Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations)/NYC Subway RfC

Shortcut
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The consensus in this discussion is No to the first question (so NYC Subway stations should not use disambiguators where they aren't required), and Yes to the second question (NYC Subway articles should conform fully to the guidelines set out at WP:USSTATION. These two propositions are supported by a clear majority of those in the discussion, after over two weeks of listing, and are also clearly policy-compliant, since they explicitly bring these pages into line with wider guidelines and policy. Articles which are identified as being named in ways which don't conform to WP:USSTATION should be moved accordingly. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How should articles about New York City Subway stations be titled? StudiesWorld (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC grew out of the request move discussion at WTC Cortlandt. The purpose is to determine the naming conventions for stations on the New York City Subway. This has previously been discussed at:

In past discussion, there seems to be general agreement on the form that disambiguation should take with priority given to a specific line, then a set of lines, then "(New York City Subway)". However, there is disagreement about whether disambiguation should be applied to all article titles, even if there are no potentially conflicting articles. Those in favor of always including disambiguation have argued that it should be included for consistency, while those opposing universal disambiguation have argued that it should be left out, pursuant to WP:PRECISION. Additionally, there has been dispute over whether "station" should be included in the name. Those opposing inclusion argue that it would be unnecessary, while those in favor argue that all Subway stations fall under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) and that the local community as not convinced the wider community, as required for a local consensus.

The following lists demonstrate the page titles for each of the possible resolutions of the remaining issues, with A representing the inclusion of disambiguation, but omission of "station", B representing the omission of both disambiguation and "station", C representing the inclusion of both disambiguation and "station", and D representing the omission of disambiguation, but inclusion of "station".

Title List A Title List B Title List C Title List D
Station Name (DIV Line) Station Name Station Name station (DIV Line) Station Name station
Resulting for the discussions above, we are left with two contentious and unresolved questions, on which we request comment:
  1. Should disambiguation appear in all article titles regarding New York City Subway stations?
    1. Yes, disambiguation should appear in all article titles.
    2. No, disambiguation should only appear in article titles when necessary.
  2. Should Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) apply to the New York City Subway, particularly with respect to the use of "station" in article titles?
    1. Yes, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) should fully apply to all articles about the New York City Subway.
    2. Somewhat, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) should generally apply to all articles about the New York City Subway, with an exemption from the clause requiring "station" to be appended to common names.
    3. No, articles regarding the New York City Subway should be wholly exempt from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations).
    4. Modify the guideline, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) should be modified in order to remove the use of "station" in article titles.

In the Survey, sections please clearly indicate your answer to either of these questions. If you are open to multiple of these options, please put them in preference order, in order to improve the chances of reaching some consensus. Please try to keep all significant discussion in the Threaded Discussion section.

Survey - Question #1

  • Should disambiguation appear in all article titles regarding New York City Subway stations?
    • Yes, disambiguation should appear in all article titles.
    • No, disambiguation should only appear in article titles when necessary.
  • Yes. I was hoping that this matter would not get taken to an RfC, but I guess it was time...
I will say this: since the conception of the Public Transportation WikiProject back in 2004 (which was called WikiProject New York City Subway at the time until 2007 when we decided to expand our scope beyond the subway system), there was a need of standardization for all of the subway articles. At the time, there were articles with titles such as "51st Street (6 Line)", "125th Street (Green Line)", "4 (New York Subway)", and "5 Line (New York Subway)"...what a mess! As time went on, it was decided to name the articles of the stations along with the lines it served (hence titles like "Utica Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line)", "Gates Avenue (BMT Jamaica Line)" and "Sterling Street (IRT Nostrand Avenue Line)"). For stations that were served by more than one line and were all connected by means of a free transfer, we merged the articles to form one single article and give it the disambiguator "New York City Subway", hence stations like "Grand Central–42nd Street (New York City Subway)" and "Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center (New York City Subway)", and the individual articles about the line that the station serves was redirected to the section of the merged article about it. As you can see, we achieved a method of standardization at long last, and the way the articles are named provides consistency for all subway-related articles within the scope of the WikiProject.

I firmly stand with letting the status quo prevail. This is one of the stances in which the contributors of the project are aware of guidelines not being followed, but have invoked WP:BOLD and WP:IAR for the sake of consistency. The titles with the disambiguation in place preserves historic context in a way and gives readers a good way to see important correlations between different lines. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: If the policy is clear then I say go with the clear and established policy. I am not seeking to overturn a precedent. If the precedent is not there, then I see the naming convention as a sort of disambiguation and not necessary. I am not familiar with the established conventions and will respect them if they exist, but it seems like this conversation is happening because the conventions are not firm in place. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) is an established guideline. Articles on New York City Subway stations are named according to a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which has no standing in policy or guideline, and which runs actively counter to both the US Stations guideline and to WP:PARENDIS. Using "station" as part of the title amounts to natural disambiguation, which is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation (although for many station articles both will be necessary). There's been resistance within the local WikiProject about conforming to these policies and guidelines, which is what this RfC is about. Mackensen (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. WP article titling policy is that titles should be recognizable, concise, consistent and no more precise than necessary. It's a sensible policy and there is no compelling reason why NY subway stations need special handling. Station1 (talk) 18:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per WP:PRECISION and WP:USSTATION. Since this is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS question, the phrasing should be "Would ignoring the article titling policy WP:PRECISION for articles about New York City Subway stations improve the encyclopedia?"
    1. Disambiguating phrases are used in Wikipedia article titles only when there is ambiguity amongst Wikipedia articles to disambiguate (WP:PRECISION). If ambiguity later occurs in Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles can then be moved if needed to handle that future ambiguity.
    2. Wikipedia article titles do not replace the lede sentence of the Wikipedia article. Thus William Shakespeare, not William Shakespeare (English playwright born 1564).
    3. That some articles of a type will require disambiguation does not mean that all articles of that type must be qualified. Thus Nicholas Grimald and not Nicholas Grimald (playwright), and John Jay Park rather than John Jay Park (Manhattan), even though those qualifiers would be consistent with other qualifiers used when there is an actual need for them.
    4. In particular stations can and do exist within the broader consensuses successfully on Wikipedia, and there's nothing about the NYC subway that would keep NYC subway station articles from successfully fitting within the guidelines (WP:USSTATION) and policies (WP:PRECISION).
    5. If the resulting name is not a good name ("WTC Cortlandt"), then it should be made good ("WTC Cortlandt station" or whatever) without misusing qualifiers.
    6. If (and only if) disambiguation of the selected good name exists, then the WikiProject's specification of how to qualify the ambiguous title would come into play. I don't have any preference to which qualification scheme is used for titles that are actually ambiguous.
    -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, per all of the above. Plus, I'll just say that every now and then some people who feel responsible for some particular area of articles want an exception to the policy of using disambiguation only for, you know, disambiguation, when disambiguation is actually required. They believe the articles in their particular area of interest are somehow special, and would benefit from having that descriptive information in their titles for some reason other than disambiguation, because they seek to include it even when disambiguation is not required. Umm, no, these articles are not that special. --В²C ☎ 22:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (I said my peace below) Metropod (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. @Mackensen and LRG5784: Station is included in the name, as evidenced by station entrance signs and emergency exit signs. Note that signs include the line, in this instance, the IND Concourse Line. There is no other 174th-175th Street station in the system to be confused with, yet it includes Concourse Line. I fully agree with LRG5784 and am completely opposed to removing the line name from the title.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kew Gardens 613: Two points on that. First, internal signage nomenclature cannot govern for how we determine article titles, especially when we're talking about maintenance-related signage (near pipes!) which the public is not meant to see. Second, if the line is in fact part of the name (as you're suggesting), then the current local naming convention, which wraps the line in parentheses, is completely improper. You can't have it both ways. Either the line name is part of the name, or it's not but we're disambiguating. Which is it? Mackensen (talk) 00:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. There are no parentheses in the evidence. If the best title for these stations includes that level of information, the title still wouldn't include parentheses. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Question #2

  • Possibly modify the guideline Somewhat, but leaning to a no. I've always thought that the use of the word 'station' should be included in the title but in a different manner (something along the lines like "Utica Avenue (IND Fulton Street Line station)". Around sometime in 2006 that was the naming convention for the NYCS WikiProject before it was modified to remove the word 'station' from the article title. I was just getting involved with the project back then and had no qualms about technical stuff like that, but as I got more involved with the project the following year, I got accustomed to the naming convention the project had and did not see a need for it to be altered. So for this case, I would either like to see 'station' added to the article title, otherwise, I would just leave things the way they are now. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. NYC is not special. Every national station naming convention on Wikipedia (representing on the order of 20,000 articles) uses "station", and for good reason. It's simply clearer, and means that station article names never duplicate the names of what they're named for. (I.e, it vastly reduces the amount of disambiguation and hatnotes required.) The vast majority of NYCS stations are named after streets, which means that most users would expect "77th Street" or "Nassau Avenue" to be about the streets - whereas "77th Street station" and "Nassau Avenue station" are obviously the stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: NYC is one of the few cases that breaks away from the WP standard and there is good reasoning the NYCPT WikiProject does so. There are many stations that have the same name and all serve the same street, such as 96th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line), 96th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line), 96th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), and 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway) in Manhattan. Then you have stations with the same name but in different boroughs such as Prospect Avenue (IRT White Plains Road Line) and Prospect Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line), and then routes like the B serve stations with the same name in different boroughs along it's route Seventh Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) and Seventh Avenue (IND Lines). It's not like other systems in which you would find stations in the same system with the same name, that's very very slim. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 09:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is precisely why the standard should not be as rigid as it has become, and the issue does not just apply to New York City Subway station articles, in spite of what some editors are suggesting. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. The arguments for why the existing guideline somehow shouldn't apply to NYC transit are unconvincing. The whole point of titles is to easily find the article sought by a reader. How can that be done if the disambiguation includes jargon that even locals never use? Especially since so many NYC stations are based on street names, the natural disambiguation of appending "station" is sufficient for most of the articles under discussion, but worth noting that some stations might not even need the layers of disambiguation if their common name alone is sufficient. re: the 96th Street example, the expected disambiguation above should be the NYC borough/neighborhood (as used in the opening sentence of the lede), not terms that are highly unlikely to appear in search. We maintain an encyclopedia for a general audience and our language should reflect that. czar 10:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Because technically the correct way to name the articles would be based on what routes use it (such as Church Avenue Station (2)/(5)), but routes change, so we use the line that the routes serve it (which would be the Nostrand Avenue Line). —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Would you mind if I use a more familiar and less hypothetical example of what you're talking about? The Q train, which moved from the BMT Astoria Line to the Second Avenue Subway is another reason lines should be in the station naming conventions, rather than trains. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: I prefer 116th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line) to 116th Street station. The actual name is 116th Street, which does not seem possible to use. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Yes, 116th Street station is ambiguous. 116th Street station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) is the most precise disambiguation under the guideline, given the location of all the 116th Street stations. We should call a station a station. Mackensen (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: Okay, your argument may be correct. I respect the Wikipedia guideline development process and if conversation about multiple transit lines has come to this, then NYC should comply. I wonder how this fits in with broader disambiguation policy, and when other classes of articles get a market like "station" which is not part of the name yet mandates to apply. It seems off to me but I expect that there have been 50+ discussions on this in different contexts, so somehow consensus should have developed. Previously I imagined this discussion was like a poll, but if the question is should NYC follow the global guideline, then I say yes. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: Some background: the original naming convention for station articles is probably Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations), which has been a guideline for about a decade. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (US stations) became a guideline about four and half years ago, after much discussion. In addition to its own talk page archives, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (US stations) includes links to the previous discussions. There's probably some overlap with the discussions listed above which were specific to the New York City Subway. No station-naming guideline rises above the national level, that I'm aware of. There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (stations in Poland). I've found station articles in other countries tend to follow the UK guideline informally. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mackensen: (meta discussion) I want to share the way that I assisted in sorting discussion on a complicated issue. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity where there are links to about 50 discussions. This was a perennial issue discussed in many places and there was no central guideline. There still is not, but I and others collected every discussion we could find to list them. This subway issue seems similarly likely to repeatedly come up in various locations, so maybe you could put all these links in one place also. I appreciate the time and attention you have given me but this kind of personal discussion is not sustainable at scale, and this does seem like a challenge which scales. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest you read instead of commenting blindly. WP:USSTATION specifically says "Generally, U.S. station articles should be titled by their common name, followed by "station" if not already part of the name". Cards84664 (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the case. "Part of the name" implies that a station is called X station because it is a station itself. In my example it bears the name of another object that accidentally is a station too. Vcohen (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to 34th Street–Penn Station (IND Eighth Avenue Line) and 34th Street–Penn Station (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line), they are already correct under WP:USSTATION. If you're referring to Title List C, that appears to be part of the mass-paste move to depict those titles. Pinging @Epicgenius:. Cards84664 (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Penn Station" would be an exception to the rule. List C was computer-generated. But we have a redirect from Union Station station (Washington Metro) to Union Station (Washington Metro), so I think the same would apply here. epicgenius (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vcohen I was waiting for you to comment lol —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To comment what? All I had to say I said at 18:21, 17 June 2019. Subway station names often include names of different objects, and the same way as the "14th Street" subway station is not a street, the "Penn Station" subway station is not a railway station. Vcohen (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Vcohen: Just stating that I agree with your sentiments. Also, I remember one argument you made about how: "Junius Street (3/4) is the correct and common name. However, the train routes change too frequently, so they cannot be used in article names, so line names, which are more stable, are used instead." —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. Also thanks for quoting me about the 1st question of the survey. I did not vote there, because I don't know what to say. I support the parenthetical part of the article names, but I oppose to interpreting it as disambiguation in its Wikipedia sense. Vcohen (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO The subway is a complex and unique beast. By operating outside these stupid, arbitrary rules, the information is more organized. Not only are there duplicate station names, some routes stop at more than one station with the same name. There are two Seventh Avenue stations on the B train, two 36th streets on the R train and two stations with Myrtle Avenue in the name on the M train (and that last one causes enough confusion that the MTA itself had to add IRL disambiguaty). Divorcing the stations from the lines that use them is therefor almost a necessity, even more so given that a single station can see multiple different service patterns depending on the day and time. So where does that leave us? With the physical line names, which are the LEAST flexible of the subway's nomenclatures. Having the line name in all the stations creates uniformity. I am personally getting sick and tired of this. Having unique rules for a unique system hurts nobody, but every so often someone from the high and mighty "stations" club decides they know better than the rest of us and force feeds those of us who curate the subway pages their opinions. Metropod (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are confusing lines (IND, BMT) with services (B). Disambiguation will still be applied to stations with duplicate names. The two Seventh Avenue stations, while both used by the same service, are not on the same physical line. Absolutely no one here wants service-based disambiguation. Cards84664 (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Metropod: You're railing against a proposal no one's making. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is a complex and unique beast, and that's why it has policies and guidelines. The subway is not more complex than the entirety of the Wikipedia coverage (since it's a subset of it) and is not significantly distinct (or unique) from the rest of the world's stations. Yes, there are duplicate names, and when duplicates exist, Wikipedia has a way to handle disambiguating them, BUT there are also unambiguous names and Wikipedia has a way of handling them too, a way that doesn't involve chasing a foolish consistency. Many of us have been personally sick and tired of this WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Please also refresh yourself on WP:NPA. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Metropod Very well put! This is the answer I was waiting for. I made a similar argument above on how there are many stations that have the same name and all serve the same street, such as 96th Street (IND Eighth Avenue Line), 96th Street (IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line), 96th Street (IRT Lexington Avenue Line), and 96th Street (Second Avenue Subway) in Manhattan. Then you have stations with the same name but in different boroughs such as Prospect Avenue (IRT White Plains Road Line) and Prospect Avenue (BMT Fourth Avenue Line), and then routes like the B serve stations with the same name in different boroughs along it's route Seventh Avenue (BMT Brighton Line) and Seventh Avenue (IND Lines). An even better reason why we should invoke WP:IAR. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @LRG5784: To be clear, you want to ignore all rules to avoid a disambiguation scheme that no one is proposing? For the stations you've listed, the likely outcome is that they'd all gain "station" as part of their title. That doesn't seem objectionable or even onerous to me. No one's talking about service-based disambiguation except you and Metropod. Mackensen (talk) 11:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Mackensen: Yes, I actually want to ignore WP:USSTATION because it is not a policy. I agree with the sentiment that following the actual policy of WP:CONSISTENCY is the correct plan, which is what WP:NYCPT has been doing all along. That's one of the core criteria for article titles and it defeats concern that in one case or another having "station" in the title might not strictly be necessary (although if all the entire articles were to keep their names but add station somewhere in the title, such as 'Neck Road station (BMT Brighton Line)' or even 'Neck Road (BMT Brighton Line station)', which the latter is what the article names actually used to be back in like 2005/2006, I would not mind that). Concerns about "Over-disambiguation" or "unnecessary disambiguation" as what some people here are calling it always take a back seat except in unusual cases where one of the other criteria is triggered. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @LRG5784: The first outcome you describe, "Neck Road station (BMT Brighton Line)", is the style of name that would predominate under WP:USSTATION, given the high level of ambiguity in NYCS station names. Those stations which actually have unique names would have the line-based disambiguation removed. Again, no one's suggesting service-level disambiguation for NYCS articles. That would be silly. Naming conventions, of course, are generally guidelines and not policies, because they're guidelines explaining how to follow core policies in specific use cases. Refusing to follow a guideline because it isn't a policy is a non-starter. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Mackensen: You basically answered everyone’s question as to why we have our naming convention in the first place. I gave examples above as to how there are several stations on one street in one borough that bear the same name, as well as stations that have the same name but in different boroughs. One user makes the argument that the “disambiguator” is part of the station name as a substitute for the routes that use it because routings can and do change, and I agree with him. This happened in 2016 when the W was reintroduced and stations along the Astoria Line in Queens had their signs changed from ‘N/Q’ to ‘N/W’; one’s in Manhattan had their signed changed from ‘N/Q/R’ to ‘N/R/W’ or ‘N/Q/R/W’; stations that had signs reading ‘N/R’ were updated to say ‘R/W’, and signs that had the ‘R’ alone had the signs updated to have the ‘W’ added on to it as well. The people who are on the opposing side brings up arguments that would result in inconsistencies. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • How many times does it have to be said before you understand? We do NOT want service-based disambiguation. Cards84664 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • @LRG5784: I apologize, but I don't understand how your comment relates to my comment. Nowhere have I, or any else that I can see, proposed using service patterns as a disambiguator. We all agree that lines should be used for cases where the name is not unique. Shifting service patterns aren't relevant. Again, you're the only person talking about service disambiguation, because everyone agrees it would be a bad idea. Mackensen (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Mackensen: I was quoting another Wikipedian from past conversations in another thread who has made this statement. Figured it would be relevant here. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • @LRG5784: Fair enough, but the current question is whether that naming convention ought to evolve a little more. No one here today thinks it should include services as part of the disambiguator. Most people, including you (I think), agree that it should include station, except in those cases like Grand Central Terminal or Penn Station where COMMONNAME dictates otherwise. I think the only area of disagreement is whether those stations whose name is unique should be preemptively disambiguated. The relevant naming convention says they shouldn't. I agree with that, and so do a lot of other folks. I think you would argue that they should. Yes? Mackensen (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:CONSISTENCY is about how to pick a title for the article (the part without a qualifier), along with WP:COMMONNAME, etc. WP:PRECISION and WP:QUALIFIER are the policies on using a qualifier (only when needed) once we've figured out the right title for an article. Qualifying only articles that need qualification is indeed consistent. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes or No, oppose somewhat/modify i.e. removing "station". I feel that some disambiguator has to be used, whether a simple "station" at the end or the current parenthetical disambiguation by line. Otherwise we could end up with a bad case of WP:ASTONISH on our hands, as the primary topic for a particular term is not always notable enough for an article, whereas a non-obvious meaning of that term may well be notable (e.g. Talk:Winterfell (Game of Thrones episode)#Requested move 15 April 2019). Take Buhre Avenue (IRT Pelham Line) for example; the primary topic of Buhre Avenue ought to be the avenue itself (which doesn't have an article), so readers would be astonished to find an article on the subway station in its place. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded Discussion

Pinging participants in previous discussion: @JHunterJ, Crouch, Swale, Cards84664, StudiesWorld, Epicgenius, Pi.1415926535, Kew Gardens 613, DanTD, Czar, Vcohen, King of Hearts, Station1, and LRG5784: StudiesWorld (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StudiesWorld: what is the brief and neutral statement? Legobot can't find a valid timestamp sufficiently soon after the {{rfc}} tag, so is not listing this RfC properly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia style and naming. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: The brief and neutral statement was everything above the first bolded heading. Would deleting the top, then re-adding it with a signature fix this? StudiesWorld (talk) 09:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: @StudiesWorld: Or could we just paste it to that page manually? Cards84664 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: You can try it if you like: but I can state that it won't work, since Legobot will merely revert you when it next runs (1 minute past each hour). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: What is "the first bolded heading"? Deleting and re-adding won't achieve much. Legobot looks for two things: (i) the {{rfc}} tag; (ii) the next valid timestamp after that tag (a valid timestamp is one that is in the same format as would be produced by four or five tildes). If Legobot cannot find a valid timestamp reasonably soon after the tag, it assumes that there is neither statement nor timestamp; otherwise, the content between the tag (exclusive) and the timestamp (inclusive) is taken as the RfC statement. If Legobot has found a statement and timestamp, it copies these to the RfC listing page. So, as advised at WP:RFCST and WP:RFCBRIEF, you need to include a brief, neutral statement of the issue immediately below the {{rfc}} tag, and this statement needs to have a timestamp. A longer explanation may follow that timestamp. It's not always necessary to add any new text - as an example, this edit (which added a signature to split up a lengthy statement) had this effect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: Will what I added do? StudiesWorld (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine (this was the effect), but it's best not to fake the timestamp. I adjusted it to the actual time that the {{rfc}} tag was added to this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Czar - If we switch to disambiguating by neighborhood, how would you recommend that we handle situations where two stations with the same name are in the same neighborhood? This occurs twice with the 96th Street example. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and StudiesWorld: Neighborhoods are very poorly defined, so they probably can't be used in the final title names. The borough name is much better since it is clearly defined and precise. However, if there needs to be further disambiguation than that, we use the line name. E.g. Second Avenue Subway and IRT Lexington Avenue Line. epicgenius (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Epicgenius: - Specifically, yes. However, if we chose to, I think that some are defined well enough that they could be used. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: I still would go against using the neighborhood name, because there's too many problems associated with it. For instance:
  1. Most neighborhoods aren't defined well enough on the boundaries. For instance, in this DNAinfo survey from 2015, residents of different parts of each neighborhood tended to draw different borders in many neighborhoods. Furthermore, they sometimes clash with community district boundaries.
  2. Many neighborhoods overlap.
  3. Some neighborhoods have subsections: for instance, the Upper East Side has Lenox Hill, and Bedford–Stuyvesant, Brooklyn has Bedford and Stuyvesant Heights.
  4. Only a few neighborhoods are well-known outside their boundaries. For instance, the two I just mentioned. The borough names are much more widely known, and if not, the line name is unambiguously precise, as opposed to the neighborhood names. epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would need to be that complicated. If location-based disambiguation is needed, it would be sufficient to use the highest-level location that fits, whether that's NYC, Manhattan, UES, or Lenox Hill. As for ambiguity of neighborhood, we could just reuse whatever was sufficient for the lede's first sentence. Again, we're shooting for the name by which you would expect to find it. czar 16:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but the problem is again with neighborhood boundaries. Even the articles about these stations, oftentimes, mention multiple neighborhoods in the infobox and/or the lead. As noted in these station's articles, some stations straddle borders, others are located in these "overlapping" sections. The fact that we're even discussing neighborhood-based disambiguation means that this is already way too complex. Let's just go with the simple solution now (the line names per WP:PRECISE), and argue about the specifics later. Neighborhood-based disambiguation isn't one of the criteria under USSTATION anyway. epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think some stations might be too close together for location-based disambiguation to be useful. The two 50th Street stations in Manhattan, for example, are only separated from each other by about 220 yards (200 m); and 86th Street (IRT Second Avenue Line) was located directly above the current location of 86th Street (Second Avenue Subway). Jc86035 (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: My point exactly, which is why I'm suggesting we retain the line-based disambiguators if we need to be more precise. epicgenius (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said above, The focus of the articles are the stations and their respective lines, not the borough or neighborhood it's located in. Cards84664 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I like line-based disambiguation, but I strongly dislike neighborhood-based disambiguation. Could we consider time based disambiguation as a compromise? We could assume all extant stations are automatically PRIMARYTOPIC. Then, we could use "(demolished)" and "(closed)", followed by more specific years, if needed. StudiesWorld (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see the point of switching to time-based disambiguation. Sure, the currently-open station can be the primary topic. But for closed stations, most readers would be searching for the former line's name or the street intersection, not for the date of opening/closing. For closed stations, we should just use the names of the lines, since that is probably going to be the more commonly searched term anyway. For instance, if we were to search for the old Second Avenue El station on 86th St, 86th Street station (IRT Second Avenue Line) would work just fine as a title. epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Epicgenius, there's no point in doing that. Cards84664 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree, that time based disambiguations make very little sense. Some BMT Fulton Line stations were still operating when the IND Fulton Line stations had already opened. Just station and line, and only include neighborhoods if those neighborhoods are included in the station names. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The survey questions should have reflected that this is an RfC to fix a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, that the NYC subway project wishes to name articles on NYC subway stations contrary to the broader consensus at WP:USSTATIOn and the Wikipedia policy WP:PRECISION. This has indeed come up over and over again, exactly because the project members clung to their WP:LOCALCONSENSUS without making any attempt to convince the broader community that ignoring the broader policy would be better for the encyclopedia. My thoughts represented in all of the other discussions, most recently the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation/New York City Subway/Station naming convention and my repetition of that consensus at Talk:WTC Cortlandt (IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line)#Requested move 28 May 2019 still hold:
  • Disambiguating phrases are used in Wikipedia article titles only when there is ambiguity amongst Wikipedia articles to disambiguate (WP:PRECISION). If ambiguity later occurs in Wikipedia, Wikipedia articles can then be moved if needed to handle that future ambiguity.
  • Wikipedia article titles do not replace the lede sentence of the Wikipedia article. Thus William Shakespeare, not William Shakespeare (English playwright born 1564).
  • That some articles of a type will require disambiguation does not mean that all articles of that type must be qualified. Thus Nicholas Grimald and not Nicholas Grimald (playwright), and John Jay Park rather than John Jay Park (Manhattan), even though those qualifiers would be consistent with other qualifiers used when there is an actual need for them.
  • In particular stations can and do exist within the broader consensuses successfully on Wikipedia, and there's nothing about the NYC subway that would keep NYC subway station articles from successfully fitting within the guidelines and policies.
  • If the resulting name is not a good name ("WTC Cortlandt"), then it should be made good ("WTC Cortlandts station") without misusing qualifiers.
  • If (and only if) disambiguation of the selected good name exists, then the WikiProject's specification of how to qualify the ambiguous title would come into play. I don't have any preference to which qualification scheme is used for titles that are actually ambiguous.
-- JHunterJ (talk) 15:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(US_stations)/NYC_Subway_RfC