Talk:Durham–UNH station/Precision

WP:PRECISION

 * copied here from my Talk

Hey, just wanted to let you know I moved Durham–UNH back to Durham-UNH (Amtrak station). Transit system station names are a weird exception to WP:PRECISION. Because station names are usually based on a) a town/city, b) a street, or c) a landmark, they almost always need to be disambiguated. Most systems, including Amtrak, use the parenthetical on all stations to make linking easier; even those like New London Union Station where it's unambiguous have New London (Amtrak station) as a redirect.

Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They aren't an exception to WP:PRECISION. If almost all of them need qualifiers, then almost all of them should get qualifiers. The ones, however few they are, that do not need qualifiers should not get qualifiers. Right, redirects (like the one I left) make the links just as easy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong about that. WP:PRECISION itself says the following: "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." That's exactly the situation here. Mackensen (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Pi is right. Without the use of "{Amtrak station)" in the name, it's simply an abbreviation for Durham-University of New Hampshire. ---User:DanTD (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What Pi may be right about is that "Durham–UNH" is a poor title for this article. "Durham–UNH (Amtrak station)" is a poorer title. I improved it by removing the useless qualifier (and by making it reachable by wikilinking Durham–UNH. FairFare improved it further by giving it a better natural title "Durham–UNH station". If the "station" is a necessary part of the title (and not simply a disambiguating qualifier), it should be part of the title. If "Amtrak" is also a necessary part of the title, it should be part of the title. (Now that the station has a better name, if Durham–UNH is simply and abbreviation for Durham–University of New Hampshire, Durham–UNH might better be redirected to a different page.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No you didn't improve it. You just took away part of the name that better describes the subject. Also, simply calling it "Durham–UNH station" wouldn't work, first, because it's an Amtrak station, and second, because Amtrak isn't the only railroad in the country. You may not be aware of this, but MBTA has consider expanding into New Hampshire. ---User:DanTD (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. The parenthetical qualifier is not part of the name. If it's a necessary part of the title, it should not be in parentheses. If it's not a necessary part of the title (as indicated by the parentheses), it should be dropped if it does not serve to disambiguate the article from the primary topic or the disambiguation page. Please see WP:PRECISION. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * For clarity all stations/railway stations/metro stations/subway stations/tube stations need some disambiguation, even if there is no conflicting article in Wikipedia, because they are always named after their destination, which in real world terms creates a title conflict. Imagine searching for a place that does not have in entry here and finding a station or, as pointed out above, a logical seach that redirects to the station rather than what it is named after. That would just be a stupid renaming. This example is a railway station owned by the University of New Hampshire and used by Amtrak. While I think that station or railway station would suffice, I also think that this evangelical renaming is totally disruptive and contributes nothing - that should be THIS CONTRIBUTES NOTHING to this article, and only antagonises the contributing editors who do the real work of creating and maintaining this series of articles. Two wrongs don't make a right. Ah! now I feel better! FairFare (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's needed for clarity, it's not disambiguation and should be part of the title. If it's needed for clarify, "station" or "Amtrak station" should exist (without parentheses) at the end of each title for stations or Amtrak stations. Also, you are straying into personal attacks by implying that edits you don't like are the result of evangelism and are done by non-contributing editors. Your feeling better doesn't justify it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree with most of what you say, but it is your approach to this that I find objectionable. If you truly believe in this, you will set out to change the entire Amtrak system, rather than frivolously choosing one. If I had the time, I would take that on. That is what I see as disruptive. My well being and my desire to express how I feel is none of your business, but I wish you well in "your mission, should you decide to accept it" FairFare (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. There is no requirement to fix everything before one can fix anything. As I clip through random WP articles, I improve the ones I find. If you feel passionate (or evangelical, or stupid, or whatever), you are welcome to accept the mission you've described. I don't have to fix everything for you, since as you pointed out your well-being is none of my business. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

JHunterJ, the point we are all trying to make is that the move you made was not an improvement and was in fact the opposite. It was a reasonable mistake to make, but you are trying to defend a move that goes against project consensus. The issue of postfixes has been discussed to death on WP:Trains and every single time the consensus is to keep them. The (Amtrak station) postfix is unambiguous - it identifies any Amtrak station in a way that a shorter name does not. As DanTD pointed out, "Durham-UNH" could just as easily refer to the college. Repetitively citing WP:PRECISION is a poor substitute for considering the opinions of the editors who work with train station articles on a regular basis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't go against Wikipedia project consensus, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't prevail, although that's a reasonable mistake to make as well. Parenthetical qualifiers are used for disambiguating titles; the local project's use of them instead of better base titling may have caused churn in the past and it's certain to continue to cause churn, since it's counter to the project-wide style. Repeatedly dismissing Wikipedia guidelines is a poor substitute for considering the opinions of the editors who work on Wikipedia. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You've yet to address the point I made above. Mackensen (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this ever been discussed more broadly than among the trains project members? -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed the point I made above. Consensus is where you find it. I think this has been discussed at least four times over the past six years. I'm going to repeat the portion of WP:PRECISION I quoted above: "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." I maintain that this is such a situation. You're telling me there are no exceptions to WP:PRECISION. That's clearly not the case. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is in response to your point above. Consensus is where you find it, and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS doesn't change Wikipedia consensus. Which "specific Wikipedia guidelines" (not Project essays) are you referring to? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going in circles here, and I'm not sure why it is that one person gets to demand that everyone else prove they're right. There's no such thing as a consensus of one. Let's break down the statement in WP:PRECISION, making full allowance for the subtleties of the English language: "Exceptions to the precision criterion, validated by consensus, may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines, such as Primary topic, Geographic names, or Names of royals and nobles." The key here is consensus. What is Consensus? Well, that's complicated. The policy page is actually silent on how many people you need since consensus is ultimately an iterative and collaborative process, which requires not numbers but discussion. The current naming convention stems from long-standing practice, beginning in probably 2004 or so when station articles began to be created in large numbers. If the convention stems mostly from people involved in WP:TRAINS that's no accident but rather a reflection of interested parties. I was heavily involved in one of the exceptions explicitly noted above, the naming of royals and nobles, and I can tell you that it was a very small group which crafted that guideline. Most people neither knew nor care, yet it has consensus because in the main it is not challenged. You're also wrong to rely on WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I think: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." You cannot reasonably describe thousands of articles over half the life of the project as "one place and time." WP:CONSENSUS says something else: "If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept." These article titles are all stable. You're proposing a change, which is fine. You need to get consensus for that change, and baldly asserting that the existing convention is invalid because you don't like it (I sympathize) or because it somehow doesn't have consensus (untrue) isn't the right approach. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * may: exceptions are permitted, when backed by consensus
 * most: not all exceptions are documented by guidelines, although many are
 * It's not me making demands, it's Wikipedia; you left out the obvious part of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: "unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." So, where did WikiProject Trains convince the broader community that this action (using parentheticals as essential parts of the title, instead of disambiguating qualifiers) is right? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't leave it out at all. You're demanding a literal test when none is necessary or useful. Consensus is stability (among other things). We don't vote on things, and we don't put every standard or convention up to some site-wide discussion. I would also disagree with your characterization of the convention; it's more preemptive disambiguation than anything else. Mackensen (talk) 13:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're going around in circles because you are not applying that portion of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. And now I've gotten two contradictory explanations: it's a pre-emptive disambiguation (not a necessary part of the name), and we don't do this since we have no crystal ball and don't want to have to move William Shakespeare to William Shakespeare (playwright born 1564) just in case in the future there's another playwright named William Shakespeare; or it's not a disambiguation at all but an essential part of the name as Dan-TD pointed out, and we put the essential parts of the titles in the title without parentheses (like Durham–UNH station or Durham–UNH Amtrak station). It sounds like this discussion has come up before within WP:Trains, and might benefit from discussion in the broader community, to avoid those kinds of problems. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)