Talk:Haverhill railway station (England)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 9 February 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Haverhill (CVHR) railway station moved, Haverhill railway station not. No consensus on the latter. Number 57 19:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– The disused railway station currently at Haverhill railway station is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC compared to the other station and the still-in-use Haverhill station (Massachusetts). One of the cited sources says it was also called "Haverhill North" for a period, so that should be suitable natural disambiguation. This source says the CVHR station was also called "Haverhill South", which should also be natural disambiguation preferable to the odd parentheses. At any rate, Haverhill railway station needs to redirect to the disambiguation page. Cúchullain t/c 21:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Americans do not generally use "railway station", as they favour "railroad station" or "train station, so there is no particular need to consider Haverhill station (Massachusetts). RGloucester — ☎ 22:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase is hardly unknown in the U.S., plus there are likely to be non-Americans reading the articles who will be confused by the current setup.--Cúchullain t/c 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do not object to your proposal, even if I find it unnecessary. I will to defer to whoever else comments. RGloucester — ☎ 03:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the worst disambiguation guideline on Wikipedia, because parenthetical disambiguators are supposed to go at the end to allow for the WP:PIPETRICK. It's exceptionally odd and disconcerting that UK stations don't follow the universal disambiguation guidelines. oknazevad (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, because the WP:Pipe trick only shortens Xxx railway station (Yyy) to Xxx railway station, not the desired Xxx. Useddenim (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oknazevad: UK stations were disambiguated using the parenthetical method at least 100 years before Wikipedia even existed. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever disambiguation is preferred, the bottom line is that this isn't the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and it needs to be moved. "Haverhill North railway station" seems to be the best option.--Cúchullain t/c 19:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Haverhill (CVHR) railway station → Haverhill South railway station per Redrose64. I'm undecided on the other. At some point US and British editors need to resolve whether articles can exist at Foo station and Foo railway station, or whether that's really a single article (plus a redirect) for the purposes of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This may not be the place to do it. RGloucester is certainly correct that the usage is uncommon in American English, but it's not unknown and we do need to consider speakers of British English searching for US topics. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Do not confuse disambiguation with 'explaining it in the title'. 1. Formal name in all cases: "Haverhill" (cannot change that). 2. WP:DAB needed. 3. DAB-addition (bracketed term) to be decided. First idea: this could North and South, bracketed. However, Suffolk or UK should be added, to prevent confusion with Mass. North station-suggestion.
    Notes: surprised that two stations with the same name did exist in one town. More surprising: English (UK) disambiguation has their own rules? Bad. -DePiep (talk) 11:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @DePiep: There were at least 40 such examples before the railway grouping of 1923 when the two Haverhills were renamed. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It was actually quite common in the UK for two stations in the same town to have the same name, if they were owned by different railway companies - distinguishing suffixes were typically only added if those two railways amalgamated, or one was absorbed by the other. For example, the two main stations in Reading, Berkshire were not given differing names until 1949 - and with the closure of Reading Southern, Reading General has lost its suffix again. Similarly, Huntingdon East and Huntingdon North (suffixes added 1923); Peterborough East and Peterborough North (suffixes added 1923); Bedford Midland and Bedford St Johns (suffixes added 1924). The two stations at Sandy, Bedfordshire were never given distinct names, despite being very close together and open simultaneously for over 100 years. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice and not relevant. The formal name was Haverhill, and up to enwiki to add a disambiguation term. Not to change the name of the station. -DePiep (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is precisely what you are attempting to do by suggesting the use of the word "Suffolk", which not only never appeared in the name of either of the two stations under consideration, it does not distinguish between the two stations, both of which were in Suffolk (the Essex boundary is less than a mile away, but neither was in Essex), so the ambiguity remains. As I mentioned before, we don't invent disambiguators when a genuine one exists; and this comment was amplified by Lamberhurst who gave a link to WP:NATURAL which states much the same with "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names".
    As for relevance: it was you who brought up the topic of similarly-named stations with your comment "surprised that two stations with the same name did exist in one town". Please note that WP:UKSTATION has existed for almost ten years and has been accepted for as long as I've been around, whereas the U.S. equivalent, WP:USSTATION, is comparatively recent, and is still disputed. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Haverhill (CVHR) railway station → Haverhill South railway station per Redrose64. Also support Haverhill railway station → Haverhill North railway station if it is felt that Haverhill alone is ambiguous. Oppose appending "Suffolk" or "UK" to the station name as a WP:NATURAL exists. Lamberhurst (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, adding 'Suffolk' or 'UK' would diff it from Haverhill station (Massachusetts). Note: Haverhill railway station should redirect to the dab page (content) too, as it is not the undisputed primary topic. And don't bother dab with hidden cultural issues like 'people at X don't know/use the word railway' -- instead, this is another reason to use dab. -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Problematic as both would result in made-up names for the station. All the more problematic as (1) Haverhill wasn't even completely in Suffolk when the station opened, and (2) Haverhill isn't the only Haverhill in the UK. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haverhill_railway_station_(England)&oldid=1202222897"