The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 18:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baraboo station → Baraboo Chicago & North Western Depot and Division Offices – Revert back to official name of the building. This article is about the building and it should use the official name, not "Baraboo station". It no longer servers as a station so not only is the current article title incorrect, it is also not-consistent with similar articles. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 10:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Wisconsin, and WikiProject National Register of Historic Places have been notified of this discussion. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 23:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Names used by the National Register are often [improper capitalized] descriptive names; they should not be assumed to be official names. (See for example Attleboro station (Massachusetts), which is listed as "Northbound and Southbound Stations".) In this case, I don't see any evidence that the NRHP descriptive name is either the official name nor the common name. "Baraboo station" is accurate (while it is not currently a train station, its primary notability is as one), concise, and consistent with the WP:USSTATION naming guideline. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the National Register has no standard system of naming landmarks, there are wild inconsistencies. As such, we already have WP:USSTATION as a naming guideline. Also, "it is also not-consistent with similar articles is blatantly false. Cards84664 00:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Pi.1415926535. NRPH names are descriptive, not official. Mackensen (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Pi. Although I sympathize with the view that the station is no longer in use as a railroad station, the current title meets both WP:CONCISE and WP:USSTATION, while the proposed title does not. Additionally, NRHP listing titles are really inconsistent, as mentioned above; see for example, Wisconsin Pavilion and 1964–1965 New York World's Fair New York State Pavilion (the latter of which is at a much shorter title now). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I reconsider my viewpoint and no longer wish to move this article. I don't think I can just close this per the support above? Either way, oppose, bad nomination by me. --JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 18:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]