Talk:Achasan station

Requested move 14 January 2018

 * 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: Procedural close. Re-opened as a combined RM at Talk:Achasan Station (closed by page mover). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Achasan Station → Achasan station – Per WP:NCCAPS and consistent with recent moves of railway station articles, such as Talk:Airport South station and Talk:Baihuting station, "station" should not be capitalized. Note that if this article is moved it means other articles about stations of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway should be moved in the same format. feminist (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Achasan Station is the WP:Common use. Korean railway stations are written in capitals. File:Dongdaegu_front3.jpg
 * It's not just Chinese stations, see for example Talk:Hung Hom station and Talk:Beimen MRT station. This is despite Hong Kong MTR stations having "Station" capitalized in signage, see e.g. File:Kowloon Tong Station 2013 part6.JPG, File:MTR CEN (1).JPG, File:MTR CSW (2).JPG. feminist (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The signage inside the station File:Achasan_Station_3.JPG says otherwise, without the 'station' in it. Furthermore, the official map of the system lists it in a similar manner, as in[] R22-3877 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The signage (map.daum.net) outside the station has 'Station' (Stn). Inserting 'Station', or Stn in the map is considered foolish. Don't you know that 'Station' is leaved out because of space limitations? Sawol (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The guidelines at WP:NCCAPS actually support the present capitalized format, as it is a proper noun in just the same way as Eiffel Tower. The format is also supported by WP:Common use. --DAJF (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In [] and [], it seems that Seoul Metro actually only uses the name 'Achasan', without the 'station' or station, in official documents, as well as in signage (as in File:Achasan_Station_3.JPG). Thus, WP:NCCAPS and R22-3877 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support As per nom, and ( [] and []) R22-3877 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with the zillion prior "Station" → "station" and "Line" → "line" moves. The idea that these are proper names is bankrupt; this has been rejected in at least 50 RMs. Sources do not consistently capitalize these things, so WP does not either. These are descriptive appellations.  Grand Central Terminal is a proper name, because it's not descriptive, but an evocative, metaphoric label. Eiffel Tower is also; it's named after a person.  Achasan station appears to be named after a local landmark; it's a descriptive.  By DAJF's reasoning every single station article would have to have "Station" in it, but this is precisely the opposite of the conclusion consensus has consistently reached. (People get confused about this, because the underlying placename is often named after a person and is thus an evocative, metaphoric, proper name. E.g. Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, versus Van Ness station, the Muni station descriptively named for the major street at which it's located.) WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy and completely irrelevant to capitalization questions. It's the policy that tells us it is  Achasan [s|S]tation, not Ochosan or Chicken Palace or Batman [s|S]tation, or Achasan graveyard. Signage and Korean documents are completely irrelevant; the are not written in encyclopedic prose style but in signage and governmentese style, which capitalize everything. And capitalization of attempts at English in non-English-language countries would not matter anyway; no one from Japanese Wikipedia would claim that an attempt at Japanese on a sign in the United States was a reliable source.


 * 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.

Can we merge these 5 discussions?
– Would anyone object if I started a new multi-RM discussion to replace the 5 open discussions on Korean station caps, so we don't each have to repeat ourselves in so many places? I'll go ahead and start that, and then delete the old ones, if I don't hear any objections. Please either copy your comments or write new ones, or I'll copy some over, if I don't hear back. I'll do it on this article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

See also meta discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

It's looking like the bot is ignoring the new RM I opened below. Maybe it only handles the first one on a page. So I'll delete/close the above one and see what happens. Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just pulled out the starting template. Hopefully that will make it go. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot's not instant; seems to have picked this up around 04:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC), judging by when it left notices on the other pages. And the redundant discussions will need to be  have been NACed, with people pointed to the combined nomination below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC); updated: 06:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the closes. The first time I saw the Bot update the RM list after I submitted, it wasn't there.  Maybe I missed its scan phase by a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 20 January 2018

 * 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: moved with the exception of Akabane-iwabuchi Station. There is mostly support for the other articles; however, to deny that the exception is a proper name would require discussion in the correct venue (the guideline's talk page). Happy Hearts Day! (closed by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there 20:57, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, as regards the Japanese station, the decision is no consensus.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  23:07, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

– Per WP:NCCAPS and consistent with recent moves of railway station articles, such as Talk:Airport South station and Talk:Baihuting station. Note that if this article is moved it means other articles about stations of the Daegu Metro should be moved in the same format. Originally proposed by feminist (talk) 09:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC) as 5 separate single RM proposals. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412  T 23:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Achasan Station → Achasan station
 * Akabane-iwabuchi Station → Akabane-iwabuchi station
 * Anjirang Station → Anjirang station
 * Anpyeong Station → Anpyeong station
 * Banseok Station → Banseok station
 * Oppose: As per my comments on the original move proposal at Talk:Akabane-iwabuchi Station, the guidelines at WP:NCCAPS actually support the present capitalized format (i.e. "XYZ Station"), as these are proper nouns just like Tokyo Tower, London Bridge etc. etc. This format also complies with the long-standing manual of style for such articles set out at Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. It should be noted that Tokyo Metro uses capitals for all its stations in official signage and documentation (see ), so this is how they should be treated in the corresponding Wikipedia articles. --DAJF (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably I should have left that one separate, as it's in Japan, unlike the other 4 in Korea. But thanks for pointing out the Japan has this same over-capitalization issue.  Note that maps typically show "Akabane-iwabuchi" as the station name.  In station naming conventions everywhere else in the world, we interpret the "station" as part of the proper name only when it's an inherent and necessary part of the name.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with Tokyo Metro's "overcapitalization", perhaps you should write them a letter to advise them. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with others using their own style. Dicklyon (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. To repeat what I said at all the separate RMs: per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY with the zillion prior "Station" → "station" and "Line" → "line" moves. The idea that these are proper names is bankrupt; this has been rejected in at least 50 RMs. Sources do not consistently capitalize these things, so WP does not either. These are descriptive appellations.  Grand Central Terminal is a proper name, because it's not descriptive, but an evocative, metaphoric label. Eiffel Tower is also; it's named after a person.  Banseok station is just a station in Banseok; "Banseok station" is a descriptive label.  By DAJF's reasoning every single station article would have to have "Station" in it, but this is precisely the opposite of the conclusion consensus has consistently reached. (People get confused about this, because the underlying placename is often named after a person and is thus an evocative, metaphoric, proper name. E.g. Van Ness Avenue in San Francisco, versus Van Ness station, the Muni station descriptively named for the major street at which it's located.) WP:COMMONNAME is not a style policy and completely irrelevant to capitalization questions. It's the policy that tells us it is  Achasan [s|S]tation, not Ochosan [s|S]tation or Chicken Palace [s|S]tation or Batman [s|S]tation, nor Achasan graveyard. Signage and Korean/Japanese government documents are completely irrelevant; they are not written in encyclopedic prose style but in signage and governmentese style, which capitalize everything. And capitalization of attempts at English in non-English-language countries would not matter anyway; no one from Japanese Wikipedia would claim that an attempt at Japanese on a sign in the United States was a reliable source for how to write Japanese.
 * pinging those who commented in the separate RMs who have not commented in the combined one as of this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support For standardisation's sake, as well as per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Furthermore, it seems to me (for all the Korean stations at least) that the official name is just 'Achasan' or 'Banseok' R22-3877 (talk) 07:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Achasan Station is the WP:Common use. Korean and Japanese railway stations are written in capitals as map.naver.com and File:Akabane-Iwabuchi-Sta-1.JPG. The signage outside the station has 'Station'. 'Station' is unnecessary inside the station because any passengers who take the subway knows that they are in the station. 'Station' is leaved out because of space limitations in the maps. Sawol (talk) 09:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as original nominator. I proposed them as separate RMs because they concern different metro systems, but as long as the end result is the same, I don't mind combining them. feminist (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My comment from the previous RM: It's not just Chinese stations, see for example Talk:Hung Hom station and Talk:Beimen MRT station. This is despite Hong Kong MTR stations having "Station" capitalized in signage, see e.g. File:Kowloon Tong Station 2013 part6.JPG, File:MTR CEN (1).JPG, File:MTR CSW (2).JPG. feminist (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Support – as SMcCandlish details above, all the relevant style policies and station naming conventions favor the lowercase "station" for these. The argument from DAJF these are just like "Eiffel Tower" and such ignores all the previous discussions where the consensus was no on that.  Sawol's Korean exceptionalism argument is similarly baseless; he shows us no reason to believe that in Korea or Korean things are in any way different from how they were in all the other places and languages where the consensus was to not overcapitalize.  In particular, outside station signs always do include "Station", in title case; that has no bearing on the issue – inside platform signs usually omit "station", suggesting it's not an inherent or necessary part of the name, so we treat it more as a disambiguator (people outside the station, or reading en.wp, appreciate that!).  There is still a wad of overcapitalization in Korean and Japanese railway related articles (and some in US, too), but we're making progress, having mostly fixed UK, China, India, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, and many other places. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per DAJF. --Calton | Talk 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I hope that the nominator User:Feminist or the 2nd nominator User:Dicklyon considers WP:RM. "Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." This WP:RM should alert WP:Japan. This has alerted only WP:Korea. Sawol (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Feminist and I obviously do support this move proposal.  Feel free to alert affected projects. Dicklyon (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As I've said elsewhere I'm not as adamant about this as I am about "Xyz Line", but... It *is* a proper name, just like "Pennsylvania Station" or "Grand Central Station" are. "Pyongyang station"... which one, of the like seven? "West Pyongyang station"... which one, there's three or four in western Pyongyang alone. So that means, gotta capitalise "Pyongyang Station" to be clear one is referring to the central station, and "West Pyongyang Station" to be clear one is referring to the one named that... and if some are being capitalised, all should be for consistency's sake... 2Q (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Per DAJF - it's in the MOS for Japan, so there shouldn't even need to be any discussion on the matter, as there's already an accepted standard way of doing that. And, since Korean railway practice comes from the Japanese practice and in most respects is still the same, that should apply here, too. What one country does is not really relevant to unrelated countries. 2Q (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How's that again? Does Japan have its own MOS?  If so, let's work on fixing that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is nothing to fix there. Different subjects need different rules and standards, it's not "one size fits all"; what works here might not work there, etc. Or, as I mentioned elsewhere... you should also get on de-capitalising of "Sunset boulevard" and "Fifth avenue" and "White house" and "Buckingham palace"... 2Q (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Add: Besides, it's a full, large section of the MOS, not something set out by WikiProject Japan on its own, or somesuch. Manual of Style/Japan-related articles 2Q (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Bollocks. There is nothing whatsoever that's magically different about railway lines and stations in Japan as rendered in English.  Precisely zero national/cultural MoS pages should have anything in them at all about how to render English-language names of such things; all it does it cause conflict. As a matter of WP:CONLEVEL policy, no such topically micro-specific page can – about something that isn't even culturally determined (e.g. by Japanese in this case) – trump a site-wide consensus to use lower-case when sources do not consistently use upper-case, as codified in WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS and as reinforced in RM after RM after RM.  The opposes here are just making some "because Japan" special pleading case, on the basis of demonstrably false claims like "Achasan Station is the common use". It's the common use in signage and governmentese, which over-capitalize everything as a matter of house style, which is not WP's house style. We've already been over this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, like I said, I'm willing to be convinced about stations not necessarily being proper names including the 'Station' part. Lines, on the other hand, absolutely *are* proper names like "Sunset Boulevard". Something like Harbin–Manzhouli railway definitely is a descriptive, and 'railway' needn't be capitalised; but "Haman Railway", "Binzhou Line" and "Binzhou Railway" definitely are proper names including the "railway" or "line"... all three of those given names refer to the same stretch of railway (the aforementioned Harbin–Manzhouli railway line. This system of naming railway lines the same way as roads are given names (which I've described in further detail elsewhere) is common in China, Japan, and Korea, even if it is rare elsewhere (though common in rapid transit systems, such as here in Vancouver - Expo Line, Millennium Line, Evergreen Line, Canada Line (the last of which was originally to be called Olympic Line).2Q (talk) 05:26, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Already been over this, too. Attempts at English in non-English-speaking countries are not normative, and have nothing to do with how en.WP is written.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, really, you haven't, because you're either missing or avoiding the point that these are *proper names*. By your logic there, we should be writing "maozedong" uncapitalised, because it doesn't matter that it's a proper name. A given name is a given name. I've heard of being anti-capitalist, but I'm not sure that includes upper-case letters... 2Q (talk) 06:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * And, too, it's not like this is entirely unknown in English-speaking countries, either - see the Vancouver example I gave above, and others elsewhere. One off the top of my head is the former Southern Pacific Railway's line from San Francisco to LA, which was named the "Coast Line". There's plenty of evidence from all over the English-speaking world that disproves your position on this matter, whether you wish to see it or not.2Q (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per, who thoroughly rebutted all of the above Opposes, before and after his post.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Per user DAJF, and in accordance with "custom", I oppose it. Thanks. --Garam (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2018 (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.