when there's another station of the same name.--Cúchullain t/c 17:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I definitely think consideration should be given to the common name aspect. In the Lower Mainland, the West Coast Express stations that aren't also served by SkyTrain are "Xxx railway station" (like Port Coquitlam railway station) but I suspect a strong case could be made that it is commonly just referred to as "Port Coquitlam (S|s)tation". And then you have how both the Moody Centre station and Port Moody railway station articles coexist when really Moody Centre is essentially a rename/expansion of the West Coast Express station and the two articles could be merged. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a great example. I've often said that from a reader's perspective, it's often better to have one good, comprehensive article than multiple weaker ones that cover only parts, or provide redundant information.--Cúchullain t/c 19:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I am in general agreement with most of you that "xxx station" is a pretty good default and many articles have already been moved. Unfortunately most other editors who have done those moves failed to sync all related Navbox, succession and system templates. What I am saying is that first of all the diverse smaller transit systems should be brought into an agreed naming convention one by one, then the larger ones around Montreal and Toronto, before touching the mainline railway stations. This is simply because those larger systems currently have stable naming conventions. But West Coast Express would be an easy fix to match Sky Train, if somebody wanted to boldly take that on, before moving across the Rockies. Do you know how messed up things get in the background when people irresponsibly move articles? Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I am also in agreement that this is a good default. However, my previous efforts to get movement on this apply to the TTC fell flat. I do think the template issue is a big main concern, and the technical solutions (i.e. a revision to the templates that won't break links, and/or bot work lined up) will have to be ready before more editors are able to move forward. For the record, the two most used templates (I believe) are {{ttcs}} and {{GOs}}. There may be others, but I'm not sure. --Natural RX 17:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I have a lot of experience moving train articles in the U.S., so I'm very aware of messed up things can get. But it's not a reason to go ahead with beneficial moves, it's just a reason to make a special effort to clean up. Most of the problems seem to come from templates, which can be fixed, and are a secondary concern to article content. That said, there's establishing a guideline, then there's moving all the articles. USSTATION has been a guideline for years now and we still haven't fixed all the articles; it just provides way forward. Formalizing CANSTATION doesn't mean we have to move all the articles at once, we can focus on the ones that are the most out of step and/or go system by system. I'd suggest starting with CTrain, TTC, Monteal Metro, and AMT, as they're the ones most out of step with Wikipedia standards, then perhaps tackling GO Transit and LRT and finally those using the "Xxx railway station" format. Whatever we do, I'm happy to help how I can.--Cúchullain t/c 18:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. So is there a suggested path to 'formalization'? Do we break up into separate discussions? By system or class of station? --Natural RX 18:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll add some options to the page based on my suggestions above. I suggest keep discussion going here on the talk page, perhaps with different sections for different topics.--Cúchullain t/c 18:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy to move the West Coast Express stations to "Xxx station" on a COMMONNAME basis... but since currently this article/guideline states specifically that they ought to be "Xxx railway station", I'm a little afraid it'll quickly get reverted. Cuchullain's recent edits are good but now it reads like there's two separate ways to do names. I also realized that, in terms of consistency, disambiguating with "(SkyTrain)" would mean the Toronto subway stations should be disambiguated like so: "Union station (Toronto subway)" in that the TTC is the authority which is responsible for that station and TransLink is the authority responsible for "Edmonds station (SkyTrain)". That is, "SkyTrain" is not the "system" the way TTC is—it's the type of station. The types are "SkyTrain" and "(Toronto) subway" and the authorities are TransLink and the TTC. I myself don't mind postulating that "TTC" and "SkyTrain" are better commonly recognized disambiguators but we might want to be explicit that the reason there's an inconsistency there is because we're trying to go with common names. Or maybe I'm overthinking LOL —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

JoeyConnick: I think it's probably best to hammer things out here before engaging in many moves. My additions were only intended to be alternatives for a draft; they are mutually exclusive with some of the other wording so for the most party we're going to have to pick one or the other (or meld parts of them together).--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Re (TTC) vs. (Toronto subway), I think it can go either way. With USSTATION, we discovered that flexibility was necessary as local use varies so much as to what's considered the "system" - in some cities, sources refer to the name of the provider (like MBTA/"The T" in Boston and SEPTA in Philadelphia), while in others they refer to specific branches of the area's system (for example, in D.C., sources usually refer to Washington Metro and Metrobus rather than WMATA, and in Miami, sources refer to Metrorail and Metromover rather than Miami-Dade Transit). We came to this issue in moving SEPTA station in Philadelphia; after much thought and discussion we decided to use (SEPTA) in most cases and use other options like (Market–Frankford Line) or (SEPTA Regional Rail) only when further disambiguation is needed. In contrast, in DC, we used (Washington Metro) rather than WMATA as that's far more recognizable to readers. With Toronto, I'd say it's a matter for editors who know Toronto sources best to determine which option will be clearest to readers.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: I cooperated on a lot of the US station moves with you and others, and it was a lot of work which is not quite complete. Just so that you know; XXX GO Station is a proper name used by GO Transit that is also the common name that people really use, but that is local knowledge that you would not be expected to have. Your experience and leadership will be valuable here. The discussion above shows complete lack of knowledge by many editors of the underlying templates. Good luck! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, so much work! Thanks for the input on the Go stations. That's something that we could easily factor in if it's the way sources refer to them - if there's an (unambiguous) common name, that's always what should be used. Perhaps we should start a dedicated discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Where to put proposals

@Cuchullain: (sorry, the previous section was getting to be the mess it was commenting on) What I meant re: your recent edits to the Project page being somewhat confusing is that while yes, the page is identified at the top as being a proposal, it is not entirely clear it might contain multiple, competing proposals (which it now does). So maybe we should be putting proposed text here on the Talk page and not on the main page which, as titled, gives the impression it is the guide on how to name Canadian stations. Either that or we should clearly delineate on the main page that "here's proposal A, here's proposal B, etc." —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I marked both of my additions as "alternate", but if they need to moved elsewhere that's fine.--Cúchullain t/c 20:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"Railway station" discussion

I'm opening a new thread to discuss the question of stations using the format "Xxx railway station" in one place. Hopefully it will give us a clearer picture of consensus as we flesh out the guideline wording. Currently, these stations' titles are largely consistent, but my suggestion above that we move them (and others) to the format "Xxx station", with additional disambiguation as necessary, seemed to get a fair measure of support. My cursory research suggested that this is the more common way Canadian sources refer to these stations, for example these: Edmonton: [16] vs. [17]; Belleville:[18] vs. [19]; Chilliwack: [20] vs. [21] There are a few options we can take here. Please !vote in the discussion section below. [EDIT: Links updated per comments below]

  • A: Retain the Xxx railway station format for intercity stations, and incorporate into the CANSTATION guideline
  • B: Move intercity stations to the Xxx station format, with parenthetical disambiguation if needed, and incorporate into the CANSTATION guideline

And to repeat, changing the guideline here does not mean we must move all stations immediately; we can get to them as time allows.--Cúchullain t/c 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

  • I prefer option B as the nominator.--Cúchullain t/c 21:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I prefer option B. (Those links aren't bringing anything up for me... I assume they're supposed to show Google search comparisons?) —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they were dead for me too, which is odd. I've now updated them.--Cúchullain t/c 21:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • B for me. I have noticed that in North America as distinct from the UK, if people get specific they will quite often use "train station" rather that "railway station". We know that we tend to say just "station" in common conversation, which can never be verified by any search. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • B as per Secondarywaltz, and also on the basis that railway stations can sometimes be intermodal. Trimming down to just 'station' can foster single comprehensive articles. --Natural RX 23:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • B – they don't use "railway station" as a term in Canada. As SW said, "train station" is the term that would be used much more often... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • B - as above. Mattximus (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • B: Xxx station is simple and (should be) intuitive. Useddenim (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

"GO Station" discussion

I'm starting this section for a centralized discussion as to how we handle GO Transit stations after discussion in the above section. Secondarywaltz pointed out that the format "Xxx GO Station" is a proper name in both common and official use. If so, then we could easily work that format into the CANSTATION guideline. My cursory Google News review has largely borne this out, even for several stations that serve more than GO Transit:

On the other hand, in some cases, the "Xxx station" format is notably more common:

In both cases these are stations connected to Subway stations (it may be worth discussing merging them if the sources regularly discuss them all together). This leads me to believe that these stations should be left in the "Xxx GO format", except a few special cases. No local guideline can trump the WP:COMMONNAME policy (FWIW, this is specifically noted at WP:USSTATION). My recommendation would be to add language to the guideline clarifying that we should default to the WP:COMMONNAME when it's different than the guideline recommendations, and perhaps specifically note that with GO Transit stations, the "Xxx GO Station" format is generally the common name. Thoughts?--Cúchullain t/c 21:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

These Kennedy and Kipling searches are mostly finding references to the subway stations under the XXX station format and GO Transit stations under XXX GO Station. The facilities are distinct and separate structures with different ownership. What your search shows is that they are thought of that way and should not be merged. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz is right, I believe... for instance, you get many more results if you search for: "kipling station" go. The GO system is really pretty separate from the TTC; I lived in Toronto for about 2.5 years, took the TTC all the time, and I don't think I ever rode a GO train. That being said, where are we getting confirmation that "Xxx GO Station" is the proper name? (I'm not saying it isn't... just where is that coming from, since obviously I'm invested in the whole "Station" vs. "station" debate.) —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Referring to a GO station (e.g. "Hamilton GO") is sometimes used by GO officials making announcements on where GO buses are going, and on GO schedules (see here as an example). However, automated announcements on trains just refer to "xxx station," but that's because it's inherent since you're on the train. My observation of common parlance is that it varies wildly, mostly depending on location and context. For example: "Union Station" in all cases as the one intermodal hub of the system everyone knows; you'll meet someone at "Burlington GO" to be specific, and not generally refer to Burlington, Ontario, but if you've established you're taking the GO train, you'll get off at "Burlington station"; "Kipling station" always, it is intermodal and it is not named after a municipality; "Mimico GO" because while locals may know what "going to Mimico" means, out of towners may not pick up on that; "West Harbour" is unique enough. All of that to say that I think leaning on WP:COMMONNAME isn't going to be reliable. But all that said, I think "xxx station" is a) kinda recognizabile, b) somewhat natural, c) usually precise enough, d) definitely concise, and e) pretty consistent. --Natural RX 23:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Agree with this last statement. I live here, and in common language, it's always "Kipling station". I like the idea of keeping it simple with "xxx station". Mattximus (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Which station is that? TTC or GO? Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Both interchangeably. Specifically, I have never heard anyone say "walk from the Kipling Go station to the Kipling TTC station", since they are connected, they are always referred to as simply "Kipling station". I'm pretty sure the Go portion is literally on top of the subway portion. Have you ever heard anybody in real life disambiguate the two like in my example? Mattximus (talk) 02:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
To the question of knowing "Go Station" is the common name, I was going by Google News search and what Secondarywaltz said above. In most cases I checked (I checked several more than I thought to include here), "Xxx Go Station" returned more relevant results than searches like "Xxx station", "Xxx station" Ontario, "Xxx station" GO, etc. Some were a lot closer than others. However, "Xxx station" is clearly in use in sources, and if there's no one way that fits for all the stations, it may be better to default to "Xxx station" and only disambiguate when necessary. There's also the fact that "GO Station" will in some cases be natural disambiguation allowing us to avoid a parentheses even when there are ambiguous stations (for example, Hamilton GO Centre would be Hamilton station (Ontario) due to other Hamilton stations, but the official name lets us avoid the parentheses). Should do a vote like the one above?--Cúchullain t/c 13:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: "Hamilton GO Centre" is a proper name as much as Union Station, and would be the natural disambiguation in any case. When I'm on the bus (have any of you been on the bus to Hamilton?) the destination displays as "Hamilton GO Centre". @Mattximus: In this case you are correct because very few local people use the Kipling GO Station, but the stations are distinct separate structures, and not one on top of the other as you guess (really?) and Kipling GO Station would also be the natural disambiguation. C'mon now! Don't waste time here when there's work to be done! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, to move things ahead, I'm starting a poll below so we can weigh in in a more direct fashion. If possible, let's keep the discussion up here and save the below section for !voting. I do want to point out that disussions of merging aren't really a title issue - it really depends on what the sources say. A station could have literally any title, but if the sources talk about one unit having both GO and subway, we discuss them together. On the other hand, if sources typically distinguish between the GO and subway elements, it may be better to separate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

GO station proposal

Given the arguments in the discussion above regarding GO Transit stations, let's take a more formal poll of how to proceed. Please !vote for one of the following:

  • A: Retain the Xxx GO Station format for GO Transit stations, and incorporate into the CANSTATION guideline
  • B: Move GO Transit stations to the Xxx station format, with parenthetical disambiguation as necessary, and incorporate into the CANSTATION guideline
  • C: Move most GO Transit stations to the Xxx station format, but retain the Xxx GO Station format as an option for natural disambiguation where relevant

--Cúchullain t/c 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm still deciding, but currently leaning C (I am the proposer).--Cúchullain t/c 15:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit torn between A and C, but I think C makes the most sense overall. Radagast (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Obviously retain A. This is a ridiculous nomination when the format "XXX GO Station" is a proper name, official name and common name. Why the hell are you wasting everybody's time? I don't have enough time to fight you on this! Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing to fight. This is just an attempt to get a clearer picture of the consensus as it was clear some people disagreed with you and the discussion wasn't going forward.--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I think C is the best. I was listening to the CBC on the radio this morning and they used the term "Go train delay at Xxx station" not "Go train delay at Xxx Go station". The simple Xxx station is by far the most commonly used term in real life. And wikipedia is supposed to be practical above all else. Also, many stations are (or are becoming) intermodal, and if we call it Go station but it also has TTC bus routes or a subway connection, we are not being very useful. Mattximus (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  • A, with Xxx station redirects for the intermodals. Mattximus’ example above is somewhat of a red herring, as it would be redundant to repeat “GO” twice. Useddenim (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to rename stations ending with (TTC) and (Montreal Metro)?

Should we rename station articles that end with (TTC) to comply with the naming conventions? The same can be done for the Montreal Metro.

However, (TTC) and (Montreal Metro) can be used for disambiguation purposes, such as Lawrence and Wilson stations on the TTC (the Chicago El have stations of the same name). Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not yet. Wait until the dust settles from the proposals above. There's no rush to get this done all at once. Useddenim (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes... I just heard on the radio that there was a delay at Bathurst Station, so that's really what the article should be called, not Bathurst (TTC) which doesn't even tell you that it's a station... However, like above, we should vote on the type of disambiguation. Mattximus (talk) 11:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The survey above so far has been open for several days and so far it's unanimous that we adopt the "Xxx station" guideline in general. We do need to decide which disambiguation to use for those that are ambiguous: (TTC), (Toronto Subway), etc. I would recommend using the city, as several under-construction stations are outside of Toronto and (Vaughan), (Mississauga), etc., are not recognizable for most readers. Should we do another poll?--Cúchullain t/c 13:33, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this should be the convention, and it is overdue. But we should take some time to implement it through discussion here, to ensure it it done properly. Many templates, namely {{ttcs}}, will need to be changed. --Natural RX 15:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  • NOTE: I keep hammering this. Few of you idiots seem to understand that {{TTC stations}} is the naming convention that must be changed. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Please don't make personal attacks, everyone here is just trying to do what's best for the readers and articles. At any rate, that's a template, not a naming convention, and templates are easy enough to change.--Cúchullain t/c 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Cuchullain: You fail to do this more than anybody I have seen. And I have seen a lot of changes of station names. Just do it right! Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Secondarywaltz And you get more worked up about templates than anyone else, which is really saying something. Either way, the minor issue of causing templates to link to redirects rather than direct links is *not* a reason not to move forward with article improvements.--Cúchullain t/c 18:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: Yes, your attitude and approach here is totally against good faith and WP:CIVIL. Ultimately, if we make the moves correctly (and I see no indication that they wouldn't be done correctly), the templates don't even have to be changed because the redirects will all get people to where they need to go. Redirects are cheap and not a big deal. Certainly, as Cuchullain points out, updating the templates is the least pressing part of this process. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't shoot the messenger. Why would you change the station naming convention without changing the naming convention established by that one system template? This simple task may eliminate most redirects. Did you know that? Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
@Secondarywaltz: The template didn't create the convention: it was written to accomodate the naming format already in use. So before you accuse people of being idiots, get your facts straight! Useddenim (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes! Exactly my point, that it should be edited to reflect the new default naming convention. By "established" I meant that it was the basis upon which other sources determined the naming convention. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

As the several of the above discussions (notably excluding the GO Transit discussion) seem to have achieved a clear consensus in favor of adopting the "Xxx station" convention after the last few weeks, I WP:BOLDly updated the wording in the guideline. I suggest we start updating the articles. The language supporting natural disambiguation should be enough to cover the GO Transit stations if we want to leave those in place, but we can also add some more specific language. We can continue tweaking the wording as well, but I think it does a fair job of capturing the feelings of most of the discussions.Before moving the Toronto subway station articles, we also need to decide which disambiguation to use, TTC or Toronto subway. I'll start another section for that.--Cúchullain t/c 18:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I think we have the same type of decision, or related, to make with SkyTrain vs. TransLink for the Vancouver area. As I mentioned before, "SkyTrain" is not the system, it's the mode. So if we go with TTC for the Toronto region, then consistency would imply we'd go with TransLink for Vancouver. For example, should we use Edmonds station (SkyTrain) or Edmonds station (TransLink) as the base article? SkyTrain is arguably more recognizable/natural as it would be common to think of Edmonds as a "SkyTrain station", but it's not like TransLink is a great unknown out here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd say SkyTrain is definite for Vancouver on sheer recognizability. As someone with a little familiarity with the city, I know what SkyTrain is, but not TransLink. In many cases, it's better to go city by city, since in some the provider is considered the "system" (I think I mentioned SEPTA in Philadelphia before) whereas in others they refer to the specific things that are run by the system (like New York, where New York City Subway is infinitely more recognizable than New York City Transit Authority).--Cúchullain t/c 21:06, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree with SkyTrain as the disambiguator, but by this logic, more people understand what the Toronto Subway is, compared to the TTC which is very regional specific. So shouldn't they be consistent? Mattximus (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think we need to force consistency if it may result in less recognizable disambiguators. To an extent it's something that needs to be decided by those who know the cities the best. In my example, "New York City Transit Authority" or "NYCTA" would be a lot less recognizable than "New York City Subway", whereas SEPTA is more recognizable than, say, "Broad Street Line". I imagine that "Toronto subway" is more recognizable than "TTC", but I'd like to hear what those more familiar with Toronto have to say.--Cúchullain t/c 13:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

West Coast Express

DONE: While your were all busy yapping, I thought I'd better get something done. I moved them all to the default "xxx station". Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Yesterday I was busy working on this guideline, moving American stations, and working on a GA, plus off-Wiki work, so unfortunately I was unable to move Canadian stations.--Cúchullain t/c 14:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Toronto disambiguation

The guidelines will do away with the preemptive (TTC) disambiguation for Toronto subway stations, but before we update the articles it would behoove us to decide which disambiguation we want to use for the system when we do need to disambiguate. Both (TTC) and (Toronto subway) would be acceptable, so let's take another poll to see if there's consensus for one over the other. My major worry with (Toronto subway) is if someone decides to make articles for all the Toronto streetcar stops (this has been done in many cities), in which case we may want (TTC) as it's broader. Either way, it should depend on how sources usually refer to them. So, should we use:

  • A: Xxx (Toronto subway)
  • B: Xxx (TTC)

--Cúchullain t/c 19:04, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

  • C: Xxx (Toronto)

--Natural RX 13:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Place your vote here

  • B as per WP:ACRONYMTITLE. I was originally averse to using an acronym as per WP:TITLEFORMAT and because it may not be as well known of an acronym outside Toronto/Ontario/Canada, but the former policy seems to trump it; "for brevity." --Natural RX 20:51, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
    • C as per Secondarywaltz; a much more natural disambiguation and short enough. --Natural RX 13:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm leaning toward A as it's immediately recognizable to anyone, but am interested to hear input from others who are more knowledgeable about Toronto.--Cúchullain t/c 21:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I like B for brevity but I take the point that outside the region, "Toronto subway" would be more recognizable. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely A, the term "TTC" is not known very well outside of the city, so it would not be useful at all for people who are not from this area. Toronto subway leaves no question as to where it is and what it is. I'm from Toronto and TTC would be the general term for transit, not for the subway in particular. This is a very important point: if there is a bus station, or a streetcar station, would we also call it (TTC)? Would we not care if it was subway or bus? Mattximus (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Just to note, there IS a streetcar station with (TTC): Queens Quay (TTC). Radagast (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Exactly, that's why the general (TTC) is not the best at disambiguation. Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Under the standard naming convention you have come up with, the disambiguation should be "Xxx station (Toronto) except for the one case at Union where there is a railway and subway station with a potential naming conflict. Streetcar stops are just stops and have been deleted in the past. New stations in the GTA will not have conflicting names under Metrolinx policy. Secondarywaltz (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Xxx station (Toronto) per Secondarywaltz. Useddenim (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Secondarywaltz & Useddenim: My reservation about Toronto is that some of the stations are located outside of Toronto, and things like (Vaughan) or (Mississauga) are not going to be good disambiguators. I haven't checked to see if this will affect many articles, but with the systems expanding it will likely be a problem we face sooner or later.--Cúchullain t/c 14:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Longbridge will need disambiguation due to Longbridge railway station and Longbridge railway station (1915–64), and there are many Clark stations. Of course, we could just use (Toronto subway) for those even if others get (Toronto).--Cúchullain t/c 18:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
For the purposes of this discussion, I feel that the Greater Toronto Area and Toronto would be equivalent. Useddenim (talk) 01:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I would like to support C, but what about places like Kipling and Kennedy? Do we get "Kennedy GO Station" and "Kennedy Station (Toronto)"? Not ideal. Radagast (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, either (TTC) or (Toronto subway) would still be needed for Kipling station and Kennedy station. Or there would have to be a merger with the GO stations as someone suggested above. Methinks (Toronto) is a bit of a can of worms.--Cúchullain t/c 18:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Naming conflict

How are we going to disambiguate Leaside station and Leaside railway station? They are both in Leaside, Toronto. I'll leave it up to you experts. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I imagine they can be left as they are, with hatnotes to guide readers. One is (future) subway, the other is (former) heavy rail. Radagast (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
@Radagast: Perhaps you have not be following this discussion, because all "railway station" named articles are going to be moved to just "station". Try again. Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Except in this case, we can make an exception and just leave them as is. Or move the railway one to Leaside station (Ontario) since it was intercity. We don't need to be creating non-problems when when there are plenty of actual problems out there in need of resolution. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
There will always be cases where exceptions are needed, but we should do our best to make sure the disambiguators, well, disambiguate one from the other. Here, system disambiguators would seem to be the best bet: Leaside station (Toronto subway) [or (TTC)] and Leaside station (Via Rail) (Via being the last system to use the defunct station). I've had to do similar things in a number of cases working on Montreal Metro stations, several of which share their name with stations for other systems. Also, if one of them is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, it can go at the base name and disambiguation is only needed for the other, although this is a unique case where it's likely neither is primary as neither are currently open.--Cúchullain t/c 02:46, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Scotland station disambiguation RM

I've started a discussion on Scotland station disambiguation here to try and find consensus for making disambiguation methods more consistent. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/c 17:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

hyphens vs. en-dashes (especially wrt to the TTC)

So based on having my edit reverted here, I looked around a bit on why we use en-dashes for compound name stations on the TTC when the TTC uses hyphens. So it seems like the TTC stations with compound names (Bloor–Yonge, Sheppard–Yonge, etc.) are named this way based on this from MOS:DASHES: In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand). But within the articles for these stations with article titles using en-dashes, they are sometimes referred to using en-dashes (see first line of the lead of Sheppard–Yonge (TTC)) and sometimes using a hyphen (first line of the lead of Bloor–Yonge (TTC)).

The TTC refers to these stations using hyphens. I feel like this section of MOS:HYPHEN should apply:

Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities.

  • Guinea-Bissau; Bissau is the capital, and this distinguishes the country from neighboring Guinea
  • Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities
  • John Lennard-Jones, an individual named after two families

[my emphasis]

Sheppard-Yonge, Bloor-Yonge, etc. are compounded proper names of single entities, so wouldn't that mean their articles should use hyphens and not en-dashes? If not (i.e. maybe this has been discussed before and consensus has been established), then I think, for simplicity and consistency, if on Wikipedia the station article titles are rendered with an en-dash, they should be referred to everywhere in Wikipedia with an en-dash (specifically, throughout article text).

Similarly, the TTC refers to its lines with double-barrelled names using hyphens: Yonge-University and Bloor-Yonge, as can be seen here. Based on the above logic regarding compounded proper names of single entities, I would say we should be using Line 1 Yonge-University and Line 2 Bloor-Danforth as the base articles. These are the a) proper names of b) single entities with c) compounded names. Also, as per WP:COMMONNAME, since most keyboards don't include a specific key for an en-dash, most people and I suspect reliable sources would render these names using hyphens.

Somewhat relatedly, the TTC refers to stations with "Saint" in their titles as "St" with no period. So again, as per the TTC, what we have as St. Clair West (TTC) should be, as near as I can tell, St Clair West (TTC). Similarly for the TTC stations: St Patrick, St Clair, St George. Although in this case, if I've already referenced WP:COMMONNAME, "St." is probably more commonly known/used to refer to St. Clair, St. Patrick, etc.

Thoughts and comments? Has this been hashed out somewhere? Because it would be great to have something to point to and also to attempt to bring some consistency to how the stations are referred to throughout the encyclopedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree, the TTC calls it St Clair Station, so the link should be St Clair station, if we add the period that would be considered original research. Oh and just for confirmation zoom in on this picture:
Re abbreviations, the manual of style allows for either MOS:ABBREVIATION of "Saint", so what it really comes down to is common use in the sources (COMMONNAMEs generally trump WP:OFFICIALNAMEs). Looks to me like a wide majority of local sources use the "St." abbreviation for this station.[34] Re hyphens, I've never been able to understand the decision making, I'm afraid. It never seems to follow what the manual of style actually says. I'd say move it to what seems right by your understanding, and not worry too much about it. I'm sure the dash police will find the articles soon enough ;)--Cúchullain t/c 02:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
The use of a period/full stop after the abbreviation of "Saint" is inconsistently applied across the system. Here's an example:

Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I can't put my hands on it right away, but my copy of the TTC lettering diagram for subway stations contains a hyphen (-) character, but not an N-dash (–). (And yes, I do realize that until I can reference the actual document this can be considered as WP:OR.) Useddenim (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Edmonton LRT Stations

I would like to discuss the recent page moves of the Edmonton LRT stations. The stations in Edmonton are officially and properly named as Xxx LRT Station [35]. They are also named as such at the entry to every station [36][37]. Common usage in the media between Xxx LRT Station and Xxx Station vary by station, though in almost all cases, they are quite close. In 2013, regular contributors of Edmonton LRT-related pages decided to follow the Xxx LRT Station format [38]. I believe if the station is named Xxx LRT Station on transit and city documents and is named as such on all signage, that should be the name of the article. To me, "Century Park LRT Station" is much more clear than "Century Park station (Edmonton LRT)" which it was recently moved to. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree Century Park LRT Station is a much better name than the cumbersome Century Park station (Edmonton LRT). I think this is the case where the proper name simply has LRT in it, and so should be treated as such. This should not be confused with Toronto's upcoming LRT, where the station names do not have "LRT" in the name and should be called accordingly. For example: It should be Cedarvale Station and not Cedarvale LRT Station.[39] Mattximus (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
It looks like the new protocol has not been followed to the letter, in any case; it should be simply Century Park station (Edmonton), no need for 'LRT'. Radagast (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree that name is better than what it is now, however if you follow the protocol to the letter, you must include the LRT since (for Edmonton) it is part of the proper name. The best part is that you don't actually need a disambiguator if you name it what is is officially called. Mattximus (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

: I moved these articles, and before I did I ran through Google News searches of a number of stations to see if the former "Xxx LRT Station" format was indeed the more WP:COMMONNAME. I found that in most cases that I checked, the "Xxx station" recommended by this guideline was in fact more common. For example, Churchill ([40] vs. [41]), Clareview ([42] vs. [43]) and Grandin ([44] vs. [45]) The numbers are often pretty close, and in some cases, "Xxx LRT Station" is more common, while in still others, a different format is more common. For instance, for Bay/Enterprise Square station, just "Bay/Enterprise Square" is more common than either "Bay/Enterprise Square LRT Station" or "Bay/Enterprise Square station". For to-be-built stations, there are often no independent sources at all to determine which form is common. What this tells me is that there's no one thing that's the most common for all the stations across the board (although the generic "Xxx station" format would seem to be the most common among the options.) As such, it seemed best to go with the Xxx station format that previous discussions here determined is generally preferable, in order to maintain consistency with other Canadian station articles.

Now, we could move the articles back to "Xxx LRT Station", or at least use that form for the minority of stations that need additional disambiguation (rather than parenthetical disambiguation). But I think the issue of having some systems using entirely different formats than the others is the primary problem that this guideline was created to avoid, especially when the variant format appears to be less common. Additionally, Edmonton Light Rail is not such a well known topic that "Xxx LRT Station" will be recognizable by readers outside the city. More people know Edmonton, so (Edmonton) or (Edmonton LRT) is more recognizable for those stations that need additional disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, by the way things are currently written, either (Edmonton) or (System) would be acceptable for the parentheses, although I noticed after I'd moved the articles that (Edmonton) was specifically given in guideline examples. That's my bad, either the articles or the guideline examples need to change.--Cúchullain t/c 15:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
You keep ignoring that these are the official and proper names of the stations. This guideline works for Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal because those stations don't include the system in their official names. It doesn't work for the Edmonton stations though. Look how WP:UKSTATION names DLR stations. You can't make up your own names for stations just to fit this guideline. Furthermore, it doesn't matter if these stations are known outside of Edmonton or not, that is no reason to add a disambiguation.Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I am not "ignoring" anything. The governing policy is WP:COMMONNAME; even if there's an WP:OFFICIALNAME, it's not preferable if it's not the common name as well. In most cases here, the official names don't appear to be the most common way that the subjects are referred to in the sources. If it the sources were closer, I might agree with your position, but for the most part I'm seeing "Xxx station" is more common.--Cúchullain t/c 17:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The sources are closer. Take a look at your Clareview search. There is a road in Edmonton named "Clareview Station Drive" when you subtract "drive" from the search, "Clareview LRT Station" is more common. I just went through every station, 8 are more common as "Xxx LRT Station", 8 are more common as "Xxx Station" and 1 is the same.Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd say the existence of a "Clareview Station Drive", apparently named for being by the LRT station, is a good indication that "Clareview station" is in common use. The city's website also includes numerous uses of "Clareview station" intending the station.[46]--Cúchullain t/c 18:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
First, I appreciate the work Cúchullain has done to get this organized. Really quite a bit of effort to make wikipedia a better place. In this case, I will have to agree with User talk:Thankyoubaby. It appears, based on [47], that Edmonton is an anomaly as it includes "LRT" in the proper name (quotation from official website: "Bay/Enterprise Square LRT Station, formerly known as Bay LRT Station"), this is *not* the case Toronto, where the new LRT line stations do *not* include those letters in the official or common name. Toronto would just be Cedarvale Station not Cedarvale LRT Station. Mattximus (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well since Cuchullain isn't replying, nor is any other user coming to his defense, I'm going to start moving the pages back. Thankyoubaby (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I didn't stop replying, the last comment in this discussion is from me. There are all of two editors who supported your position, whereas every previous discussion found that the station convention should generally be adopted. At any rate, I'm not going to pursue this any further or do more work on Canadian stations until other editors start getting involved. I'm not going to devote more of the limited time I have for Wikipedia to this project, given that situations like this are likely to keep occurring, and consistent input isn't forthcoming. It's simply not worth the time and energy if hours of work will be reverted every time individual editors decide their corner of the country should have a different convention than everywhere else. We've got a good start with CANSTATION; the guideline is pretty clear and well supported, all it'll take now is a few more editors willing to take up the task. Cheers, everyone.--Cúchullain t/c 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced that there is an official name. The signage at the stations is simply "Century Park", and Google Maps, which I believe was populated by ETS, labels them Xxxx station. Since "Xxxx station" brings us inline with other systems and countries on Wikipedia, I feel that the unambiguous stations should follow that scheme, and fall inline. However, when it comes to disambiguation, I believe that WP:NATURALDIS should be followed, and Century Park station (Edmonton LRT) is more cumbersome than Century Park LRT Station. 117Avenue (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, 117Avenue. I agree that "Xxx LRT Station" could be decent natural disambiguation for cases that need it. Though I still believe "Edmonton" is more recognizable for readers than "LRT Station". Before I started working on CANSTATION, I was well aware of Edmonton, but had no idea that it had a light rail system, that it's called "LRT", etc.--Cúchullain t/c 14:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with 117Avenue. Also, WRT disambiguation, there is a general class of LRT station which would be preferred to the unique, city-specific Edmonton. Useddenim (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
117Avenue, the signage on the platform is just "Century Park", but at the entrance to each station is "Xxx LRT Station" [48]. All official maps of the stations include the LRT Station [49][50][51]. Lastly, I don't think Google Maps is a good indicator of the names as it is not uniform, Kingsway/Royal Alex is given the "LRT Station" name format [52]. (I am Thankyoubaby, but am unable to login to my account for some reason.) Thankyoubaby2 (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Dang, I should have tried looking for more pictures harder before I commented. In that case, I rescind my comment. ETS does seem to have a naming scheme, which is pretty close to an official name, and the articles should follow that. Do these other systems mentioned have official names? 117Avenue (talk) 03:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The existence of official names is fairly irrelevant: WP:COMMONNAME. If people call them "<blah blah blah> LRT station" then fine. But if they are generally referred to as "<blah blah blah> station", that's what should be used. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Correct. Even more so considering that multiple formats (including the CANSTATION standard) are in official use.--Cúchullain t/c 15:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The capitalization of "Station" on a sign should not be taken as evidence that it's part of the proper name. If "LRT station" is to be used as natural disambiguation, station should be lowercase. Just cap the actual name part. Thankyoubaby2 has just gone and done a bunch of moves using the over-capitalized form, which is not supported by any station naming conventions that I'm aware of. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this has become a terrible mess. I hope someone will sort it out.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Dicklyon, it is not just on a sign, it is on all official documents [53][54]. Per this project page, "unless it is part of a proper name where sources consistently capitalise (e.g. Montreal Central Station)". Thankyoubaby2 (talk) 13:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Even on the City of Edmonton's website, "Century Park LRT Station" is less common than "Century Park Station",[55][56] and sources do not consistently capitalize "Century Park LRT station" when they do use that format.[57][58][59][60][61]--Cúchullain t/c 14:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Only if you exclude city council records. [62][63]. Thankyoubaby2 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I just did a general search of the site, and of course it's still true that the reliable sources do not consistently capitalize "Station".--Cúchullain t/c 18:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that these moves were controversial, at the least. Should we therefore just use WP:RM#TR to ask for rollbacks? Dicklyon (talk) 02:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I see the problem. They were at these over-capitalized titles before. E.g. Southgate LRT Station, which for a long time said Southgate Station is an LRT station has been capped since 2013. I support Cúchullain's attempt to fix this, but it looks like it was objected to, so now we need at least a multi-RM discussion if we want to fix it again. Dicklyon (talk) 04:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Note that in News it's usually not capped. Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to point out again that the regular contributors to the Edmonton LRT station pages came to a consensus to use the "Name LRT Station" format [64]. That format stayed in place for four years, then someone who was not involved in those discussions, and does not regularly contribute to those articles moved all of them. I really don't care if the word station is capitalized or not, that is not the issue. The issue is the removal of the "LRT" from the names. It has already been established in this discussion that "Century Park LRT Station" (or station) is a better name than Cúchullain's move to "Century Park station (Edmonton LRT)". I have only moved the stations where disambiguation was necessary. Thankyoubaby2 (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of us like to see the broader consensus about WP style implemented consistently. These titles fly in the face of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. As for the rest of the conventions, that's more project specific, perhaps. There are station naming conventions in US and UK and other places that can be used as possible guides, but if Canadians go their own way without over-capitalization, I won't be bothered. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Local consensus doesn't get to override broader naming conventions and guidelines just for funsies. And no, I don't think it has been established that "Century Park LRT S|station" is better than what we just came up with for the overall naming conventions, i.e. "Century Park station (Edmonton)" (which also has the benefit of being consistent with the other Century Park station, i.e. Century Park Station (Shanghai)). Not sure why it got moved to "(Edmonton LRT)"—I'd agree that is definitely more awkward—but unless it's clear that "Century Park LRT station" is how people commonly refer to it (and so far, I'm not convinced) then keeping the mode of transport in the name definitely does not get my vote or !vote or whatever. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
And how will you be convinced? Google News: "Century Park LRT Station" 84 results[65], "Century Park Station" 47 results [66]. City of Edmonton website: "Century Park LRT Station" 108 results [67], "Century Park Station" 84 results [68]. It's both the official name and the more common name. What more do you need? Thankyoubaby2 (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Just need to have station downcased, like most of your news hits. Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
So is anyone going to object to the Edmonton LRT stations being named as "Xxx LRT station"? (By the way, I have access to my account again). Thankyoubaby (talk) 05:29, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not so convinced. I tried other stations besides Century Park, and google news is about equal between them, and in some cases the reverse is preferred. For example there are double the references to "Corona station" for Edmonton compared to "Corona LRT station". So it is not unambiguously clear that LRT is part of the official name, or not. For me it would be nice to match other city stations (Century Park station (Shanghai)), but I don't have a strong objection if you are willing to change all of them to your way assuming that it is part of the proper name. Mattximus (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
If we were to match other city names, Southgate LRT station would match the other Southgate (Southgate tube station), Belvedere LRT station would match Belvedere railway station, University LRT station would match University Metro station and so on. Thankyoubaby (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I also disagree that these are the best names. As I said before, in most cases I checked, the "Xxx station" format is indeed more common in the sources, eg Churchill ([69] vs. [70]) and Coliseum. [71] vs. [72]). (Edmonton) is also more WP:RECOGNIZABLE in general than "LRT", and more consistent with the other articles on Canadian stations. As such, my opinion is that we're better off with parenthetical disambiguation for these cases. However, the lower case version is preferable per the statements above.--Cúchullain t/c 18:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

And yet other stations show "Xxx LRT station" as the more common. [73] vs [74] or [75] vs. [76]. Anyways, these are just the same arguments over and over again. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
There are currently 9 stations in Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations that use the "LRT Station" format (8 that require disambiguation, and South Campus/Fort Edmonton Park LRT Station, which does not require disambiguation). Of those, "Xxx station" is more common for the following stations:
"Xxx LRT Station" is more common for the following stations:
South Campus/Fort Edmonton Park returns only 1 hit from either search ([77] vs. [78]). "Fort Edmonton Park station" gets 3 hits. It's also worth pointing out that "University LRT Station" is incomplete disambiguation because University station (Calgary) is also called that in some sources.[79][80][81] Additionally, as far as consistency goes, all other stations in Alberta besides these are now at the CANSTATION format.--Cúchullain t/c 17:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"South Campus LRT station" gets more hits than "South Campus station". So how do you justify renaming the eight stations (Belvedere, Grandin, McKernan/Belgravia, Century Park, MacEwan, Kingsway/Royal Alex, NAIT, South Campus) where "Xxx LRT station" is more common to "Xxx station" when that is neither the official name, nor the more common name?Thankyoubaby (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I've explained repeatedly above. XXX station is more common for most of the stations (at least 22 of the 30, and for some of the remaining 8, other formats entirely are more common than "LRT Station"). It's also the format recommended by this guideline and the consensus in the various discussions above and elsewhere, and before long will be the format used across all the other systems across the country. I just don't see a compelling reason that one system in one city should have a different convention than all the others.--Cúchullain t/c 19:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
First of all, there aren't 30 stations. There are 18, there are no articles about the stations under construction. So it's not most of the stations, it's half of the stations. All of the stations built in the last 10 years (except for Southgate) favour the "LRT satation" name, if that's any indication, all of the new stations will too. Your example of Kingsway/Royal Alex is irrelevant. You're comparing a transit centre that existed for decades to the LRT station that just opened. One system in one city has a different naming convention than all others on WP:UKSTATION, I see no reason the same can't be done here. Thankyoubaby (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
There are 29 stations listed in Category:Edmonton Light Rail Transit stations plus a template (which I miscounted). Some of the planned stations have sources, of those I checked "Xxx station" got more hits.[82][83][84] Others turn up no sources at all, which is an argument that they should be merged or deleted, not that "Xxx LRT Station" is a good name for them. By your count there are 8 stations where "Xxx station" is not the most common. One of these is South Campus/Fort Edmonton Park LRT Station, as we covered above. In two others, "Xxx LRT Station" is less common than a different version entirely: McKernan/Belgravia returns 53 hits for "McKernan/Belgravia" and only 8 for just "McKernan/Belgravia LRT station", and Kingsway/Royal Alex returns 27 hits for just "Kingsway/Royal Alex" compared to only 3 for "Kingsway/Royal Alex LRT Station". For four more, Belvedere (25 vs. 21), Grandin (24 vs. 20), MacEwan (30 vs.26), and NAIT (29 vs. 24) "LRT Station" receives only 4 or 5 more hits than the "Xxx station version". Only Century Park seems to have a clear preference for "LRT Station". This is not a solid foundation for an idiosyncratic convention.--Cúchullain t/c 20:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Again, you can't just search for "Kingsway/Royal Alex" and not include station, as other articles not pertaining to the station will be found. Same goes for "McKernan/Belgravia", that's the name of a neighbourhood. You're trying to manipulate the results. Of the stations where "Xxx station" is more common, I'd say only Churchill and University have a clear preference and that is not enough convince me. However, this will just go on in circles forever. I will concede... for now. If, once those new stations open up and I find that a majority of them use the "Xxx LRT station" format, I will be back for round two. Thankyoubaby (talk) 20:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to "manipulate" the results. It is a fact that Kingsway/Royal Alex is referred to by other names in the sources (just Kingsway/Royal Alex, Kingsway/Royal Alex transit centre, Kingsway/Royal Alex Hospital LRT station, "Kingsway/Royal Alex Hospital station) and that "Kingway/Royal Alex LRT station" is not the most common version. But even this is well beyond the point, which concerns the 9 stations that now have divergent titles. If you're consenting to the articles being moved, then I guess we're done here and we can quit going around in circles. If later on you want think they should be moved again, we can reopen the discussion.--Cúchullain t/c 20:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The website for the line under construction is http://transedlrt.ca Since it is a streetcar style, it prefers "stop", instead of station, except for Churchill, Davies, and Mill Woods, where there is no LRT in front. 117Avenue (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Now that the convention has been formalized...

...who will help set up the required page moves to the new titles as dictated by the conventions? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I've been in the process of moving articles; I think others have as well. Quebec should be done and Alberta will be soon; after that I'll work on other provinces as time permits. I'm saving Ontario for last as we're going to need to take further steps to hammer out consensus on both the GO stations and disambiguation for the Toronto subway, although Ottawa's transit stations are done, and there should be no problem moving Via Rail stations.--Cúchullain t/c 14:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Cúchullain, I am willing to help move the TTC articles. Many are already at the correct name Mount Dennis station but some are not Downsview Park (TTC). Besides moving the page itself, what templates should I fix to ensure a smooth transfer? Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ttcs}} & {{TTC lines and stations}}. Useddenim (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I finished 1 line, someone else did another line. Have we decided on the disambiguator, for example: Queens Park station? I didn't want to move those until we reached consensus. Mattximus (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
I updated {{ttcs}} to reflect the current status (i.e. most of the Line 1 moved) but left it defaulting to "<Station name> (TTC)" for everything else for now. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Also {{s-line|system=TTC}}.  And, the first station I randomly checked (Eglinton) had Eglinton Station redirected to Eglinton (TTC) redirected to Eglinton station, so there's still a lot of cleanup left to do. Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
This is now also current. Both of these will need updates as more page moves take place. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is interesting, all other countries with Queens park stations use the city as the disambugator:

  • Queen's Park (London) station
  • Queen's Park (Glasgow) railway station
  • Queen's Park (TTC) subway station
  • Queens Park railway station, Perth

So Toronto is the odd one out. It looks like to be internationally consistent it should be Queens Park station (Toronto). What do you think?

Queen's Park subway station. subway is already the natural disambiguator. Useddenim (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh my god, no! Either Queen's Park station (TTC) or Queen's Park station (Toronto). I thought we were trying to move away from "*name* station <type of transport>"! As written the convention/guideline doesn't say anything about type of transport (except the whole "SkyTrain" entry for Vancouver but that's because it's more recognizable than "TransLink" the authority. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:23, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I notice "Bay" has been left at "Bay (TTC)". Shouldn't that be "Bay station (TTC)"? —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes Bay should be changed, but only 2/5 lines are done for now. I will try to get to the rest later. I agree with Joeyconnick, I thought we were moving away from that old system (since many stations are intermodal), I much prefer Queen's Park station (Toronto) so at least it matches the other national pages. Anyone opposed to this move? Mattximus (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
OK done all TTC subway stations except those requiring disamb, my vote is for (Toronto) at the end, just like England, Scotland, and Australia. Mattximus (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
@Mattximus: You moved it to Bay station without disambiguation. That won't work: see Bay Station. It should either be Bay station (Toronto) or Bay station (TTC). —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, this exists: Queen station (Kitchener) so we should probably move Queen station to Queen station (Toronto) and have Queen station as a disambig page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Good work, everyone. Re the parenthetical disambiguators, we don't seem to have come to a firm consensus, so I'd say just pick one and stick with it. None of them are "wrong" and all would be an improvement for readers. If others object we can always have a formal RM to get a better gauge of consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 15:41, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm going to assume (City) as the reasonable disambiguator as I haven't heard anyone on here disagree. Will continue working. Thanks for the help everyone. Mattximus (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
OK I finished all of the Toronto Subway system, it should be in line with our current system. Please let me know if I missed anything. I do have a (controversial?) suggestion. We have one page for Mount Dennis station which serves TTC, Go, and UP Express, but two separate pages for Union station. I see no reason why Union station shouldn't be one page like all the others with several different modes of transport. Anyone oppose this? Mattximus (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
The Union GO/VIA station is a historic structure that was in use for 90 years. On the other hand, the subway station was built 27 years later and as a separate structure, as opposed to the integrated design of Downsview Park station. The same applies to Kennedy station and Kennedy GO Station, then Kipling station and Kipling GO Station. And to that end, I have moved Union (TTC) to Union station (TTC) to conform to these newly established conventions. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I also forgot about Main Street station - that page should be located at Main Street station (Toronto) because we have Main Street railway station in Glasgow, Scotland. I've made that move as well, and changed the original page to a dab. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 00:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? What constitutes integrated? Surely it's not the date parts were built. I was just there this morning and the subway, GO train, and Via Rail all seemed pretty integrated into one structure...I would say the same thing about Kipling too, since I agree you can't merge one without the other. Mattximus (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it comes down to how the sources treat the subject. If they tend to describe them as a single unit, so should we. If they usually treat the "main" station as one unit and the subway station as another, so should we. For what it's worth, I've always felt as a reader that it's better to have one, comprehensive, well-written article than several that cover parts of essentially the same thing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:19, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Food for thought, there's also Union Station Bus Terminal, which appears to be directly connected to the main Toronto Union Station.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Does someone want to update WP:WikiProject_Toronto#Naming_conventions so that it doesn't conflict with our newly formalized naming convention regarding TTC stations? Set theorist (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be in alignment already, did someone already fix it? Mattximus (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, looks like User:Cuchullain did it. Set theorist (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, I made the update and forgot to mention it here.--Cúchullain t/c 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Why was Islington station moved?

Hey Mattximus... why'd you move Islington station to Islington station (Toronto) here? I don't see any other conflicts with articles of the same name and I assume if there were, then Islington station would have been pointed to an actual disambiguation page. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick: See Islington Station which shows five similarly named stations. Secondarywaltz (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks... no one had redirected Islington station to Islington Station at that point so I missed it. —Joeyconnick (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

What examples to use

I believe 117Avenue is talking about Citing the same rationale as I did with my removal of the Toronto subway as an example of a system that is entirely within a single municipal boundary, given the expected completion of the Spadina extension later this year, 117Avenue removed University station (Edmonton) as an example, indicating the Edmonton LRT would be extended outside Edmonton's boundaries. However, that possible future extension is simply on the drawing board, as opposed to in progress and near completion, so I have reverted that change. If shovels hit the ground to expand Edmonton's system outside of Edmonton, we can make changes then. Otherewise, we are WP:CRYSTALing. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

An omission is not crystaling. I think that system should be the prefered form of disambiguation over city for commuter lines. We shouldn't say any system is limited by any border. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Even if the system has a few stations outside of the municipal boundaries, it's still in the Greater Toronto Area, and the disambiguator of (Toronto) is still fine, even if it is technically in Vaughan or whatever. We shouldn't let a technicality get in the way of accessibility and usefulness. Mattximus (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you address the issue Mattximus, which one is accessible and useful? @Cuchullain: you added the sentence; SkyTrain and TTC are more recognizable than their city, but Edmonton and CTrain are not? 117Avenue (talk) 04:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
What I was getting at was that when all (current) stations requiring disambiguation are within a recognizable city, the city is preferable because it's generally more recognizable than the name of the system. "Calgary" is more recognizable than "CTrain" - I've been to Calgary, am familiar with Calgary, but I didn't know until recently that it had a light rail system called "CTrain". On the other hand, while Vancouver is more recognizable than SkyTrain, SkyTrain is more recognizable than Burnaby, where there is a SkyTrain station that requires disambiguation (Edmonds station (SkyTrain)). Before I went to Vancouver last month, I was aware of the SkyTrain system but would not have recognized "Burnaby" or even "Burnaby, British Columbia" as indicating a transit station in suburban Vancouver. My hope is that the different options there would empower the editors who know the localities best to determine which version is most recognizable for readers.
I initially did move the Edmonton stations to "Edmonton LRT" but in the discussion above, there seemed to be a preference for just "Edmonton" instead (and one editor who preferred a different format). Given that all the existing stations are within Edmonton, I didn't see a problem in using just "Edmonton". If others disagree, I'm happy with going back to "Edmonton LRT".
I agree that there is, or will be, a problem with the Toronto Subway and other systems that are expanding into the suburbs. I'm of the opinion that simply disambiguating those "Toronto" is misleading. On Wikipedia, "Toronto" doesn't mean Greater Toronto, it means the city of Toronto. As a reader, I'd expect anything using (Toronto) as disambiguation would actually be, well, in Toronto. There are a few things we can do to avoid that problem. Namely, we could use "Toronto subway" for the non-Toronto Toronto subway stations, or use "Toronto subway" for all of them, as we're already doing for Montreal and Vancouver, but "Toronto" is not suitable disambiguation there.
Sorry for the long reply, but I'm going to have less availability for at least the next several days. I must say, having moved dozens of stations now, the guideline is working well. Despite some hiccups like this, we are able to avoid the problem entirely for probably 2/3 of the articles that don't require more disambiguation than just "station".--Cúchullain t/c 15:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I misinterpreted that. Sky Train is more notable than Burnaby, not Vancouver. Shouldn't Toronto still be included then, since it's system is still mostly in Toronto? 117Avenue (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd think Toronto could be included so long as we're using the (Toronto) disambiguation. When we reach the point that there are non-Toronto (and non-Edmonton, etc.) stations that require disambiguation, we can revise according to whatever solution we come up with. That's the beauty of having a guideline - we can adjust it when new developments occur.--Cúchullain t/c 17:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I think that this page (like a policy) should be prepared for any circumstance before it happens, rather than be a reactive page. But since this is a small community, I guess it is alright to allow transformation. 117Avenue (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Why was Sloane stop moved to Sloane station?

Hey Cuchullain, why did you move Sloane stop? I don't see anything in the guidelines that all at-grade LRT stops should be called "stations" and there's still a bunch more stops (called "stops" as per Metrolinx, the authority in charge of the naming from what I can tell) on Line 5 Eglinton called "stops" that haven't been moved. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I did it to be consistent with the guideline and the other Toronto stations. Is there a difference between a stop and a station in this context?--Cúchullain t/c 22:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Note that "stations" are notable, whereas mere "stops" are not. Would you prefer that they be deleted? Secondarywaltz (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, Secondarywaltz, who went and made that arbitrary decision? And do you also propose to delete all 68 pages in Category:MTR Light Rail stops? Useddenim (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Good day to you too. I propose nothing and only offer the advice that past history has been for the deletion of tram stops on the grounds of notability. Seek and ye shall find. Secondarywaltz (talk)
@Cuchullain: I know that Metrolinx refers to them differently... they are calling the actual structures that serve the underground portion of the line (Mount Dennis to Laird) "stations", whereas Sloane is in the section from Sunnybrook Park to Ionview that is at-grade, and those are referred to as "stops" (except Science Centre, which is going to be built underground, apparently). My understanding is that, in terms of infrastructure, the "stops" will essentially be souped-up bus stops, whereas (obviously) the underground portion will stop at what would traditionally be called "stations." My point is, if "Sloane stop" is moved to "Sloane station" (and don't get me wrong, I really don't think it should be), then so should Sunnybrook Park to Ionview (minus Science Centre).
With respect to the issue of notability, I feel these stops are notable as they're part of a clearly identified rapid transit line that is being given the same prominence as the TTC's existent subway and light metro lines. I also think that, practically, if we were to delete the articles now, they would frequently get recreated by people whose approach is more completist. But if the articles are left to exist, I think moving them to "Zzz station" is not the way to go. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
This is an area where I am most knowledgeable, since it is almost literally in my backyard. I have attended many townhall meetings about the construction, and I can say unequivocally that this should be called "stop" and not "station". Nowhere in any documentation, any online source, any person I have encountered called the "stops" on this line "stations". They are well defined and not controversial. And I don't think these will be considered for deletion as they are part of the Toronto Subway system. There is a convenient list of which ones are stations and which ones are stops here: [85]. Mattximus (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oh I agree that they should all be included. What I object to is the repeated screwing around with the titles of articles. That is petty, anal and simply a waste of everybody's time. It's the content that matters and there is not enough being done about that, and that pisses me off! Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Content is key, and in as many of the moves I've made as possible, I've also made an effort to clean up the intros and do other edits to the articles. In probably as many as 50% of the moves, that is the most attention the articles have received for months or years.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

As I just mentioned above, Edmonton's new line also falls into this category. 117Avenue (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

What really matters here are what the reliable sources use, so if they consistently use "stop" rather than "station", we should, too. The guideline already says to default to common names if they differ from the guideline, but we could easily add a line about this system. It should be noted that it's the third party sources that should be the deciding factor, not necessarily what the system itself uses. We've come across some cases where the system's version is not the common name, or is inconsistently used. Additionally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other whether the articles should be kept; again that comes down to what sources are available for them.--Cúchullain t/c 15:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Shall we add a mention to "stop" on the guideline then? 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, "stop" is the official name for some of these, and they are part of the TTC subway system, so we have no choice but to use it. Mattximus (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to add anything? I believe the policy is clear enough. It is a common name with reliable sources. --Natural RX 02:57, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC on WP:UKSTATION disambiguation

I've started an RfC on making disambiguation consistent in the WP:UKSTATION guideline. It's located here. The input of knowledgeable editors would be valuable.--Cúchullain t/c 20:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

AfD on TransLink fares (British Columbia)

Transit-interested editors following this page are encouraged to check out this AfD and provide their input. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Caledonia station

Hi,

Secondarywaltz moved Caledonia station to Caledonia station (Toronto) recently because they feel since the closed Caledonia railway station exists, the under-construction LRT station in Toronto needs disambiguation. I moved it back because it is, from my perspective, unnecessary disambiguation since there is no other article titled "Caledonia station" (plus there are hatnotes in case people end up at the wrong page). There is some background discussion on my Talk page but from what I understand, Secondarywaltz feels that both of them should be called "Caledonia station" as, according to them, "[name] railway station" is being phased out. My understanding is that's not necessarily the case, especially in a case like this where keeping the "railway" in the existing article name serves as natural disambiguation... plus they didn't make any move to touch the existing "Caledonia railway station", just the LRT station. So before we get into a move war, can people here chime in to help clarify what they think should be happening in this situation? —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Caledonia station should be left as is, as it is the most notable of the two. If anything, Caledonia railway station could be moved to comply with WP:CANSTATION. However, since it's been over 40 years since the station ceased, was "railway station" used commonly upon closure? If so, I don't see why a natural disambiguation can't be used. —Northwest (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
There was no problem when the naming convention was to use "railway station" for every mainline station article in Canada (like in the UK) and "LRT station" for the one that were in that category. The majority ruled against that and I tried to conform, but there's always somebody looking for a squabble which is why I gave up on this shit show in the first place. It should be about content, but so many people want to fight over trivial matters like this. The LRT station in Toronto can't possibly be the most notable since it does not yet exist. The historic 1908 railway station is named after the town where it is located, where you would expect a station called "Caledonia" to be found. Please just leave everything as it is now and don't continue this debate. Just STOP! Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
With all due respect, Caledonia will be both an LRT station and a GO commuter rail station. And even if it doesn't exist yet, within a few years it will have due significance. Radagast (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Radagast, the Caledonia station in Toronto is far, far, far more significant to the readers of wikipedia than a tiny train station, in a small town, that closed 40 years ago. Also there is an warning saying "This article is about LRT station in Toronto. For the former Grand Trunk Railway station in Caledonia, Ontario, see Caledonia railway station." Which is a fair comment. Although as pointed above, it's not just a future LRT station but also Go station. So that should probably be fixed. Mattximus (talk) 15:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • EVERYBODY STOP! There is overwhelming agreement to leave things as they are. Go away and do something constructive and don't waste any more time with this. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, by "the way things are" do you mean the current page name? If so, I agree, and that seems to be the general consensus thus far to keep the Toronto station as Caledonia station. Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I started this mess, and I should have left it alone. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Move request in progress for Ion LRT: station vs stop

Hello, there is currently a discussion going on at Talk:Northfield station (Waterloo) about how to name the surface-LRT stops/stations on Ion rapid transit. Should it follow the convention of the surface stops on Line 5 Eglinton? Official sources tend to use neither stop nor station but lean towards station. Thanks, BLAIXX 17:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

It should follow Line 5 convention. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 01:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
That discussion has closed, there was no consensus to move. One point I raised there, however, is that using the Line 5 convention on Waterloo's system would violate the premise the Line 5 convention is built upon: deferring to official sources. Official sources call all at-grade facilities 'stations' in Waterloo. --Natural RX 14:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Merging naming conventions for stations

Hi. I am proposing a merger of all naming conventions for stations. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Merging naming conventions for stations. Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Canadian_stations)/Archive_1&oldid=1199043514"