Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (UK stations)

message: Comments concerning naming convention on British stations.
Oppose, and comment. Any station, regardless of which mode of transport it serve should be named X Station, with capitalised s. This is because the articles do not simply refer to the station of X town/city but the the building called X Station. Adding which network or mode of transport that particular location is fairly confusing and not need as the mode of transport each location serves is described in the article itself. this goes in the same direction to my opposition to adding railway to all station articles. —Captain scarlet 15:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I meant the actual body of the name - I have no view on the "station" vs "railway station" ending - that's pretty much irrelevant.  The main substance is the actual name, which should be that displayed on station platforms.  This means that London termini will almost all begin with "London blah station" rather than "blah station (London)".  DJR (Talk) 21:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more clear about the official name bit, I meant that the article name should be "Official name + railway station" or "Official name + DLR station" etc. Thryduulf@
Support the proposed convention (particularly with Thryduulf's clarification).  Warofdreams talk 01:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment - the main thing for me is to see some consitent policy, preferably one which doesn't require a huge number of articles to be moved.  If Thryduulf's proposal is approved, I'm happy to remove the joint rail-tram stations from the proposed move. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment, ok fair dooes, my opinion is that i do not believe in consistency, it makes articles bland and uninsteresting and if possible the style of any article's main contributor should reflect on the article, mùaking it interesting. If you are ok with removing joint stations from the move, i might just be able to change my vote to approve. It probably will be approved anyway, but, not wishing to congratulate myself, i am the main contributor to a fair amuntof station articles and I'd to be able to follow the convention rather than ignoring it, i hope you can appreciate that. Captain scarlet 23:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: **Comment, for clarity all that I am proposing here is standardisation of the article names, not the article content. Imho the perfect article has a consistent title, the rail line info box, the station template(s) and a large amount of good, individual text in the body about the station - e.g. its history, notable things that have happened there, why it is special, etc. I wouldn't mind rolling out the london-stations infobox nationally, to supplement the article body text, but that is a completely separate discussion. Thryduulf 00:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment The title of an article is just as much the article as its content, it changes the way articles are called and searched/(re)directed. This new convention might not literally change what article contain but will change what they are. That is why I am currently strongly opposing any kind of standardisation of any kind. I am open to important changes, as offered by Warofdreams. —Captain scarlet 00:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. The purpose of naming conventions and standardised naming is so that articles can be predictably linked to. This is particuarly useful for the rail-line boxes. I strongly disagree with "article is as much part of the article as the content is" - I cannot improve on Shakespeare's phrasing "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Thryduulf 00:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I knew you'd say something like that... That is why there are categories, all stations are in a way or another present in categories (that's if Warofdreams doesn't stop removing them)(that's several categories per article entry). That's why categories are so brilliant. I stand by my previous comment. Captain scarlet 07:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment I have not only mentionned railway literature but British Rail naming convention. This is an encyclopedia and it must use things names for people to know what we're on about. I'm not going to call a cat a dog or a dog a cat just to please you because you and your mates call it the other way round. If your impose your naming I will not adopt it, end of. I will call stations articles using their proper name, not your imaginary names.  I believe it is time to end this since it's been something like two weeks since this charade is perpetrated where there is no debate and this scheme will be put forward anyway. I do sincerily hope that i will have no further dealings with you two gentlemen and I will not accept any movings if our paths were to meet. Regards, Captain scarlet 11:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: Some of these have articles, they are named in the format platform sign + "tram stop". There seems to have been a session renaming to achieve this set up, but seems relevant to this discussion. Ian3055 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to fit the pattern, so I'll add it as there is presumably consensus that there are at least some that deserve articles. Thryduulf 21:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the NET stops in Nottingham have articles, named in this format. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midland Metro stops 

message: I've noticed a few stations which have been moved to the 'railway station' format which are not solely railway staions. For example:
*Manchester Piccadilly railway station and Manchester Victoria railway station are also Manchester Metrolink stations. 
*Birmingham Snow Hill station is also a Midland Metro station.
*There are several stations in south London which are also Croydon Tramlink stations.
Surely calling these 'railway stations' in the title is incorrect and misleading? G-Man * 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely, I have started emigrating all stations in the city of Sheffield (project I am contributing to). All 'railway station' are moving to 'Station' since the British Rail standard as well as any map on book references stations as Nameplace Station. Concerning tram stops I am happy to name them like so Nameplace Stop, since they are not halts, nor stations. For places where the tram stop is an interchange then if interchange is used in literature, I'll use Interchange. Captain scarlet 21:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The existing convention for stations with Croydon Tramlink is X station, which this convention proposes to make national. I know Nottingham station and East Croydon station are the article names in use (I've not done any editing regarding any other tram systems in the UK so I don't know off the top of my head what they're named). Thryduulf 22:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually some stations appear to have been moved on 16 March, apparently per WP:RM which I was not aware of, so some may have been moved wrongly (Nottingham was, which I've reverted). Thryduulf 23:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Also tram stations...

message: Now surely a sensible system would be this: 
* Add 'railway' to train station articles where the station is just named after the place it serves such as Rugby railway station or Coventry railway station. In cases like this it would remove any possible confusion with bus stations etc.
* In cases where the station has a unique name such as Birmingham New Street, Manchester Piccadilly, Bristol Temple Meads etc. There should be no need to add 'railway' to the title as there is little chance of it being confused with a bus station etc, and there is no need for such disambiguation. And 'railway' does not appear in the official title, and hence is a wikipedia neologism. 
*In cases where a station is not solely a railway station but is also a tram/underground etc station, 'railway' should not be used in the title.
Any thoughts G-Man * 21:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very puzzled by this idea of removing -station or -railway station endings from things. Surely the article title should make it absolutely clear, especially to someone with no knowledge of the subject, what the article is about. Birmingham New Street sounds like it means an article about a street. Oh no, thats New Street, Birmingham. What clear article naming! Mrsteviec 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to repeat myself, ditch the railway. You don't see it in (many) books, you don't speak of them that way, the convention is purely arbitrary. The less railway we use in the titles, the easier it will make editing articles without the need to Inbred Town Station, very tiresome, ditch the railway and owned. Captain scarlet 17:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rail companies don't call them railway stations because they are all railway stations that they are refering to, there is no need to differentiate. Rugby station could be Rugby railway station or Ruby bus station so you need railway in the title so people can find it and link to it.If i'm writing an article on Rugby, and I refer to rugby station glass roof, to which station am I refering? If I write Rugby railway station everybody knows to what I am refering, but if you've writen the Rugby railway station article as just Rugby station and I link Rugby railway station it won't work. 
Same with the capitals If I write Rugby railway station and your article is called Rugby Station it won't link. 
The Sheffield Midland station page is wrong because if it's just called Sheffield station now, the page should be called Sheffield station or Sheffield railway station. On the Sheffield  page, the only reason you're getting away with calling it Sheffield station is because has a category for rail.(although it gets called both Sheffield station and sheffield midland on the sheffield article).  Many towns are still stubs with no category, or simply have a transport category, also you've got a piped link on there reinforcing the point that the page name is wrong. 
All the above is fine if you're not going to be consistent and you're going to make it so that theres piped links and redirects everywhere. If you want simple links straight to a page then you need to use the proper full decriptive name, which in most cases is x railway station. 
Also of note is that the descriptions on the sheffield article for bus stations are Bus station, surely that should be Sheffield station if we're going to be consistent. 
Meadowhall again not descriptive at all, meadowhall is generally considered to mean the Shopping centre at Sheffield, so it should be called Meadow hall interchange, which is its proper descriptive name.
Bristol temple meads is a unique name so i'm not sure if this needs to be clarified what it is. to be consistent though I suppose it does. 
88.104.243.147 19:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More debate

message: There is often the need, when discussing a particular line, to mention a railway station which is now closed. There does not appear to be any convention for that at all. As an example: a rail accident which took place at Welshampton railway station in 1897; no station now exists on that line; or describing the route near Hastings railway station: the second stop out westwards was St Leonards West Marina railway station, now closed.
: and I do hope that we can keep calling them railway stations, unlike G-Man in his comment immediately above!!! Peter Shearan 16:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely unneeded as stated many times, it's purely artificial and arbitrary. Leicester Midland Station, not Leicester Midland railway station. Captain scarlet 17:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - but London Victoria Station - is that the rail or the coach station? Peter Shearan 05:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a station, where you go and have a pint ... Captain scarlet 05:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'll be on your own their then because there is no such place as Leicester midland station or Leicester midland railway station, or even Leicester Midland Station.88.104.243.147 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The most straightforward method for the page covering the actual station itself would be to follow the convention (if any) for the station name, followed by the date of closure in brackets, with 2 closure dates for passengers and freight where appropriate.  Links from existing stations should be listed in the preamble rather than in the table under the external links section.Romfordian 17:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed stations

message: Just wondering. Should i call this a subway station, railway station or leave the article as is? From information gathered, it was part of the original Glasgow Subway. However, it closed during modernisation and before the metro system actually got its current name. Simply south 19:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any other websites which mention it? If there are then if these generally treat it as a subway station name it as such, if they treat it as a mainline station then name it accordingly. Alternatively, if when it was last open the system it served would be more recognisable as a mainline railway than a subway/metro system then name it as a mainline railway sation and vice versa. I don't know Glasgow at all though so I can't say which will be the case. Thryduulf 20:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Random google search. At a quick glance, 14 sites use subway station, 48 use underground, none use railway and 314 just use the shortened station. Simply south 20:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merkland Street station 

message: An exception to the lowercased "station" is when "Station" is part of the station's formal name. Though there are relatively few of these in the UK, one that is currently in dispute is Newcastle Central Station. While it can be shortened to "Newcastle station" this is not the formal name of the station, which is also of great architectural and cultural importance ("Newcastle" can, of course, be used in lists of destinations or the like). It is not called "Newcastle Central" or "Central" and is shortened only to "Central Station", which is also the name of the Metro station.
If we look at Central Station, most of these capitalise Station when it is part of the common name, but lowercase it when it is not ("Hackney Central"). However, outside of Wikipedia, where some users are already rigidly enforcing this proposed guideline, you will not find "Newcastle Central station" in common use, just "Newcastle Central Station". ProhibitOnions (T) 13:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Define "formal name".  Chris cheese whine 15:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When they have it in two foot letters across the side of the building? AlistairMcMillan 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ... which still leaves "formal name" undefined.  Chris cheese whine 22:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well as we are talking about Central Station in Glasgow, Donald Matheson, who became the Chief Engineer of the Caledonian Railway company and who designed the station extension, calls it 'Glasgow Central Station. The relevant reference comes from the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers. The paper was given on 10 November 1908, it is entitled Glasgow Central Station Extension.Pyrotec 19:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Odd, I thought we were talking about Central Station in Newcastle (see the problem here?).  In this context, "station" is patently a common noun (i.e. the place is a station, it is not named Station).  Chris cheese whine 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  My my, so Chriscf has done the same controversial changes, without consultation, to both the Newcastle and Glasgow stations; and then has the brass neck to berate others for reversing his change without consultation.Pyrotec 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above user evidently has a problem with the name "Newcastle Central Station". We have been discussing this at Talk:Newcastle station, where I have supplied a long list of links (such as to local government websites, the railway companies serving the station, the hotel in the station, the name of the Metro station, a report prepared by HM Government, etc. ) showing that the station in question is called "Newcastle Central Station", while User:Dbam linked to a picture  of the listed-building plaque showing the same. He replied to this by claiming that all of the above "make a mistake by capitalising a common noun" but providing no substantive reasoning for his belief. The flaw in his reasoning is made clear in his comment above: In some cases, a building is named "Station" -- Glasgow and Newcastle being two examples. ProhibitOnions (T) 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Station" as part of formal name

message: I have started this section to list related discussions that may be of relevance. --A bit iffy 07:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related discussions

message: The first version of this convention was proposed here in 2002.  Relevant archived talk is here.  Much of it dates back to even before I started editing, and relevant consensus was confirmed as early as October 2004, and may be even older.  Chris cheese whine 18:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A highly relevant move discussion is here.  There's those words "de facto convention" again.  Chris cheese whine 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Chriscf has just inadvertent illustrated the very problem that is being caused by these very heavy handed moves. For what reason should editors having a interest in Glasgow Central or Glasgow Queen Street (railway) stations, to name only two, read the talk page of Birmingham New Street (railway station) to find out that a group of articles are being proposed for a name change? Pyrotec 10:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Closer inspection shows just how undemocratic this decision by a small group of editors was. The 2002 and 2004 decisions refer only to a naming convention for London. The Birmingham New Street talk page was then used to announce naming changes for railway stations in Scotland, Wales and the North of England. After a limited number of favorable responses, this group of editors made a decision for the whole of the UK; however a considerable number of unfavorable responses then started to appear in the Birmingham New Street talkpage, which these editors choose to ignore. Certain editors then decide to rename all station articles and trample over all opposition, stating de facto standard; selectively ignoring Wiki Policy (such as WP:EQ) when it suits them, but selectively using WP's to beat down any opposition. Pyrotec 10:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation#Issues/exceptions. --NE2 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is fascinating.  When people have been arguing about a consistent naming policy for stations, across various pages, continuously for at least three years with managing to find a solution, is there not a simple message there?  AlistairMcMillan 01:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we need to try harder.  Ignoring the issue and hoping it will go away, rather than discussing it for however long it takes to reach consensus, is not going to resolve the issue.  Unless a standard convention is implemented, there will be no consistency and lots of edit wars, and possibly fragmented repeats of discussions like this on station talk pages all over the place.  Much better to have a central discussion here and thrash out the issues. Waggers 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it original research to see what's on the signs and use it?

message: Why is there such controversy over whether e.g. the S in station is capitalised in a name? Simply south 11:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that there is a controversy over the s in station. My proposal is to remove railway from the name; which is why I proposed the use of the naming convention X Station with a capital S, except where a small s is needed, in which case a redirect page was to used from X station to X Station. There appears to be a preference to use the small s, i.e. X station, to avoid wholesale renaming of articles, and to use more re-directs. The controversy appears to be whether railway is need or not. Pyrotec 08:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then to bring up some evidence, look at lets shorten it to BNS. Simply south 11:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me, but I still prefer the 1854-1967 Birmingham New Street station to the concrete monstrosity that replaced it. Pyrotec 11:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know why there's such a controversy but there is one.  Basic English dictates that if something is part of a name or title, as "station" is in this case, it should be capitalised.  I've never seen a station sign in the UK with a small "s" for station when referring to the name.  We don't use lower case letters for other similar entities (X Country Park, X Stadium, X Bridge etc.) and no reason has been given for using a lower case "s" in this case, other than the sheer number of articles that would require correcting (a very poor excuse, in my opinion). Waggers 12:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my personal opinion, the word "railway" should be removed from all titles, and the "S" in station capitalised at the same time. Sgreen93 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted , this debate (which was last commented on over three years ago) is effectively closed with general acceptance of the conventions described on the project page. Should you (or others) feel that the convention should be changed, I think that a new thread should be started. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation 

message: It appears that this has been discussed to death and no consensus is likely to be reached.  I suggest considering this proposal rejected and should be marked ASAP. --Kevin Murray 10:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the proposal as it currently stands, but I believe it's important that there is a naming convention (just not this one).  So my preference is to allow the discussion to continue, modifying the proposal itself as required, rather than rejecting it at this stage. Waggers 12:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we need more than WP:NAME and its existing subpages, especially WP:COMMONNAME? If so, what? That line of analysis should lead to a good convention. If nobody updates it in a reasonable time, this one should be rejected; someone with a new proposal can always remove the tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejected

message: Two points here.  Firstly, I don't think a qualifier is needed unless it's to disambiguate.  (So it should be "Caledonian Road Station" not "Caledonian Road Tube Station" but if there are to be separate articles on Waterloo, they should be "Waterloo Station" and "Waterloo Underground Station").  The second point is, as I've just alluded to, the official name for the Tube network is the London Underground.  I know some people may be confused by references to an above-ground station as an Underground station, the name should be "Underground" not "Tube".  The confusion only arises if people don't know the difference between "Underground" (which is a name) and "underground" (which is a word meaning below the ground). Waggers 12:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal is not a convention for London articles these have already been covered and agreed at Wikipedia:WikiProject London/Naming conventions. Keith D 12:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so that needs to be made clear in this proposal, which at present does include a convention for  the naming of these articles.-- Waggers 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tube 

message: Although it may not be publicised much, Glasgow does in fact have an "Underground." The low level platforms at Queen Street and Central stations are traditionally called "the Underground" by many Glaswegians. This was the reason for renaming the Subway the Subway (from "Underground")- to distinguish it from the underground.
Therefore, the convention must include "Glasgow Central Underground Station" & "Queen Street Underground Station" to be totally correct. Dewarw 20:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those two stations (Queen Street and Central) (as i understand Glasgow) are somewhat the exception, similar say to the underground stations on mersyrail or even city Thameslink (in London) - ie they are mainline stations thus "x railway station" still applies. A quick look shows that (for now anyway) the sections within the broader station articles are so small, that there is no need to create a seperate page (such as Waterloo is split 3/4 separate stations - international & mainline, east and tube).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickle UK (talk • contribs) 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glasgow has an the Underground as well as the Subway 

message: We really need to provide for a difference between a mainline railway station and Overground (and perhaps Crossrail and Thameslink) stations. What exactly is the difference between a metro station and a mainline station? Operating company, frequency, monopoly, reach of services? The Overground is London only, has high frequency in most areas (12tph in core section of the ELL), is operated by a soul company under TfL, like the rest of the underground and DLR which have their own conventions. Given its unique station I do think Overground stations should have a distinct convention like the tube, DLR and tramlink. x overground station. Crossrail should likewise have x crossrail station as, like the overground, it would have a distinct segregated service with dedicated stations, limited geographic scope and a high train frequency (more than the DLR I'd note) with much of it underground (it is essentially a long tube line with a wider loading gauge). Thameslink I admit would be going too far as multiple companies use those stations and the frequency on most of the line is below metro frequency but surely we can stop labelling TfL stations the same as network rail stations.- J.Logan`t: 14:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think WP:LONDONNAMES have first call; what they decide has usually been taken as precedent here. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been referred from project London to here (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject London#Station naming conventions).- J.Logan`t: 15:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, they're passing the buck hey? Alright then, let's get started: personally, I don't want to see further distinction created. The London Overground "system" is really a marketing branding for several existing National Rail services. Indeed, you'll find the East London line in the National rail timetable (Table 178 is the relevant one), which doesn't list London Underground times, so my choice is xxx railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So what is your distinction between metro and rail?- J.Logan`t: 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not National Rail claim it as their own; which can usually be determined by whether they produce a downloadable timetable. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What Redrose said. London Overground is just a new brandname for the old Silverlink franchise, and should be treated as we treat every other mainline operator. – iridescent 17:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't define a rail system by an organisation's time table. The EEL was underground, it was extended and suddenly it is now NR. You really saying this change is down to it appearing on NR's timetable? Indeed, even as Silverlink it had a unique status from NR as being adopted by TfL on the map along with W&C before it was transferred. Now it is owned by the same company as LU and DLR, it operates at a higher frequency and it is entirely within London as a semi-orbial metro service. It is only like NR in track size, though Metropolitan is also quite large and Crossrail will essentially be a tubeline at NR gauge also even though having a dedicated line under TfL with a long central tunnel and numerous central london underground stations. Crossrail is clearly a high capacity tube and Overground likewise.- J.Logan`t: 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

text: And I likewise point out that TfL have claimed it, and own it, as their own (as per Oyster map, "TfL lines" vs the national rail lines listed). So if it Is TfL, then it cannot be NR.- J.Logan`t: 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: London Overground is not "owned by the same company as LU and DLR", and I've no idea where you've got that idea. It's owned by Network Rail in exactly the same way as every other mainline other than HS1, and operated by a consortium of Deutsche Bahn and MTR of Hong Kong. Saying it deserves some kind of special treatment because the ELL used to be owned by London Underground is like saying Windsor and Southend should be treated as tube stations because the District Line used to run there. – iridescent 23:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

text: As with Merseyrail I dont think theirs a distinction, its seperate from the national network but a national rail service not a light rail. In Greater Manchester the local rail services appear on local transport maps, doesnt mean their claiming it as a seperate from the national rail network. Likewise national rail lines appear on the Oyster Map http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/oyster-rail-services-map.pdf , does it mean Tfl is claiming those as not part of national rail too? Ownership isnt an issue, form and function are, are HS1 stations not stations because their not owned by Network Rail? WatcherZero (talk) 23:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry not owned, but it isn't actually an NR franchise anymore. Responsibility for franchising it out was given to TfL. Even so, Crossrail is owned totally by TfL since they bought out DfT's stake. If you don't draw a technical distinction and instead draw the line as NR or not, then future Crossrail stations should not have the railway distinction at least? Can we not just get rid of the "railway" distinction? There is no other "Westminster station" for example than those with tracks.- J.Logan`t: 09:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overground 

message: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Station disambiguation (June 2014). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station disambiguation (June 2014) 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pomona (Manchester) Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015.  Thanks. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 23:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at Talk:Pomona Metrolink station#Requested move 11 December 2015

message: A proposal has been made to rename all Manchester Metrolink stations from the 'X Metrolink station' format to the 'X tram stop' format. A discussion is being held at Talk:Manchester Metrolink#Metrolink station renaming proposal.. G-13114 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: proposal agreed, and stops renamed. TomHennell (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would it be possible to merge the Metrolink line and templates in the table with the Trams line as they now use more or less identical naming conventions? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metrolink stop renaming proposal 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket#Requested move 14 November 2016.  <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Railway stations in Newmarket#Requested move 14 November 2016]]

message: I've started a discussion on UK 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 17:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK station disambiguation RM 

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

message: The RfC on disambiguation for British railway stations has closed with the consensus that British railway stations requiring additional disambiguation should generally follow the "Xxx railway station (Location)" format. I'll update this guideline to incorporate more specific disambiguation guidelines that follow this consensus. Hopefully this will help us to finally bring consistency to the way UK stations are disambiguated.--Cúchullain t/c 15:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  New disambiguation wording 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merging naming conventions for stations 

message: There's an RfC on adopting the proposed guideline for transport stations, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations), here. Interested editors are asked to weigh in.--Cúchullain t/c 13:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Irish stations)]] 

message: When disambiguation by railway is required, should the railway's initials be used or should the name be spelt out in full? e.g. Newton railway station (SER) or Newton railway station (South Eastern Railway)? AlgaeGraphix (talk) 22:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we normally use the initials. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation clarification 

message: Should the paragraph beginning  be removed? 18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Therefore, support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text: Support for the reasons given by the proposer.  - I believe so; the reference is to the 2017 RfC which added the disambiguation paragraph to the guideline. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I would be amenable to removing the parenthetical disambiguation however, since we don't generally use parenthetical disambigs unless necessary. Instead, I suggest just adding a comma delineated location, with the caveat that it would not be necessary if the location were apparent from the name. For example, "Timbuktu railway station", is obviously in Timbuktu; but "Smith railway station" could be anywhere, and thus "Smith railway station, Timbuktu" would be more appropriate. I do prefer flat out saying "railway station" at some point, again unless it is apparent: "Springfield Grand Central Terminal" is fairly apparently a railway venue. But merely saying "Early station" could be confusing, since there is in fact a city in the US named "Early station", could be confused for other cities with station in their name. It could conceivably be a bus station or a radio station too. So tldr: some level of consistency is good and useful, but it doesn't have to be an iron rule; I oppose simply repealing the RfC without coming up with an alternative. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The alternative already exists: it is WP:DISAMBIG, and the remaining part of the guideline (which would be retained: the para. beginning . This RfC is an attempt to avoid instruction creep (legislating for every potential case when that is not required) and standardise by pointing people directly to the existing guidelines and policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text: WP:NCDAB suggests parentheses rather than commas, except for placenames.  So: Early Station, Indiana, but Early station (Indiana) if such a railroad facility existed. Certes (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  The use of parentheses is more widespread than just "special cases". Just looking at the stations beginning with "A" served by CrossCountry, there are eight: Acton Bridge (Cheshire), Ashford (Surrey), Adlington (Cheshire), Althorne (Essex), Appledore (Kent), Adlington (Lancashire), Alresford (Essex), Ascot (Berks) and Ashurst (Kent). All of these have been moved in the last few years on the justification of the paragraph in the guideline which this RfC is seeking to remove. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  And where these moved solely on the justification of the paragraph? Some of these seem obviously ambiguous (Adlington); while others less so (Acton Bridge, Ascot...). Obviously, there's probably a few cases where the COMMONNAME differs from the official name, especially if it is unambiguous. If however, in ambiguous cases, the guidelines are followed just because they are guidelines and no effort is made to look at the reminder of the article title policy, then this is an obvious case of misuse of rules. Consistency is a (one amongst many) means to an end (having articles at a clear title for our readers) and not an end in itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does this or any other guideline (beyond the basic disambiguation one) address cases which are ambiguous outside of the selected regions (i.e. Ascot railway station - should it be Ascot railway station (Australia), and then Ascot railway station (England) [or (United Kingdom)] - as it stands, these two are inconsistent...? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - if the official name includes a disambiguator, who are we to remove or change it based on the perception that either no disambiguator is needed or that a different one is required at the end of the article title? Ascot (Berks) is the official name (see here), so it should not have been moved. Others go the same way - Appledore (Kent) official name, yet moved in 2018 on the basis of the guideline. It's the same case with practically all the others except Acton Bridge. 100% consistency is not going to be achieved internationally as countries may have different approaches - see Georgetown railway station (Scotland) and Georgetown GO Station. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

text: There is also an edge case where the only UK alternative is in Northern Ireland.  Wikipedia treats such cases like Fairfield, e.g. Bangor railway station (Wales) vs Bangor railway station (Northern Ireland).  Despite covering only Great Britain, Network Rail etc. use "Bangor (Gwynedd)".  Certes (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  An RfC to repeal the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains/Archive:_2017#RfC:_UK_railway_station_disambiguation|October–December 2017 RfC]] 

message: *Per my previous commment, , at Talk:High Street (Glasgow) railway station:
*#There is an argument to be made that precision, unambiguity, and recognisability (by using the official name, which is what most people will know the station as, since this is how it appears in the vast majority of documents and sources: timetables, ...) are more persuasive (especially when all together) than mere internal consistency, especially in light of no. 2:
*#It is not Wikipedia's job to create consistency ex nihilo where none exists (i.e. Wikipedia usually follows the usage of sources, and if different criteria lead to different results, we should favour the title which is consistent with sources); and this leads to the reason why the guideline as written needs to be repealed:
*#Guidelines should not lead to results with are inconsistent with the article title policy and should follow practice, not impose it, especially if this conflicts with policy
:Therefore, support as proposer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  18:15, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Support for the reasons given by the proposer.  - I believe so; the reference is to the 2017 RfC which added the disambiguation paragraph to the guideline. Lamberhurst (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I would be amenable to removing the parenthetical disambiguation however, since we don't generally use parenthetical disambigs unless necessary. Instead, I suggest just adding a comma delineated location, with the caveat that it would not be necessary if the location were apparent from the name. For example, "Timbuktu railway station", is obviously in Timbuktu; but "Smith railway station" could be anywhere, and thus "Smith railway station, Timbuktu" would be more appropriate. I do prefer flat out saying "railway station" at some point, again unless it is apparent: "Springfield Grand Central Terminal" is fairly apparently a railway venue. But merely saying "Early station" could be confusing, since there is in fact a city in the US named "Early station", could be confused for other cities with station in their name. It could conceivably be a bus station or a radio station too. So tldr: some level of consistency is good and useful, but it doesn't have to be an iron rule; I oppose simply repealing the RfC without coming up with an alternative. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  The alternative already exists: it is WP:DISAMBIG, and the remaining part of the guideline (which would be retained: the para. beginning . This RfC is an attempt to avoid instruction creep (legislating for every potential case when that is not required) and standardise by pointing people directly to the existing guidelines and policies. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  20:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text: WP:NCDAB suggests parentheses rather than commas, except for placenames.  So: Early Station, Indiana, but Early station (Indiana) if such a railroad facility existed. Certes (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

text:  The use of parentheses is more widespread than just "special cases". Just looking at the stations beginning with "A" served by CrossCountry, there are eight: Acton Bridge (Cheshire), Ashford (Surrey), Adlington (Cheshire), Althorne (Essex), Appledore (Kent), Adlington (Lancashire), Alresford (Essex), Ascot (Berks) and Ashurst (Kent). All of these have been moved in the last few years on the justification of the paragraph in the guideline which this RfC is seeking to remove. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  And where these moved solely on the justification of the paragraph? Some of these seem obviously ambiguous (Adlington); while others less so (Acton Bridge, Ascot...). Obviously, there's probably a few cases where the COMMONNAME differs from the official name, especially if it is unambiguous. If however, in ambiguous cases, the guidelines are followed just because they are guidelines and no effort is made to look at the reminder of the article title policy, then this is an obvious case of misuse of rules. Consistency is a (one amongst many) means to an end (having articles at a clear title for our readers) and not an end in itself. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  15:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor does this or any other guideline (beyond the basic disambiguation one) address cases which are ambiguous outside of the selected regions (i.e. Ascot railway station - should it be Ascot railway station (Australia), and then Ascot railway station (England) [or (United Kingdom)] - as it stands, these two are inconsistent...? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  16:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  - if the official name includes a disambiguator, who are we to remove or change it based on the perception that either no disambiguator is needed or that a different one is required at the end of the article title? Ascot (Berks) is the official name (see here), so it should not have been moved. Others go the same way - Appledore (Kent) official name, yet moved in 2018 on the basis of the guideline. It's the same case with practically all the others except Acton Bridge. 100% consistency is not going to be achieved internationally as countries may have different approaches - see Georgetown railway station (Scotland) and Georgetown GO Station. Lamberhurst (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

text: There is also an edge case where the only UK alternative is in Northern Ireland.  Wikipedia treats such cases like Fairfield, e.g. Bangor railway station (Wales) vs Bangor railway station (Northern Ireland).  Despite covering only Great Britain, Network Rail etc. use "Bangor (Gwynedd)".  Certes (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments