Talk:Train station/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved, per para 1 of WP:TITLECHANGES Mike Cline (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


Train station → Railway station – As above - I don't think that moving this page to one entitled "Railway station" should be controversial, but the potential for misunderstanding means it could be, so I'm initiating a formal move request here. Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that we should buy-in to a competition about varieties of English, but that the title should follow customary procedure for an international encyclopaedia - using the established noun rather than a recent colloquialism, so as to provide clarity (particularly for those learning English as a second language). The researches already entered into by other contributors show fairly convincingly that 'railway station' is indeed the most globally-recognised term, but the text should certainly pay due weight to the north American preference for 'railroad station' (although for evidence that 'railway station' is not completely unintelligible to US audiences, I cite Simon and Garfunkel's 'Homeward Bound'). 'Train station', while a currently popular error which doubtless does deserve attention within the article, is an error nonetheless, and a poor choice for the article title.Hypocaustic (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose This is the second time on this page that you've asserted that "train station" is an error, given that it's not a station on a train, but that seems like a deliberate misreading. A train station is a station where trains come and go, just as a bus station is a station where buses come and go. WP:ENGVAR suggests we should leave the issue alone. Fixed-wing aircraft may be is a very silly and pedantic title, but it avoids perennial disputes between British and American forms. If "train station" displeases enthusiasts on either side of the Atlantic but is intelligible to all, it's the best choice. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - Train station may or may not be wrong grammatically but it isn't what these structures are called. Using an unsatisfactory compromise word is no solution.  Velella  Velella Talk   19:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
The structures are called "Train stations" more than any other usage, combined. They are also called "Railway stations" and "Railroad Stations", where I come from it was called by its formal name and none of the above. But, to say "it isn't what these structures are called" seems iffy. Check the google NGram results here. It isn't the best, but shows you that more books are using train station by about 3-1 than any other usage. SLawsonIII (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Train station is common used English phrase in most countries. Although there are regional differences, a substandard phrase in all countries is better than ones that have unique regional use. And train station wins the Google NGram test, available here. Although jamming out to One toke over the line (another use of 'Railway station') was fun, train station is an excellent compromise position. SLawsonIII (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If a bus station is where the bus comes calling, then a train station is where the train comes calling. We don't call it the street station, just because the bus station is located on a street, and your argument is just that. Even though railroad station and railway station are used, so is train station. If you wanted to split the different between Englishes, then why choose railway? "rail station" (something quite rare) would fit the split -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose It's not grammatically incorrect at all, as the anon notes, so the premise of the request is faulty; it's a station for trains, a perfectly legitamate grammatical construction. It's also very common across both sides of the pond, as SLawson notes. It's also the best fit per WP:COMMONALITY, as it not ENGVAR specific. In short, it's still the best title, despite the perennial attempts to force one ENGVAR over another. oknazevad (talk) 05:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support OK, I would support it wouldn't I? Seriously though, this is an interesting discussion, and thanks to those who have already contributed. To be clear, it sounds as if we need to clear away some red herrings. Firstly, this is NOT an ENGVAR issue or regional pedantry (life's too short for that, and my apologies if I inadvertently gave such an impression!); 'train station' is not correct usage in any variety of English, and a move to a page titled railway/railroad station could quickly resolve any such worries. Secondly, the comparison with 'bus stations' is also not really adding clarity, unfortunately, as in established English a way-station on a bus route is generally a 'bus stop' and a major depot a 'bus terminus' (the latter has been used less frequently this century, admittedly, but it's still correct). Thirdly, with the greatest of respect to above commentators, the point here is not about which term a handful of people currently logged-in happen to be familiar with - plenty of colloquialisms and slang terms would pass that test, after all - it's about using the correct English noun appropriate to an encyclopaedia. The n-gram test referred to above does not settle the issue - there will be more books that refer to f$£&ing than copulation, but it still wouldn't be an appropriate title for an article on Wikipedia! Remember, there will be people accessing Wikipedia while learning English, of whatever variety, and encouraging the use of terms or phrases which mark them out as poorly-informed is doing them a disservice. A reference encyclopaedia with a professional editor would not let this sort of sloppiness past, so why should we? Here's a challenge, then; how about we consult the recognised sources? Modern dictionaries are increasingly glossing colloquialisms, so 'train station' is starting to be included for the sake of completeness, but the OED lists 'railway station', and Webster's 'railroad station', as the primary options. Then there's the railway industry's own written sources, which contributors have already pointed out do not support the use of 'train station' either. No-one's suggesting freezing the language in aspic, and 'train station' is indeed arguably used frequently enough as a casual term to warrant fair coverage in the WP article, but there's just no convincing case for it to be the title.Hypocaustic (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
n.b. "Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote." (WP:RM) Your comments are welcome though. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hypocaustic, I think you make some great points. To use the wikipedia guidelines: it seems the tradeoff is between precision and naturalness/recognizability. 'Train station' is more widely used in the English language in multiple national contexts. I've found lots of official pages that opt for 'Train Station' over or with the alternatives. For example, from Eurorail page. But your case is that the term is incorrect (i.e. imprecise). (By the way, clarity for English learners is not one of the criteria Wikipedia uses, and if it did my three language dictionaries all use 'train station'). So to simplify what I see as the debate, should we use the more recognizable term or the precise term for the title? So far, I do not see any reason provided by you for preferring the precise term. You can not convince me by insisting that 'train station' isn't the correct term (because I think it is, frankly), but by telling me a good reason why we should prefer the technical but less recognized term over a less technical but more recognized term. That's for me, others may have other points. (and yeah, please remove your support, keep the comments, but you already voted when you proposed) SLawsonIII (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Dictionary.com train station appears in the dictionary; as does bus station ; The BBC calls it a train station (British English) as does VIA Rail train station (Canadian English) and Wired train station (American English) and the Great Southern Rail train station (Australian English); further like the bus station, a bike station is not part of a bicycle, unlike how you say that "train station" implies that it is part of a train, and neither are bus stations part of buses. Nor is a pet psychologist part of a pet, or a heart surgeon part of a heart, or a football stadium part of a football. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Precise enough? I agree that precision is important, but this is a difficult claim for a colloquial term which is not internationally understood, unfortunately. As for ENGVAR, I have specifically NOT embarked upon this discussion in order to create any such outcome. I have suggested a move simply to 'railway station' for the practical reason that this is the term in international English - in this case, the international term is also the British one for the historical reason that it was Brits who built so many of the world's railways. There are plenty of examples of US English becoming international English in other fields where American innovators have similarly led the way, such as lines of computer code being 'program' rather than 'programme', so there's ample room for pragmatic compromise rather than a 'war' breaking out. Having said that, although it lacks the graceful simplicity of 'railway station' as a title, I would personally be quite comfortable with 'railway/railroad station' instead.
  • Oppose the only evidence you've presented is a Simon and Garfunkel song? Hot Stop 04:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
No, of course it isn't - if you're keen to contribute, Hot Stop, that's welcome but please go back and engage in the argument more thoroughly. You're a historian, apparently, so let's share some considered analysis. Hypocaustic (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The use of the term "train station" is often a sign that someone doesn't know what they are talking about. We don't have, say, "moo-cow" even if some people might use the term and understand what one might be. The BBC not surprisingly uses railway station significantly more than "train" station: eg news from the [1], [2] [3] etc. Complaints about use of the dumbed-down term are a regular feature of the (UK) railway magazines. Wheeltapper (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, reasons WP:RETAIN & WP:COMMONALITY, there is no WP:TIES.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
    WP:Retain is not a reason to oppose, it is the Wikipedia policy when consensus cannot be reached. There is a default in Wikipedia procedures for retaining names, but as editors, it isn't a reason for us to oppose a name change. SLawsonIII (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    You seem to have not understood the policy. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 18:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for some more interesting responses, and naturally I stand corrected re not putting extra 'support' marks in - although, of course, it would be good to see that these things can be decided on the basis of informed consideration rather than vote-count alone. Just to clarify once more, this is not intended as an incitement to an 'ENGVAR war' and neither would such a response be justified, because this is not about US vs. UK English - I am not falling into the trap of assuming all errors to have floated from one side or other of the Atlantic. If it is an adversarial contest at all, it is perhaps more one of natural, established English versus recent colloquialism. I cited Simon and Garfunkel with tongue at least partly in cheek, but actually the timing of that reference may offer some clues as to why we're getting some heated responses; as some of the researches above have indicated, the use of 'train station' started creeping into use in the US some time in the 1960s, and into England itself sometime around ten years ago, and there will thus probably be plenty of English-speaking Wikipedians who genuinely don't recall a time when this colloquialism was not common. But as Wheeltapper alludes to, the frequency with which a colloquialism occurs does not make it any more appropriate as an alternative to authoritative English - there are many people who say 'could of' when they mean 'could have', for instance, but the number of people doing so doesn't make it any more correct, even if most native speakers can probably work out what they mean in practice. If the term is incorrect, it cannot by definition be precise, because it creates room for incomprehension. My brief reference to the logic behind the correct phrase wasn't a cunning ruse but a summary of the etymological subtext, and if you'll forgive me I'll explain a little more clearly. A station is a point upon a line or journey at which one becomes station-ary for a period. A way station is a stopping point upon a way, derived from the Latin 'via', which of course still means 'street' in most latinate languages. A rail-way station is a stopping point upon a way which is defined by rails. Replacing the Latin-derived 'way' with the Old-English-sourced 'road' gives us rail-road station. Whether to opt for Latin, Saxon or French roots for established English phrases is a point of historical accident which does often cause transatlantic differences, but in this case, we just remove the hyphens and we're there - it all makes sense. 'Train station' can simply never make sense, because 'train' derives from the Latin trahere, to drag, and with the exception of the occupants of the carriages (who appear to be immobile relative to their seats), it is impossible for something being dragged to also be stationary. You may conceivably not have wanted to know all of that, but for people learning English anew, or those interested in mastering their mother tongue, getting this sort of thing right can genuinely help, whereas deliberately allowing an incorrect title to remain because it is 'familiarly incorrect' could leave us all open to a charge of being less than diligent stewards of the encyclopaedia. The BBC has indeed got this wrong and allowed 'train station;' to slip into a few news scripts in recent years, but as a professional media source has editors and language advisors who are picking this up and correcting it - to err is human, but even a crowd-sourced resource ought to be able to emulate professional editing if we want Wikipedia to be great in terms of quality as well as quantity.Hypocaustic (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    So you are saying that language should not evolve, and because some Latin root of a word means something, then we always have to continue using that? I do not disagree that blatant incorrect terminology is acceptable, but your example of "should of"/"should have" is a verbal, not written, variation on pronunciation, just like Standard American "Horse" is "Queen's English" "Orse". It does not mean the word is now orse. English is actually a Germanic based language that has adopted many Latin rooted words, especially from French from the "Norman" influence (Middle English). English is a fluid language, there are no language police like French and Spanish that dictate what is correct, the majority of the speakers of the language dictate what is correct. A station is according to Oxford, "Middle English (as a noun): via Old French from Latin statio(n-), from stare 'to stand'. Early use referred generally to ‘position’, especially 'position in life, status', and specifically, in ecclesiastical use, to 'a holy place of pilgrimage (visited as one of a succession')" and train is: "Middle English (as a noun in the sense 'delay'): from Old French train (masculine), traine (feminine), from trahiner (verb), from Latin trahere 'pull, draw'. Early noun senses were 'trailing part of a robe' and 'retinue'; ". So if you take these "origins" train station means basically where something that has been pulled stands. Point being, there are many arguments to as why it should be or shouldn't be, as you stated train station has been historically "American English" and now becoming "British English", and this discussion is about which "version" of the terminology is "correct". They are all correct, depending on your perception. All this long winded discussion (That I have also reluctantly contributed to) is a waste of time, and counter productive to improving the reliability of facts. It is a technical fact for the time being, that Wikipedia articles can only have one "official" name, but that is why we have redirects, and a lede section to show all variations on the same subject. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I'm not going to get into long discussions based on etymological fallacy, this is a question of the boundary between a vulgar name and a common name, or an accurate name and a pedantic name. "Train station" is not as vulgar as "moo-cow", but "railway station" is not at all pedantic or overly formal, it is also commonly used, so we should opt for the more accurate name. Note that our article on "moo cows" is at cattle, not cow, which is perfectly fine as a more accurate but still common and not pedantic title. - filelakeshoe 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
    Well said, wish I was able to be that clear and brief! Still think it should stay here, but you make a good point.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Brilliant stuff! Interesting points there, although I'm sorry to say that the misuse of 'should of' is not only encountered verbally (but happy to report that no-one actually says 'orse' - that H is not silent, even for the Queen). Getting back to the point, of course I'm not suggesting that English shouldn't evolve, or indeed that etymological purity is the only way forward - we'd be having these conversations in Chaucerian English if that were true. The perhaps over-long etymological excursion above was an attempt to help people more familiar with 'train station' understand just why this is less meaningful. I also take the point that this isn't really about which term is 'correct' - we don't have an English equivalent of the Académie française to attempt to set things in stone, after all. But my starting point was really about which name is appropriate as the subject title. Railway station / railroad station would be appropriate as this is the proper name - not a technical or purely formal term, just its name. I'm wary of calling 'train station' vulgar as I don't want to get into pejorative language here, but my sense is that this gets to the same point about it being a colloquialism, and therefore appropriate for the article to include, but inappropriate as a title.Hypocaustic (talk) 11:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I noticed the expression "train station" in The Guardian the other day. A search of the paper's website gives 2,116 results [4]. --GuillaumeTell 08:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
You would do, Guillaume! 'Lovely example, thanks - the Guardian's a fine institution but famously inconsistent on its editing (indeed the habit of typographical errors runs so deep that Private Eye still refers to it as 'The Grauniad'). But, getting back to the point, the frequency with which a colloquialism recurs does not, in and of itself, make it anything more than a colloquialism - a regularly-encountered error is still an error. Lest that drifts us back into endless debate about grammatical correctness, the point is that using such a colloquialism as a title for a piece of formal writing (NB formal English, not technical jargon) is just poor style. Wikipedia is excellent at accessibility, and one of the things that makes it excellent is that its contributors take the task seriously - until we identify an appropriate title for this article, suited to the formal English of an encyclopaedia, we haven't finished the job.Hypocaustic (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
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.

Please do not delete this discussion from the Talk Page --Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated lede for neutrality

I've endeavoured to update the lede for both neutrality, and adherence to the apparent consensus for the colloquial term as the article title (se discussion above). As one contributor has raised conmcerns about a previous, perhaps less well-formed, attemnpt to do so, input from others would be welcome. I'm not 100% comfortable with the term 'international English' but as far as I can gather it really is just US English which refers to railroad stations, and it would seem a little unwieldy to fully indicate UK/RoI/AUS/NZ/Indian English (or possibly an even longer list!) - if anyoine can suggest a formulation less likely to make US readers feel out of sync, that may be helpful.Hypocaustic (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted again. Please do not change the lead again, as it has consensus, as evidenced by the above page move. Also cease intentionally changing all links to point to the redirect as you have been doing; it clearly fits your pattern of unacceptable behavior of editing against consensus in an effort to "prove" that your prefered term is more common. See you at WP:ANI. oknazevad (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Referral noted; thanks Oknazevad. I have set this (for now) at text which does genuinely attempt to respect the consensus you are concerned to defend. Please now step back and let others take a measured view on how far (or otherwise) this has succeeded. Hypocaustic (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Updated lede #2

Unfortunately the ANI discussion allued to immediately above did not prove positive. As a response which I hope will be helpful, I've refreshed the lede once more for both neutrality, and adherence to the current consensus for the colloquial term as the article title (see previous discussions above). I'm still not 100% happy with the long list of languages but thus far it has appeared the simplest way to achieve a sufficient degree of neutrality which also gives every stylistic preference due prominence. Constructive input from other contributors remains very welcome - doubtless even this very good article can still be improved upon.Hypocaustic (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Reducing use of "railway"

My recent edit removed some superfluous uses of the word "railway" where the sentence still made clear and unambiguous sense without the word. I believe these edits are justifiable even if there were no dispute over railway/railroad/train, but as the last attempt to rename this article to "railway station" failed, it makes sense to me to avoid using language that seems to favour "railway" over "railroad" or vice-versa. Unfortunately Hypocaustic has undone my change twice (it wasn't me who undid the first undo), with the second undo obscured by an edit summary that failed to indicate it was essentially an undo (with a bit more added). Incidentally, I'm from the UK and would be quite happy for this article to be called "railway station", but clearly the consensus is against this and edits to this article should be consistent with the spirit of that decision. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Greg - we have to work with where the consensus is, even if we're not fully in agreement as individuals. My apologies if it looked like we were starting to sail perilously towards an edit conflict; that evidently wasn't the intention on your part or mine. I don't do 'stealth reverts' as a rule so I'm sorry if an edit looked like one. I've tried again to remove some of the extraneous mentions of the word 'railway' and replace some uses of 'railway line' with 'track', as you have helpfully suggested.Hypocaustic (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for help on specific layout terminology

Here is an example from Switzerland (ignore depot in background; the first two tracks from left are both running lines)

I'm struggling for words to describe a specific form of station layout that isn't covered in this article. It is a layout quite common in older stations in continental Europe, and I have seen examples in the US, but unknown in the UK (simply because it only works with low platforms). The layout applies to any station with more than one track (either on a multi-line railway, or because the station has a passing loop or siding).

For simplicity assuming just two tracks, the simplest examples of this layout have a single, fairly standard side platform alongside one of the tracks, often adjacent to the station building. The second track is served by a narrow 'platform' between the two tracks, linked back to the main platform by several track crossings.

This second platform is usually devoid of any waiting facilities, and clearly intended simply for boarding and alighting, with passengers remaining on the main platform until the train arrives. Indeed in the US examples I've seen (on the San Francisco to San Jose Caltrain line) the platform was cross-hatched in yellow and passengers instructed not to cross to it until the train had come to a halt.

More complex arrangements exist with multiple tracks, and various combinations of conventional and narrow platforms. And as stations are modernised (in both Europe and US) there seems to be a tendancy to eliminate this layout.

But what I really want to know is a way of describing this arrangement in an article without the above mountain of words. Do you know a name for this arrangement. Is there an article that you think describes it particularly well. Any help gratefully received. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting question, Chris. I'm not sure if there is a formal term in English; if one does not present itself, perhaps a phrase like traversable low platform would suffice? Hypocaustic (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
It is was first used in London at King William Street tube station. The Spanish later took it up big time and it is called the Spanish Solution, although an English one really.78.105.236.11 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Railroad terminal

I don't want to butt in, but I've added "railroad terminal" as a synonym. Most online dictionaries use the definition "terminal where trains load or unload passengers or goods," with no suggestion of finality such as "terminus" implies, and a quick google search seems to agree. Some sites suggest this is a US usage, and I indicated it as such. Peter Flass (talk) 23:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure about "no suggestion of finality"? Finality, in the sense of "it's the end of the line", is exactly what "terminal" suggests to me. It would not have occurred to me to see any distinction between "terminus" and "terminal". -- Alarics (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I can't think of a way to prove it. Looking up "railroad terminal" turns up basically the definition in the article, no hint of finality. Looking at places where the term is used, such as [5] it seems hat "terminal" is synonymous with "station", but I'll defer to people with greater knowledge. Peter Flass (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Penn Station vs. Grand Central Terminal

The Penn Station article states "Serving 430,000 passengers a day (compared to 700,000 across town at Grand Central Terminal)[5] at a rate of up to a thousand every 90 seconds." So why is Penn Station considered the business train station in the US? user:mnw2000 16:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

At a guess, I'd say because Penn Station has most of the Amtrak intercity and long-distance trains, including the high-speed Acela Express, while Grand Central serves mostly relatively local or commuter lines, with some exceptions. -- Alarics (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many images

There are far too many images in this article, and none of them correspond to the section they are writen by. Too many of them also show architecture of grand stations buildings when we also need pictures of features of basic and medium-sized stations. There are now several images trailing beneath the page. I believe in WP:BOLD but I don't want to dive in and throw out a load of images. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more have been re-added and the train topics list is at the bottom. Is this wise? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There are definately too many photos on the page, to the point where it is splitting up the text making the page look messy and making it harder to read. I suggest only including pictures that illustrate a subject in the article or are of historic importance. Villafanuk 16:33, 27 Jan 2010
Surely, as a Top-importance rail article, the {{train topics}} should be upper right? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. That's where it was before until VillaFan moved it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually after checking the page history again I'm wrong that VillaFanUK has overall actually removed one photo and so didn't actually added any :o. They've just moved them closer to the top which confused me. I'll move the {{train topics}} back up to the top, as that appears to be the consensus. Still there is an issue with too many images on the page. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried removing some images which were not related or not informative to the article (more of a "look at this" image) - it has removed the big white space, however some images still need moving about to correspond with the article they are written for. Carlos118 (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Assistance request for Station

The dab page Station has been following the consensus established here at Talk:Train station, concerning the use of the terms train station, railway station, and railroad station. I believe that has become established as the consensus on the Station page.

Unfortunately, one editor has persisted in bucking that consensus numerous times, despite getting reverted every time (by myself and others). If any of you would care to add Station to your watchlist, perhaps one of you can do a better job than I've managed in explaining to Little Fluffy Clod why he might be better off giving up his perseveration about "railway station" in the face of consensus. Thanks! Lwarrenwiki (talk) 01:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, it looks like our old friend Hypocaustic is back to his old tricks. Hell, somehow I didn't even notice that he changed the lead here from our accepted consensus that leads with the actual article title. I have reverted all his edits here, as it's obnoxious, POV-pushing bullcrap. He was indeffed for being a tool, and known to have been a sockmaster repeatedly. Off to SPI again. oknazevad (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Which concensus (thread) are you actually referring to? Which articular one exactely? -- ZH8000 (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I was referring primarily to the closed discussion at Talk:Train_station#Requested_move. It's not the only such discussion; I looked back at this page's archives a couple months ago, but I saw no need to go back through those again. The upshot is that this page is still titled train station, and that Hypocaustic's proposals concerning that term have met with long-standing opposition and have been repeatedly rejected and/or reverted. That's more than enough for me to be comfortable calling the opposition a consensus. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Language Drift

The lead sentence:

... despite my earlier belief, is not as accurate as we may have hoped. I recently acquired over $200. USD in rail road reference books, and since I was reading in one or the other authoritative reference and was surprised to find out in early US railway culture, meaning as operating companies internal documents would use the term, 'Station' DID NOT often contain a DEPOT building, in fact, quite the contrary, usually did not! These amenities generally came some decades later, paying traffic dependent, so to the operating company, the station term more often than not followed the sense of: "The smallest stations are most often referred to as "stops" or, in some parts of the world, as "halts" (flag stops).".

This may also explain why many of these historic depot buildings (in my experience and impressions) usually can only be dated after the 1880s, half a century into the North American Railway era. The corollary there, is the 1890s onwards, the US RRs began systematically competing for passenger travelers including premier expresses and limited runs, fancy brochures and so on. This was of course after things had settled out and the survivors still standing had emerged from the great depression of 1873-79. Contributors here are cautioned to bear in mind the key differences between European and North American railway developmental history-in thickly settled Europe rail transport was added to existing situations, whereas here in No. Am. the rails opened up remote unpopulated areas to settlements and growth and population followed speculators building on faith, more often than not. (Hence the multiple company failures in so many eventual lines (e.g. Lehigh and New England) that eventually became regional powers with their day in the sun.

Apologies for (today) being unable to produce a cite with quote, but have been time sharing between three works epublished and read a via kindle and two extremely detailed 'big book historys' (I think this one was likely in 'The Classic Eastern American RAILROAD ROUTES', which I highly recommend; but cannot be sure until I have time to relocate it.), and do not at this time recall in which I saw the paragraph some ten days back. This is a 'promissory note' saying that I will do so eventually, and add the appropriate edit given the overall context. // FrankB 18:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So, to summarize, early in the word "station" was merely a synonym for "stop", often without buildings (known as depots) at all, but as railroads developed and began boasting more features in an effort to compete with each other, station buildings became standard, and the distinction between "depot" and "station" became lost. Interesting in documenting the language drift and etymology of the modern term, but I don't think it diminishes the facts of modern use of the words, which is what the lead documents. oknazevad (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Train stops and internationalisation

I just added this to the Bus stop talk page, on the language version issue of a missing Train stop (in the sense of a place the train stops/halts which is not a station, not the current article). The English Wikipedia is missing something between train station and bus stop:

«The English language version is the de facto authoritative version of Wikipedia. This page, [Bus stop], has other language versions, but as a more specific or bus version of stops in general.

For the first time in a long while I've seen a page, stops, that exists in every major version except English. Example in German: "Halting point".

If you look closer you would find that the other language versions aren't completely consistent. In some languages the article refers to "stopping places" in general, bus, tram, or train, in others the article is exclusively about train stops (like the German version above).

In the English version we have the Train station article this sentence: The smallest stations are most often referred to as "stops" or, in some parts of the world, as "halts" (flag stops).

Indeed, in many language versions we have not one, but two railroad oriented articles, "stops", and "halts". Some only have "stops", and the English version, as mentioned, has neither.

The simplest remedy would be to have a Train stop page which the other language versions would link to, except, as you can see, this page is about something else entirely, so disambiguation would be necessary.

Ultimately there should probably be an article on stops in general, places where people get on and off public transport without a station building and other criteria to turn that stop into a station, terminal, or what have you. This article would link to specific articles for bus stops (this on), tram stops, and train stops. Trains would eventually have an article on train halts, as the distinction "halt" and "stop" evidently matters in the train world. »

jax (talk) 05:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See Halt (railway). Yes it redirects to a section of this article. But that's because it's better for readers to not have to jump around multiple articles for closely related concepts. I believe the current set up is the best solution. oknazevad (talk) 05:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
In tbe UK, all train stops, large or small, are called "stations". Historically, some smaller stops were called "halts", but that's no longer the case. I don't know what the situation is in other English-speaking countries. This may be one of the reasons we don't have a separate article for "train stops". In contrast, in the UK most bus stopping points are called "bus stops" and the term "bus station" refers only to the largest facilities (serving multiple routes and in town centres). -- Dr Greg  talk  10:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Bus stop and bus station are the same way as you described in the U.S. I'm not entirely sure about train stop, I don't know if I've ever actually heard someone use both of those words next to each other. However, I have heard stop by itself, so I assume it is. –Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Canal terminus redirect

Well, I guess I should more elaborate my issues with the edits. Firstly, even if the concept of train termini are modeled on canal termini, I don't believe that someone searching for the term "canal terminus" is going to be interested in a passage on train terminals, and the two are too distantly related for this article to contain the material that would make it a proper target; it's outside the article scope. It is an inappropriate redirect target for the term. A section on the article on canals would be far better, if any specific section is needed.

Also, the large amount of material lacks references. That makes it of questionable value in the first place. oknazevad (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Dude, a few hundred words of obvious and crystalized knowledge do not require citations. Perhaps reading a bit of history will help you understand. But the Pic I added was one very loud and obvious one, nonetheless. Happens I've been working over integration of early 1800s canal and railroad history, and asking for cites would have been easy to do and on your part, IMHO, a surprisingly respectable act as an editor.
"A people which have no past, have no future." Inasmuch as you unilaterally feel free to shit can 2+ hours of my carefully spent time--and impoverish the project since the matter is no longer covered anywhere -- perhaps you can spend an equal effort in improving abysmal internationalisation of this piece. It truly is UK centric and needs an enema. // FrankB 03:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
If you have the sources, they should definitely be added, per WP:V; we're not talking about citing that the sky is blue here. To not add them does a disservice to the readers.
Bur that still doesn't address the issue that this is not the right article for the redirect target, nor should the section spend an inordinate amount of time on canals, even if they were the predecessor and it's not covered elsewhere. This article is called "train station". It's about train stations, including terminal stations. It is not about canals. It is not about canal terminals. It's good material, but adding it here is completely the wrong place for it. It's outside the scope. Whining about something so patently obvious does you no favors. oknazevad (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Globalize

Adding {{Globalize}} to get the focus of this article out of the UK and commonwealth nations. It needs loads of work. Have fun! // FrankB 03:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I added this template per your request. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 05:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Train_station/Archive_2&oldid=1159416926"