Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention

message: Just to see if there's budding consensus here, I've listed several options below. Kindly indicate your support/opposition below. It is permissible to indicate support or mild support for more than one, e.g., if you are indifferent between two outcomes. My own votes are below:
1. Depend on The Map in Most Cases, with perhaps the occasional exception for truly ugly names, such as Cathedral Parkway – 110th Street (IRT Broadway – Seventh Avenue Line).
::* Support. For me, this rule wins by virtue of its simplicity. Also, as a practical matter, most of the articles now appear to agree with the Map names, so this would entail the least amount of disruption. Marc Shepherd 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Weak oppose. In many cases, the map names are simply not used outside the MTA. --NE2 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Support. Because the map contains all of the information, it would be the first go-to source. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support I am now convinced this would provide the most consistent naming scheme for stations. If I am researching a transit system I did not know about, the first primary source I would want to see is the system map. So from that first-timer's view, I would go with The Map. But with my personal experience of the NYCS, I naturally have apprehension with The Map names because I personally don't use them and signage makes those names inconsistent. Despite that, I am growing to accept the subway map as the definitive source. Tinlinkin 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support as per above, as the Map is an objective standard, and that it will reduce edit-warring over moves. Bearian 15:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support. So, we're bringing this up again? Nevertheless, I agree with this proposal. However, keep in mind that most does not mean all. Pacific Coast Highway {talk • contribs} 23:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Could Support. I do like the idea of simplifying names wherever possible, but an awful lot of articles would need to be renamed. Quite a few articles have been move-warred so often that they can no longer be moved by normal mortals, and require administrative intervention. Marc Shepherd 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak support. I think it can be better to add the neighborhood after the street, but this also works. --NE2 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose. I believe that if there is a station on the map that puts the neighborhood first, whether it is a terminal or not, that would be okay, unless otherwise is found. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *You know, this also works. My opinion on this is neutral, because the proposal makes things neutral, and fair. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 00:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak support Simplifying would work, but people may have different interpretations of "the landmark/neighborhood is so prominent that you can't ignore it" Tinlinkin 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *:Maybe if it comes first on signage? --NE2 12:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *::Lincoln Center in 66th Street–Lincoln Center seems prominent to me. TLK'in 06:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose See comments below. TLK'in 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *  Oppose — It would require a lot of renaming, it would conflict with The Map, and the resulting names wouldn't be the simplist. Marc Shepherd 12:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak support, with the caveat that stations where even signage puts the landmark first should remain that way. --NE2 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Strong oppose as per Marc. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak support, but I would prefer the other choices because I would not like to do a lot of renaming on this justification. Tinlinkin 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose It provides consistency, but reliance on signage entails monitoring when the signage changes, which involves visiting stations and relying on someone's word that the signage did change. The most recent documents published by the source are much more reliable, current, and accessible. I still think this is an arbitrary means to reach consistency. TLK'in 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support. We have enough information to make this work, and it's the closest way to consistently match a common name. --NE2 13:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Strong oppose. That's what started this mess in the first place, people moving articles here and there to match signage. As a typical New Yorker, I myself don't depend on signage, a lot of people in the subway would use a map that they carry around to find their destination. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak support I used to support some form of this, but I recognize Imdanumber1's view on stations which I did not know before, and there is no way to tell which signage is current and which signage is outdated. Tinlinkin 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Weak oppose See #3. TLK'in 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Oppose. In the first place, I am not sure what NE2 means, when he says "We have enough information to make this work." Do we have current photos of the signage in every station? For the photos we have, do we know when they were taken, and if they tell the right story? As an example, I noticed today that at Christopher Street – Sheridan Square, there are signs that say "Christopher St. Sheridan Sq," and there are signs that say just "Christopher St." Hence, on the basis of photos, either name could be justified. Now, multiply that problem by 468 stations. Marc Shepherd 17:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Strongly Oppose — It's the lack of a guideline that has led to so much move-warring in the first place. Marc Shepherd 17:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: * Neutral. Without a guideline, things would get out of order again. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Strong oppose Chaos begins again! Plus, inconsistencies among stations can arise by looking at station histories, and there would be no way to tell at what point in time when a station name should change. Tinlinkin 09:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: As long as we keep discussing about the merits of The Map, I don't think NE2 will be satisfied. NE2 said "In many cases, the map names are simply not used outside the MTA." I actually agree with that. But sources outside the MTA do not need to address stations by their formal names. I must be missing something here. Could this objection be elaborated upon? What single source can identify common names outside the MTA? TLK'in 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is NE2 ever satisfied by anything? Anyway, I don't think any can but the MTA themselves. The map is less ambiguous than signs and whatnot, but what throws me off is what NE2 meant by saying that signage is more common, and there is enough info to use them. (What the heck?) I disagree. There are 468 stations, more or less, and to find pictures of sign decals, that takes a lot of work. Does anyone want to do that?!?!?! What does other sources have that the map doesn't? I can't think of any. Wouldn't it help to just refer to one source alone (the map) instead of possibly hundreds? That is what we are trying to tell NE2, but he has yet to be persuaded otherwise. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer not to question another editor's good faith. I just don't know how his proposal (which to date no one else has supported) would work. We don't have photos of every station. Where we have photos, we don't know if the station still looks like that. And even within the same station, signage isn't always consistent, so we don't know if those photos are really representative. To work all that out would require considerable original research. Marc Shepherd 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not reasonable to do street-level research on every station to study the signage. Relying on the 'mappable' names is an easy rule to follow in the future, and should help to avoid disputes. EdJohnston 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope this persuades NE2 enough. A picture is not much of a primary source, or secondary source. It seems like a tertiary source, which is way less significant and off the charts. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 20:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objections to The Map 

message: I think the proposal tag can now be removed, and this page added to :Category:Wikipedia naming conventions. This does not mean that the station naming convention is "final," because nothing on Wikipedia is final. But as far as I know, only one editor opposes the current version. The proposal has been stable for quite some time with no new alternatives being offered.
I am also proposing to empty out :Category:New York City public transportation articles with names to be reviewed. An editor created that category four months ago, and it appears he added every station that has conflicting names on literature, timetables, rollsigns, and/or station signage. Once it is verified that a station name comports with the convention—as I believe virtually all of them now do—I don't know what other kind of review would remain appropriate. Marc Shepherd 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal. Just for completeness, the list of all the naming conflicts is at Wikipedia:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/station names. From the edit history of that file, it seems that User:NE2 collected most of the information about the conflicts. I gather that he is the person you refer to above who opposes using the map. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like the 'Poll' above supports your idea. EdJohnston 22:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove proposal tag? 

message: The naming guidelines here vary from the norm without giving much reason. If there is no ambiguity, why do the article titles need to include the line? -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using qualifiers when no ambiguity exists 

message: The "naming convention" section currently reads "For any name that requires an en dash, if there is a space between one or both of the elements, the en dash is spaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline." This was once what the MOS called for; however, it (MOS:DASH) was changed in mid-2011 to mandate that en dashes that are part of compounds should be unspaced. When the MOS conflicts with any local project guidelines, the former takes precedence, so this page should be changed to reflect the change in the MOS. Otherwise, it's offering guidance that's misleading at best and incorrect at worst. – TMF 23:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I just came here to say the same thing, and saw you beat me to it.  I'll update it since nobody has objected.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion shouldn't be here (no one watches this page)... moving to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated naming convention 

message: I was wondering why do all the New York City Subway station articles includes "(New York City Subway)" in the title? Aren't they unnecessary disambiguation? E.g.: 14th Street / Sixth Avenue is a redirect to 14th Street / Sixth Avenue (New York City Subway). (I suspect there is some old discussion which I was not able to find) --Jaqen (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's not unnecessary, and not just a disambiguation. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  03:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me that 14th/Sixth could be located anywhere in the world, and refer to any possible topic.  Adding "(New York City Subway)" immediately states exactly what the article refers to, ie, a subway station near that intersection in NYC. --Zfish118 ⋉talk 18:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary disambiguation? 

message: Once again, somebody has decided to screw up all station naming conventions on TWP, and some of those renamings have been used to screw up the stations in WP:NYPT. Has anybody noticed most of the people screwing these up have been administrators? ---------User:DanTD (talk)  21:07, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to investigate this further. Could you post links to diff's to provides examples? --Zfish118 ⋉talk 18:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: For more local examples, consider Orange (NJT station), which was renamed Orange station (New Jersey), in response to a rash of renamings of California railroad stations, all on separate systems within that state. ---------User:DanTD (talk)  22:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That's only one! If you don't like the rename, move it back to the NJT naming convention and dispute the move at the talk page. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

text: Also Oceanside (LIRR station), which was already moved back. I agree that a project-wide rename is in order, but not individual renames, like that fiasco at Parkside Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) a few years back. epicgenius (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our naming conventions are being threatened again 

message: Pinging fellow WP:NYCPT participants  Our naming conventions are being threatened once again as a result of users like JHunterJ and Station1 that refuses to show an ability to see someone else's opinion. Seeing that you three are our other active project members, I'm kindly asking for you all to provide your input before this discussion gets too out of hand. It's getting to the point that it'll probably end up at WP:AN/I which is the last thing I want to happen. I've constantly explained myself that there is precedent to keep the DABs, but it feels like I'm just wasting my keystrokes arguing. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I haven't commented because I don't feel threatened. oknazevad (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Well, I'll add my usual opinion that in real life the NYCS stations are not called just Bowling Green, but something like Bowling Green (4/5), even if the specific station doesn't have namesakes. Thus, on one hand, we have to follow the real life stations' names, but, on the other hand, we cannot use route letters/digits, because they change every several years. That is why these articles use line names, such as Bowling Green (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), where the parenthetical part is not a usual wikipedia-style disambiguator, but stands for a part of the station name itself. Vcohen (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree that this is why the line name is included in the title. The routes are no more than a series of trains that run from point A to point B (and every day, there's at least one reroute). I have heard 23rd Street (IND Sixth Avenue Line) been called the "23rd Street F/M Station", the "23rd Street F/V Station" or even the "23rd Street Station on the orange line". epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that's what those stations are called by sources, then that's the title we should use. czar 17:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

text:   I kinda agree. I'm not a late night commuter, but how many of such that work certain night shifts at say, Queens Center Mall might refer to Woodhaven Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line) as "Woodhaven Blvd. (M)/R station" or, before 2010, "Woodhaven Blvd. (G)/R/(V) station", rather than "Woodhaven Blvd. E station"? Roadrunner3000 (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Most reliable sources say "Sixth Avenue line", so that's why we use that. The services are secondary to the lines that they are on. The NYC subway system is weird in that there are not only stable, named "lines" but also flexible, lettered-and-numbered routes, unlike most metro systems, where line and route are one and the same. Then again, most metro systems do not use interlining, except for the CTA and Washington Metro, and in the case of the former, the colored routes do not change all that often. The NYC Subway is the unique case where there is this amount of flexibility and interlining from day to day. It's better to not open this can of worms. That's exactly why we use the line name. It would be kinda confusing for a subway rider to go down to Woodhaven Boulevard at night and wait for the M and R train, only to find that the only train that stops there is the E. Plus, what if the F decides to stop there at night? Then we'd have a ping pong series of moves every few years based on which services stop there. Then we'd never have a stable title. epicgenius (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I will chime in and say that I agree that we shouldn't use services for the titles, but we could consider dropping the company prefixes. Woodhaven Boulevard (Queens Boulevard Line) is more closer to the common name. Where there are two possibilities (i.e. BMT Lex and IRT Lex) the active line should have the regular title with a hatnote to the other one. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:47, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While I would be open to that, it would lead to a disambiguation problem of a major location. There is a well-known Brighton Line in England, and if I'm not mistaken there used to a West End Line in Boston as well. I think the way we are doing things now are simplest and cleanest; there can only be one BMT Brighton Line in New York City. Use of division names are still used in contracts, so they are still meaningful. They also preserve historic context and it gives readers a good way to see important correlations between different lines. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I agree. There is no clear consensus here, but there is clear consensus at WP:AT, and this project's members have not followed the clear consensus at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. That's the crux. In this case, I'd suggest first the project members who feel like this project's article need not follow WP:AT follow WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and "convince the broader community that such action is right", since otherwise "participants in a wikiproject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope", which is what has happened here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

text: I see JHunterJ's defense as a straw man because he refuses to understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and him going on a power trip is not doing anything, and hasn't been doing anything for the past five years or so since he's made his ridiculous proposal. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, I put in a request for closure to save your keystrokes as your argument is constantly being refuted. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly a problem, but it seems like the general consensus needs to be reopen with regards to rapid transit stations. That consensus is based on Amtrak and commuter rail, but needs to be reopened. Theoallen1 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

text: Repeatedly shouting "I didn't hear that" isn't a refutation. Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break no. 2

message: Franklin Avenue station (Fulton Street) should be addressed in here somewhere. Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad, Franklin Avenue Station should be moved to Franklin Avenue station (disambiguation), and Franklin Avenue station (Fulton Street) should be moved to Franklin Avenue station. Cards84664 22:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cards84664, this should probably be discussed as part of an RM. Even so, KG613 has a point. In a theoretical situation where none of the stations is the clear primary topic for the term "Franklin Street station", there really should be some guidance on this. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franklin