Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (stations)

message: The station naming convention seems like a good idea, but it wouldn't work for some systems where there are multiple stations with the identical name on different lines, 
which may or may not be at the same physical location. Strangest example (perhaps) is on the B train in New York City, where the train stops at two different stations, 
both signed "Seventh Avenue". One is on Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn and the other at 53rd Street in Manhattan. There are no fewer than four 125th Street stations, 
three on the IRT Division, one on the IND Division. You also have a number of transfer station where the station has a different name on different lines. Same deal 
in Chicago, which has very long avenues. Cecropia 01:59, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you like, it's free! :) Cecropia 06:33, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: some issues

message: I think I've got a compromise, after looking at the stations for Paris Metro.
# There should be a page for the station name only; example: "Metro Center".  If this is not possible, add a link to the page.
# There should be a page with the system name if necessary; example: "Rockville (Washington Metro)"
# Parentheses, no parentheses, don't care, let God sort them out.  The London group is just doing with "tube station", the Paris stations include "(Paris Metro)".  Since both already have a large number of pages, it would be cumbersome to rename now.  I suppose it's up to each city, if a city project exists, and if not, one may in the future, and renaming is always possible.  
So, this lets London stay the same, AND lets Paris stay the same, and still provides enough disambiguation.  The only difference is, there are some tube pages (like Rayners Lane tube station) that have no generic counterpart (i.e. there is no Rayners Lane).  This is easily repaired with a redirect, though.  The question is, in a case like this, which should redirect to which - the "with tube station" to the regular, or the regular to the "with tube station"?
Eithr way, congratulations me.  You've come back to right where we started.  If I owned this site, I'd nuke this page, but let it remain as a testament to my lack of vision. :P --Golbez 08:21, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Eureka

message: After some discussion in Talk:Wilmington (SEPTA station) and other places, I'd like to throw up the following set of guidelines for discussion and revision.  Bold indicates article name, italic indicates optional disambiguation.  Guidelines are listed in rough order of precedence.
===Major named stations===
Articles on major stations should simply be Name (city).  This includes all stations named Union Station.  Current examples include Pennsylvania Station (New York), South Station (Boston), Union Station (Chicago), 30th Street Station (Philadelphia), Pennsylvania Station (Newark).
===Local rapid transit stations===
Articles on metro, subway, and other rapid transit stations should be naed according to the guidelines established by the relevant competent (city) WikiProject or talk page consensus.  
==="Station" or "Terminal" in the name===
"Station" should only be capitalized if it is part of the station's proper name.  Stations with "Terminal" as part of their name can omit "station" if it is called for in a guideline.
===Currently operating stations===
Articles on stations should be of the form Name, State station.  Disambiguation should be enough to distinguish it from other currently operating stations; disambig from defunct stations is unneccessary.  Examples include Back Bay Station, Route 128 Station, Wilmington station (no active collisions), Trenton Rail Station, Ardmore, Oklahoma station (resolves collision with Ardmore, Pennsylvania station), Newark, Delaware station (disambig from Newark Penn Station et. al.).
===Defunct stations===
Articles on defunct stations should be of the form Name, State station (system), where system is the most prominent owner or tenant; abbreviations/AAR reporting marks are usually appropriate, e.g. PRR, SAL, UP, MBTA, NJT, Amtrak.  Examples include Manayunk station (PRR), Philadelphia Broad Street Station (apologies for my limited knowledge of defunct stations; this is the guideline I feel least strongly about and would encourage its revision.)
--CComMack 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: Articles on defunct stations should be of the form Name, State station (system), where system is the most prominent owner or tenant; abbreviations/AAR reporting marks are usually appropriate, e.g. PRR, SAL, UP, MBTA, NJT, Amtrak.  Examples include Manayunk station (PRR), Philadelphia Broad Street Station (apologies for my limited knowledge of defunct stations; this is the guideline I feel least strongly about and would encourage its revision.)
--CComMack 22:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Defunct stations

message: As there still appears to be discussion in various places about the aprorpiate name of UK railway stations outside London I've set up Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations). Thryduulf 13:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK stations

message: I'm fairly certain that there is already consensus to use lower case in railway station in titles, but am trying to convince User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough at User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#More (qv) of this. Could you have a look at this - maybe post at the discussion already existing, unless a controversial debate breaks out in which case probably best to continue here. Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes: upper case place name, lower case "railway station", except in those rare cases where the foreign-language name is also the common English-language term—Gare du Nord etc. "Railway station" and not "station" as the default, as we use "railway" to disambiguate railway from subway stations, and only use "station" on its own for multiple-use stations (London Paddington station etc). – iridescent 19:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll move the about 20 "X Railway Station"s back to "Gare de X" for now. When all stations have been moved to "X railway station" (or something else, if that's the consensus), I'll modify the templates like  to reflect the new naming system. Markussep Talk 14:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Succeeded, except for Aix-en-Provence TGV Railway Station. Markussep Talk 14:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The name of any given railway station is a proper noun. French stations contain the French-language Gare de, indicating like in many places that the 'station' or 'railway station' (depending on how one translates "gare") is part of the official name. Thus anglification of Gare de would make "railway station" part of the proper noun and thus capitalized. Arsenikk (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are saying - but "gare de" is not capitalised in French except at the beginning of a sentence.Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All railway stations in the UK, Belgium and Luxembourg use the form "X railway station", but I see some other forms as well. So shall we pick "X railway station"? And should this apply to the Paris RER stations as well? Markussep Talk 08:52, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since noone has reacted so far: I'm happy with the status quo ("Gare de X"), so we could also leave it as it is. Markussep Talk 09:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalisation of french railway stations 

message: Earlier on this page there was discussion that this convention of naming railway stations in France is supposed to be standard. However, a quick look at :Category:Île-de-France railway station stubs and I instantly see several other conventions being used, for example:
* Gare de/Gare d'... (ex. Gare de Drancy, Gare d'Angerville)
* ... railway station (ex. Gargan railway station, Les Coquetiers railway station)
* ... Station (ex. Issy Station, Saint-Denis Station)
* ... (Paris RER) (ex. Robinson (Paris RER), Villeneuve-Triage (Paris RER))
* ... (Paris Métro) (ex. Elysées La Défense (Paris Métro))
* ... (Paris Métro and RER) (ex. Nation (Paris Métro and RER))
* ... (SNCF) (ex. Marly-le-Roi (SNCF))
With all this inconsistency for no particular reason, should a naming convention be agreed upon as has happened to the UK, US, and other countries? ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Translate none; use the French name, which will almost always be "Gare ...". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree strongly. English speakers cannot even be expected to know how to pronounce "Gare", let alone what it means. No good reason to include foreign common nouns in an English-language article title. Rollo (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

text: After fixing the caps on many, my impression is that most French station articles are named pretty much like in the style of WP:USSTATION (this is, with "station", as opposed to UK's "railway station").  Some use untranslated "Gare d...", but most don't.  These titles are complicated by the long hyphenated names and the different French conventions about how to use hyphens and dashes; lots of hyphens, spaced hyphens, and spaced en dashes are used where the English conventions per MOS:DASH would be to use an unspaced en dash; in many cases it's hard to tell by looking what the intended structure is, but then clues in the article or in sources help distinguish hyphenated place names from dash-separated name parts.  I've fixed what I could in several categories, but it's still a bit of a random mess.  A good writeup of a FRSTATION convention might go a long way to helping us converge. Dicklyon (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your work.Rollo (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gare de... 

message: As this is a subject that crops up regularly, I propose that this guideline is reintroduced. As as start, here are my suggestions for the standard:
#In general, articles about stations should be named title railway station, where title is the name according to the official timetable of the railway concerned, e.g. Jordanhill railway station.
#Articles about tram stations, tube stations, etc. should be labelled with the type of transport, e.g. Green Park tube station.
#If a station name is used in more than one location, the articles should be disambiguated by adding the country/county/state etc in brackets, and a suitable disambiguation page created, e.g. Millbrook railway station.
#For joint tram/tube/metro stations, if a single article covers the full station, the word railway should be dropped from the title, e.g. Sheffield station. However, if the article has been split to cover each type of transport separately, each article should use the convention listed in 1 and 2 above.
#Stations is large towns and cities should have the name of the place as part of the article title, e.g. Birmingham Moor Street railway station rather than Moor Street railway station.
#Where there is already consensus to apply a different standard to an article name, the existing consensus should take precedent over this guideline, e.g. Birmingham New Street station (not railway station).
Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the example of multiple stations of the same name, the standard Wikipedia disambiguation style for geographic locations should be used, e.g. Millbrook railway station, Hampshire and Millbrook railway station, Bedfordshire.  I'm not convinced that there's a firm consensus that New Street should not have the "railway station" suffix, it seems to have developed as an accident of history.  Agree that major cities should be prepended where this is used on the running-in boards - naming conventions being guidelines rather than policy leaves us room to keep London Bridge station, since "London London Bridge" isn't used and looks silly anyway.  However, consensus should prevail only on well-justified exceptions - the idea is that an accepted guideline already enjoys consensus and should require significant disagreement to overturn.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two thoughts:  First, the name of a railway station should be the name of the railway station in common usage (perhaps historic, perhaps local current usage).  Slavishly following a naming convention that differs is inappropriate.  Second, the standard Wikipedia disambiguation style is not clearcut.  In United States articles about NRHP-listed buildings and many non-NRHP places, a "Name (City, State)" style has mostly been adopted.  That has advantage over the "Name, City" or "Name, City, State" style in that it clearly separates between what is the name of a place, and the wikipedia editors' addition of disambiguation.  Many names include commas and can include a city name, so comma-format often doesn't work well. doncram (talk) 16:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: There are other problems with changing current named to the historic names. Consider Tallahassee (Amtrak station), which is historically named Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad Company Freight Depot. It's not located in either Jacksonville or Pensacola, Florida, or Mobile, Alabama. Or Windsor, Connecticut (Amtrak station), which is historically named Hartford & New Haven Railroad Depot. It's neither in Hartford nor New Haven, Connecticut, and in all honesty "Hartford & New Haven Depot" ought to be a name for a dab page. Otherwise, we're really better off redirecting old names to newer ones. ----DanTD (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The silliest thing about the Tallahassee station is that the Jacksonville, Pensacola and Mobile Railroad is not the railroad that built it; that was a predecessor, the Pensacola and Georgia Railroad. However, I'm not sure that this is a good example of one that should be named Tallahassee (Amtrak station); it might be best to use a descriptive title like Seaboard Air Line Railroad freight depot (Tallahassee) or Tallahassee freight depot (Seaboard Air Line Railroad). Or just Tallahassee freight depot since the SAL was the only major railroad in the city. --NE2 23:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More problems with historic names

message: Having read through the above discussion, it seems to me that the central issue here is between two different naming conventions, the one for historical places, which favors using NRHP-listing names where available, and the one for stations, which disambiguates the often-generically named stations with the current system name, if applicable, unless it's served by multiple carriers. 
The issue with the former, to me anyway, are that, as noted above, the NRHP listings aren't always accurate to either the WP:COMMONNAME of the station or its current relevance, as they are, by definition, historical, which may mean their listings reflect former usage, but not current ones. 
Which brings me to my second thought, that current usage should take precedence, at least for currently active stations, as the fact that they are train stations is the more defining characteristic of them, compared to any listing they may have on something like the NRHP. While it is excellent for preservationists, both railfan and non-railfan, that so many stations are on the NRHP, the listings are simply secondary to their function as rail stations. Indeed, it's the importance of the places as rail stations that likely heavily contributed to their listing in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A thought

message: moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2013#Station names being messed up again
Once again, some editor, and sadly an administrator has decided to trash the naming convention for stations, this time it's the Jacksonville Transportation Authority's JTA Skyway stations. I've tried to explain the reason for the naming convention, but this person refuses to budge. And to make matters worse, the slasher of Sacramento RT and Max Light Rail stations has joined up. -------User:DanTD (talk)  18:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station names being messed up again 

message: moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains
I've had a quick check through the archives, and I've noticed that the subject of station naming has popped up numerous times. I was just wondering whether someone could explain why this WikiProject has been unable to decide on a standard for naming stations. The discrepancy that attracted my attention was the naming of Thai railway station articles (Ayutthaya Station, Yommarat Halt and Hua Lamphong Railway Station). I don't know whether to rename the two articles 'X Railway Station', to bring it line with the rest of Thai stations, to leave them as they are (because there is no standard convention) or to rename all the stations in the region 'X railway station' as is the standard with UK railway stations (which I have previously worked on). Either way, surely it's time that we agreed on a global standard? I can't see a reason why stations should have a different format depending on their country.
Here are another two instances that I noticed while going through the archives: #Penrose railway station, #Station names being messed up again. Jr8825 • Talk 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that is clear is that there has never really been a consensus applicable to the whole world.  A large part of the reason for this is that (a) the word "station" does not unambiguously refer in all forms of English to a station for rail traffic, and (b) the word "railway" has a different meaning in North America from its meaning in other parts of the English speaking world.  In relation to Thailand in particular, I would suggest that you be guided by how the stations are named in the Thai language.  For example, if stations are generally named the Thai equivalent of "Foo Railway Station" with the latter two words being part of the Thai equivalent of the station's proper name (assuming that there is such a thing in Thai as a proper name), then naming the articles in that form would seem to be appropriate. Otherwise, the most common formulation appears to be "Foo railway station".  While it is desirable that the naming format be uniform at least for a particular country, that is not essential, especially if there is no uniform system of naming the actual stations in that country. Bahnfrend (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response, I've gone ahead and renamed the articles to the format of 'X Railway Station' for consistency with how other Thai railway stations are currently named. I don't speak Thai myself, but I'll see if I can find out how the stations are referred to in Thai. If necessary, I can later move them appropriately. Jr8825 • Talk 14:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of a global standard, there has never been a consensus that one is desirable and there may even be consensus that one is not desirable. Each system should have a naming convention that is consistent and within a country they generally shouldn't be too divergent, but beyond that as there is no consistency in the real world there is no benefit to attempting to institute a global standard on Wikipedia. Redirects are a Good Thing though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Station naming (again) 

message: I've already brought up my reasons for keeping the qualifiers attached to the station names of Sacramento RT stations and MAX Light Rail stations. But now I stand by that naming convention even moreso since my recent experience with looking up Muni Metro stations in San Francisco. A recent check of WP:Trains Assessments included "Broad and Plymouth," which I thought was some old railroad in England until I realized it was a MUNI Metro stop. So naturally, I propose adding the name XXXX (MUNI Metro station) to many of these. For those that are owned by other transit agencies (BART, Caltrain, etc.), I'm open for suggestions, although I'm leaning towards using the names of the owners of those. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  16:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MUNI Metro, Sacramento RT, and MAX Light Rail 

message: The discussions at Wikipedia talk:Article titles are continuing there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Train stations & subway stations and precision 

message: New Zealand Railway Stations are generally all capitalised eg Wellington Railway Station; except for current Auckland Train Stations which should be all capitalised in the format Avondale Road Train Station (though some are still "Railway Station", and with the exception of Britomart Transport Centre). See Wikiproject NZR/Manual of Style Hugo999 (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that's not how NZ railways station articles are named, even if it is a de jure rule. In practice, about 95% of New Zealand railway stations have generally only the place name capitalised (e.g., Wellington railway station) with the exception of Britomart Transport Centre). Grutness...wha? 02:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Zealand Railway Stations 

message: As like for railway stations in UK and Poland, is there any naming convention exist for railway stations in India? One common guideline followed was "XXXXX railway station", i.e., Name of the railway station suffixed by "railway station" in lower case. What about junction stations in India? Earlier there was a similar issue raised at India notice board and ended without a clear consensus, which resulted in existence of ambiguity of such pages. Articles on junction stations in India either has "XXXXX railway station" or "XXXXX Junction railway station"? In such cases, while editing or moving difference of opinion erupts between article creators of primary/major contributor of the article, as there exist no specific guideline(s) on relevant project page. How should they be named? If any guideline framed it'll helpful. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 19:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think so. The Indian stations are kinda messy; some article titles omit any words like "railway" or "station" and so the article title is simply the name of the station - which is probably also the name of the locality. Check out the links in e.g.  - many go to an article about the station, others to an article on the town. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I understood the issue. Thats really a one big issue am addressing slowly. IMO, they shouldn't be wikilinked. I faced such issue while creating route template diagrams for Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Though RDT guideline suggests use of wikilinking towns in absence of railway station article, i never attempted so. Also I removed some categories like ":Category:Railway stations in Ernakulam district" and similar sub-category from many Town (Geography) articles, most of them from Kerala-related articles so far. Am doing such clean up in the mean time of my edits. But another major issue is use/omission of the word "Junction" for Junction stations. Without any such guidelines for improvement, editing on Indian railway articles is like riding on traffic-less freeway. --βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ)(Support) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the railway timetables call such stations? If it’s “XXX Junction railway station”, then that’s what the article should be named, with a redirect from “XXX railway station”. On the other hand, if the timetables use “XXX railway station” then the redirect should be at “XXX Junction railway station”. (But this is only my 2¢ worth.) Useddenim (talk) 12:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: These stations names are written as only the city names outside the railway station and at the platform it is another name like junction. But whatever it is the above user is correct. According to Indian railway official sites for reservation whatever the name is it should be followed that is the only solution. Even I changed many names of pages with this confusion.--Vin09 (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

text: OK, so let's prefer this site Indianrail which is the official site and what I want convey is not just one or two, all the station names should be unique so as to wiki link in other pages or remove confusion in naming.--Vin09 (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Superfast1111.  The official website is probably the most reliable source when it comes to identifying the official name of a railway station.  I also agree that "railway station" should then be added - the word "Junction" is ambiguous (it could be a reference to a road junction), and so is the word "station" (which has a variety of meanings, depending in part upon which variety of English one is using).  Bahnfrend (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Or we can use the British railway station naming convention for consistency, e.g. Mumbai Central railway station, Delhi railway station, Ahmedabad Junction railway station, etc. (in essence, what is being used right now). If there are multiple names for a station at a railway junction, and if the railway station came first, it can have "Junction" in the station name, e.g. Ahmedabad Junction railway station; otherwise, it can take the town name, like Ahmedabad railway station. Epicgenius (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Superfast1111, I never asked you to agree with my opinion. I was asked to state it, and I stated it. Bombay and Madras stations will not face a problem. you can have Andheri (railway station) as well as Nungambakkam (railway station). The Indian Railways website mentions ONLY the name. In such cases, the format that I posted is pretty much feasible. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

text: *Hey, I did not mean to offend you but now it is clearer to me what you intended. However i would still prefer Andheri railway station to Andheri (railway station) & would still vote for Epicgenius's proposal. Its just that we agree to disagree, give our proposal's & move on but good to hear from you again.
Superfast1111 (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention for railway stations in India 

message: Once again, a rash of "I don't like qualifiers" editors and administrators are destroying the structure of the station articles! ---------User:DanTD (talk)  05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples please? -mattbuck (Talk) 08:33, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much every station in Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), South Carolina, California, Washington Metro, and some others turning up lately. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry Dan, but station articles should fit the general public's expectations, not some difficult to understand (unless it's been explained to you). And article titles are not the place for details that belong in the body. Parentheticals are only for disambiguation where needed, not preemptively. Also, the discussion is at WT:USSTATION. oknazevad (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Those aren't "the details that belong in the body." That would be something like an Amtrak station originally being built by Chicago, Burlington & Quincy, or Santa Fe, or Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, or New York Central, or New York, New Haven and Hartford, or something like that. Speaking of which, there used to be a distinction between stations built in cities named "Burlington," and those built by the CB&Q, that were named "Burlington station." This anti-qualifier crusade has screwed that up completely! And I see that North Carolina stations are getting this mistreatment and this crusade is pushing into the New York Metropolitan area! ---------User:DanTD (talk)  18:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

text: More than just "one entrenched editor". USSTATIONS was quietly written and put into place without a number of opposed editors - myself included - even being aware of it, and it's being used for no-discussion moves without consensus. It breaks badly on US systems because station names are repeated across geographic areas (which is very uncommon elsewhere in the world); no amount of unilateral page moves are going to fix the 1800s planners who named everything "Arlington". Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous unwritten conventions were broken and unworkable. WP:USSTATION just brings these articles in line with the rest of the encyclopedia. And yes, moves to appropriate titles and the introduction of real disambiguation (hat notes, dab pages, not just inserting unnecessary parentheses behind every title) will solve the disambiguation issue.--Cúchullain t/c 20:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people breaking it and making it unworkable are people like you, and some other administrators I won't mention at the moment (although if they're reading this, they probably know who they are.). ---------User:DanTD (talk)  20:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, it was a mess to the point of being nearly indecipherable to anyone outside of the group of editors enforcing the unwritten conventions. It's another example of how a walled garden of interrelated articles can cause long-lasting problems on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain t/c 20:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you are going to accuse others of creating an indecipherable mess, don't create one yourself. The article which you moved to Durham railway station (England) has lost virtually all of its inward links, leaving just two which are not redirects, so they do not assist in linking from the old page name. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Incoming links can be fixed. However, placing on station at an ambiguous title without giving disambiguation to other "Durham railway stations", as it was (and now is again), leaves readers in the lurch.--Cúchullain t/c 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugh! These Naming SNAFUS Must Stop! 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Oceanian stations). Based on existing station naming. Useddenim (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions (Oceanian stations) 

message: A  discussion has been initiated to rename/move the page. Kindly share your views and inputs.--βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 21:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming to Bangalore City railway station 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for a discussion regarding "Xxx GO Station"s. AlgaeGraphix (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging the usual suspects: , , … AlgaeGraphix (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Canadian_stations)#Go_station_naming. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions (Canadian stations)