Talk:Sutton railway station (London)

message: --SilasW (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No longer necessary. Robin S 04:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

message: National Rail refer to this station as Sutton (Surrey), should we alter the article name to match? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Until the creation of Greater London by the London Government Act 1963, Sutton was part of Surrey, but it is now only in Surrey for postal purposes. The town and station are in the London Borough of Sutton so the title is correct.  --DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the name of this station as per National Rail is Sutton (Surrey). If this one is correct then Ashford (Surrey) railway station needs to be altered to match. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But Ashford is in Surrey (Borough of Spelthorne), so there is nothing wrong with that name either. --DavidCane (talk) 12:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMV, the signage just says "Sutton" so maybe the short title would be more appropriate (retaining disambig. link to "Sutton railway station, Rep. of Ireland")? best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I think this article title and disambiguation page should be changed back to 'Sutton railway station (London)' otherwise it looks like it's saying that Sutton is in Surrey, which is not the case. It could be mentioned in the article that National Rail refers to the station as Sutton, Surrey. See the Reedham railway station (London) article for comparison.79.70.53.215 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the name of a WP article must match its subject. I've rewritten the article to explain to anyone who frets that Sutton is now not in Surrey how that came about--SilasW (talk) 11:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article title is still wrong - it should be 'Sutton railway station (London)' and then in the article we should have an explanation about what it is called by National Rail. 'Sutton railway station (London)' could not be confused with any of the other Suttons. As the article stands it does look like it's saying Sutton is in Surrey, as the title is what most people will go by. The article is about the station, not what National Rail chooses to call the station amongst themselevs. As the signage says just 'Sutton', and Sutton is in London, then 'Sutton railway station (London)' would seem to me to be the most logical. How does one change the title of an article on wikipedia, or can only administrators do that? If so how do I alert them that I think the title should be changed?79.66.182.138 (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To change the title of an article use the move option. Remember to move the talk page as well. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Please see Wikipedia:Naming convention which says: 
"Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject" 
and so if the railway authorities call it 'Sutton Surrey' that is the object's name and should be the name of the article. The article says quite clearly that the station site was in Surrey but is not now because Surrey has been altered. The matter of other Suttons is irrelevant to this point.--SilasW (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sutton (Surrey) 

message: A no-home page, no user-talk page, editor has moved this article with a long try at justification in the edit summary. That is not the place for such mini-essays, moreover the name of the subject, whatever is chosen, should be the same as the article name, which it is not. Such disregard for WP conventions tends to lower the immediate evaluation of the edit/change/move.--SilasW (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wont this break all of the links using the stnlnk template? Scillystuff (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it won't. – iridescent 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have explained. Sutton (London) railway station can be written as Some route boxes (such as s-rail) also use this device. If there is a widespread move of the railway station disambibuator to the end of railway station then this and similar templates will not be found by the "move fairy" and will only ever point at the residual redirect, until converted back to simple wikilinks. I don't have any strong opinions on this, just thought I would point it out. NB, I'm only here as one of the changes was Reedham railway station (Norfolk), which I had an interest in. Scillystuff (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving automatically creates a redirect, so it shouldn't be an issue. For reasons already mentioned, disambiguators in article titles – either brackets or commas (e.g. Reedham, Norfolk) – should always be at the very end of the title. – iridescent 11:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it created a few double redirects which were issues, but a bot is cleaning them up. I'll fix the redirects around Reedham railway station (Norfolk), if a bot hasn't already beaten me to it. Thanks for the explanation. Scillystuff (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Call it what you fancy, I could not trudge through the reams above. But does reading the namesboards count as WP's forbidden original research? WP has strict rules for sources, grossly ignored. Do the movers wish to attack Hanwell railway station where the boards on the platforms say "Hanwell and Elthorne"?--SilasW (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP article name 

message: Moved to Sutton railway station (London), and you can argue amongst yourselves as to whether it's in London or Surrey. The Wikipedia convention is to have the disambiguator in brackets at the end of the article, and that's for a reason; if it's in the middle of the title, the Pipe trick breaks whenever someone tries to link to it. – iridescent 22:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wont this break all of the links using the stnlnk template? Scillystuff (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No it won't. – iridescent 11:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I should have explained. Sutton (London) railway station can be written as Some route boxes (such as s-rail) also use this device. If there is a widespread move of the railway station disambibuator to the end of railway station then this and similar templates will not be found by the "move fairy" and will only ever point at the residual redirect, until converted back to simple wikilinks. I don't have any strong opinions on this, just thought I would point it out. NB, I'm only here as one of the changes was Reedham railway station (Norfolk), which I had an interest in. Scillystuff (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving automatically creates a redirect, so it shouldn't be an issue. For reasons already mentioned, disambiguators in article titles – either brackets or commas (e.g. Reedham, Norfolk) – should always be at the very end of the title. – iridescent 11:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it created a few double redirects which were issues, but a bot is cleaning them up. I'll fix the redirects around Reedham railway station (Norfolk), if a bot hasn't already beaten me to it. Thanks for the explanation. Scillystuff (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Call it what you fancy, I could not trudge through the reams above. But does reading the namesboards count as WP's forbidden original research? WP has strict rules for sources, grossly ignored. Do the movers wish to attack Hanwell railway station where the boards on the platforms say "Hanwell and Elthorne"?--SilasW (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough is enough

message: There are 2 unclarified references in the article to MDR - which I assume to mean Metropolitan District Railway.
Well, I would put it right myself, but I would be basing that on reading the context, so I think it would be better for someone more knowledgeable to fix this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.68.244 (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes,  --Redrose64 (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to MDR