Talk:Edmonton LRT/Station naming convention

A couple of station articles were recently renamed by removing the (ETS) because they do not need disambiguation. This does not really make clear what the subject matter is, and I'm not sure the vague suffix (ETS) helps either, and so this led me to investigate what the Edmonton Transit System calls their stations. The format that ETS uses at LRT Stations is "Name LRT Station", and there is a webpage for each station. This official name gives clarity about the subject matter and retains disambiguation and consistency in every name. I hope regular editors give me their thoughts here, because I do not intend to disrupt your good work. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree on good work going on here and good points raised. Support the "Name LRT Station" format. Hwy43 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that all the stations should have a uniform name. Not sure why someone thought they should start changing that. I wonder, though, should we include "LRT" in the name? For example, Century Park could be moved to Century Park Station as it is technically an LRT station and a bus station. Or maybe Century Park ETS Station. Just my thoughts. Thankyoubaby (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you referring to the Century Park Transit Centre. Notice that the adjoining station is referred to as "Century Park LRT Station". We don't need to "make up" names. Secondarywaltz (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I think the "Name LRT Station" format is fine. Thankyoubaby (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, reading the above, I think "Name Station" is better and more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. "Churchill Station" is more commonly spoken and written than the official "Churchill LRT Station". If disambiguation is required, the format would then be "Name Station (Edmonton)" and it should also resolve the Century Park dual LRT and bus roles. Hwy43 (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not the title's job to explain the subject, that is what the article is for. From what I have seen of LRT and subways systems, is the abbreviated name is used (the one you see on a transit map or signs at the station) and the system or line name is used to disambiguate, if needed. 117Avenue (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK then - I can agree with that. But you removed the (ETS) from some titles which disrupts the naming convention. A naming convention like this has nothing to do with disambiguation, it's something that must be consistently applied. It indicates that stations are part of the ETS system, and the suffix should not be dropped. Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a consistent naming convention, just like I explained. The article is named after the station, with the "station" removed. However, Wikipedia cannot have multiple articles of the same name, so we use disambiguation. The title shouldn't be longer than necessary. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at London's Bakerloo Line stations, each article is "Name station". Featured Article Manila Light Rail Transit System lists each station as "Name LRT station". Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no "right" answer to this and so I will defer to regular editors. Once you remove the modifier, the title becomes what the station is named after - a street, landmark, community, destination, etc. You would not use "NAIT" alone, even if there was no existing article to conflict with. Appropriate names would be "NAIT (ETS)" or "NAIT LRT Station" or "NAIT station" or anything that says what it is. All railway station articles in Canada, unless they have a proper name, are titled "Name railway station". You would never think of dropping the descriptive portion of those names and the same applies here. Let me say that quality content is much more valuable than debate on the title of minor articles, and I almost regret bringing this up. Thank you all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secondarywaltz (talk • contribs) 21:06, April 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best bet would be to go with Hwy43's suggestion of "Name Station" and when another station with the same name exists in another city we add (Edmonton) to disambiguate. Like in the case of Century Park (see: Century Park Station (Shanghai)). Furthermore, when in doubt, check a featured article. I found eight railway stations that are featured articles, all of them include the word "station". Lastly, when riding the LRT, the announcements always say "Next stop: XYZ Station". Thankyoubaby (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems like there isn't consistency around the world with naming railway or LRT station articles. I am starting to feel that "Name LRT Station" is correct, it can both be commonname, and official name, and it is also disambiguation. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Thankyoubaby (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, make my day! Secondarywaltz (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)