Talk:Riverside–Downtown station

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

This article lacks references.

California: Inland Empire Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Inland Empire task force (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Stub‑class Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources[edit]

I tried to add as much information as I could, but unfortunately this came out more like a Metrolink brochure than an encyclopedia. There really is very little of note about the Riverside station, however, excepting the routes that serve it, so I hope I did the right thing. Plattypus1 (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 May 2018[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: Objection withdrawn and moved. I have changed my mind and am now convinced by Dicklyon's arguments below, that the hyphen rule doesn't apply for compound modifiers where the modifier is after the main noun. Since nobody apart from me has contested this matter in the discussion, that now takes it back into the uncontroversial move category so I will just go ahead and do it. — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– Matching Wikipedia naming conventions. RickyCourtney (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Oppose - these pages were moved in December with the summary MOS:ENDASH: "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." That seems reasonable to me. This is not a station serving the separate and co-equal localities of Riverside and Downtown, it is the station for Riverside and Downtown is a qualifier for that. Best to open it up to full discussion anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really contested? I reverted the move only because the page was copied wholesale into the new page instead of an actual move. Lithopsian (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I'm contesting it. I'm not convinced the rationale is correct. Downtown modifies Riverside, so per MOS:DASH, a hyphen seems correct. — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. I need to read more slowly. Lithopsian (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If Downtown was modifying Riverside in the way that uses a hyphen, it would be Downtown-Riverside station, except that one doesn't generally use a hyphen in proper names that way, so it would just be Downtown Riverside station. But here I think it's different, with Riverside–Downtown being more of a dash relationship, with the second part saying which Riverside station it meant; a space would also work there, and it's sometimes done that way in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a dash relationship, it's a hyphen relationship for exactly the reason you give. Because the second part is saying which Riverside station it meant. A dash would only be appropriate if it was linking two separate localities served by the same station, "Riverside" and "Downtown". — Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I guess I'm completly wrong about the usage of endashes. I read "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash" and interpreted that to mean that this would be the proper usage for an endash. I'm okay with a hyphen if that's what's right, I just want to see us be consistent. I've seen dashes, hyphens and spaces in Metrolink station names. Example "Riverside-La Sierra" or "Riverside–La Sierra" or "Riverside - La Sierra". --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is what's right, Dicklyon's evidence-less assertions notwithstanding. Metro station names will be a mixture, because some are of this form (noun-modifier), while others are of the compound form (noun–other noun). That's how the rule works. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This kind of construct is commonly with dash. You can see a good clue in the official Metrolink page, where the dash is rendered as a spaced hyphen (a common hack by those who know a hyphen is wrong (too tightly binding) but don't know how to render a proper dash). Dicklyon (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – the editor who moved it to the hyphen did a half dozen such moves one day; the rest have already been put back to the endash. Dicklyon (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:DASH. This is a cut-and-dry case, and there no cause or room for some kind of magical exception here. The dash here means "to", and a hyphen is not used for that construction. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
er... Great, except It means nothing of the sort. Its not a line, from Riverside to Downtown, it's a station, which is in Riverside, and more particularly in Downtown. The latter is a modifier of the former and hence a cut and dry hyphen. — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
er... Yes, S got that one wrong! But it's still not a hyphen, which is used when the first thing modifies the second making a noun phrase, used as an adjective. Riverside Downtown is not a compound to which adding a hyphen makes sense, the way it might in downtown Riverside. Rather, Riverside and Downtown are two name parts; not quite parallel, but still the sort of construct for which we use en dash. When a city has several stations, this is the usual pattern. Or space. Dicklyon (talk) 06:37, 29 May 2018 (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.

Prior service[edit]

The current station opened on June 14, 1993, returning rail service to Riverside following the closure of the Santa Fe depot in 1984. The original depot, built in 1927, still stands a few blocks north of the current station.[2] The original depot was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1977.[3] The Southwest Chief added a stop in Riverside in April 2002, after 18 years of not stopping at Riverside.

It appears that almost all of this is incorrect. Spot-checking Amtrak timetables doesn't show service in the 1970s or 1980s; and the Southwest Limited (predecessor of the Chief) was still using the traditional Santa Fe route via Pasadena until 1994. On the 1962 Santa Fe timetable the sole remaining train to Riverside was the Grand Canyon, which was discontinued in 1971. Riverside may have lost service even before that. The building listed on the NRHP is not the original Santa Fe depot (which does still stand), but the Union Pacific depot, built in 1904, and on a different alignment. Most of the text was added in 2008 by Plattypus1 (talk · contribs); the mistaken NRHP id was by Dudemanfellabra (talk · contribs) in 2015: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]