Talk:Fairfield Metro station

Proposed Update to Infobox
Note that the 124 includes both East and West divisions of Metro North. The citation is on the rank, with the passenger count and year of the data being implied as from the same source.

Here's the proposed update like what we've been doing over on the LIRR pages. Lent (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Several comments:
 * Is that document online / publicly available? We shouldn't be using an internal-only document.
 * It should be specified that it's average weekday boardings.
 * I'm not a fan of the ranking. It adds length to the infobox without providing actually important information.
 * Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I got it from a FOIA request and uploaded it to Google Drive. The links are also here--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 17:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable using a FOIA'd internal document hosted on a personal account as a source. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It is an official document. I don't know what your issue with using it is.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RS requires that sources be published; I do not believe that an internal document obtained only by FOIA meets that standard. Having the document hosted on a personal account, where it could be modified by someone other than the creator, is also a problem. (That is not to say that I have any lack of trust in you, merely that such personal hosting is almost never okay.) This needs to be reviewed on WP:RSN before adding it to any articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are screenshots of the email from the MTA with the attachments.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That does not solve any of the issues I raised. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Distinguish?
I added a Distinguish template (With Fairfield station (Metro-North)) Today. But it was removed. I really don't see why, These are two stations that have a quite similar name. Even more so, the titles of the two articles are also very similiar and easy to mix up. I think that the distinguish tag is needed, what do you think?-- Kieran207  talk  01:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * distinguish is for when readers have misspelled their desired title, and the error would be apparent by simply displaying the alternative term without further explanation. That really isn't the case here. I don't think the names are confusable enough to warrant a hatnote anyway, especially since the other station is already linked in the infobox anyway. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

Fairfield Metro station → Fairfield–Black Rock station – I already moved it back, but the previous user undid my edit stating the app doesn't reflect the new station name of "FairField-Black Rock". FlushingLocal (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Support but wait: I think we let the name settle and then move it - give it a week, maybe HaapsaluYT (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The station signs have all been renamed to Fairfield-Black Rock on June 3rd as I have stated in my edit. I'm not sure why I'm being contested on the grounds because "the train app isn't updated". Regardless, if the STATION SIGNS themselves no longer reflect the old name, then it's allowed to update the article to show the new one. FlushingLocal (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're focusing primarily on the official name side of things; this is a very recent name change and it will take time for the common name to settle.  O.N.R.  (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I assumed so, so I have the authority to keep it as the new name? FlushingLocal (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Just a quick correction: The dash in the article name needs to be "–" and not "-". Is it OK if I can move the article to rectify the issue?
 * Thanks — Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * .  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 19:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Happy to help!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 19:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Not yet: It is not yet clear whether the official name has yet changed. There has not been any official announcement or press coverage of the name change having actually happened, and the official website still shows the old name. It is common for station signage to be changed in the weeks or months preceding the name change officially taking effect. It was not appropriate for you to move the page a second time without consensus. I have filed here for the page to be moved back to the old name until there is consensus at this discussion whether to move the page. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: I have updated this move request to reflect a move away from the longstanding title of Fairfield Metro station. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, if three people are wanting the name to be changed, and CTrail documents show that the station name has changed, I don't get why you are against this so much. Just change the name so we can all move on. FlushingLocal (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There needs to be consensus as to whether the page should be moved in the first place, as @Pi.1415926535 said above. The page is currently move protected so we have to wait until there is consensus at this discussion on whether to move the page. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Why should there be a consensus for something that has been made OFFICAL?? Am I missing something here?? FlushingLocal (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @FlushingLocal: Consensus is a core site policy, as is Verifiability. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to be willing to work with other editors to find consensus when there is disagreement, and to provide reliable sources to back up claims. Thus far, you have not provided any verifiable evidence to support your claim that the name change has occurred. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can officially confirm that MTA has updated their website for Fairfield Metro, now saying "Fairfield-Black Rock (Fairfield Metro)".
 * Here is the link confirming this: https://new.mta.info/stations/fairfield-black-rock
 * The MTA have also put a note at the bottom of the page titled "Station renaming" saying the following: "Fairfield Metro Station is being renamed Fairfield-Black Rock Station. You may see both names in use while we work to update the name across our system."
 * Thanks. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 12:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * They have also updated the railroad map, changing Fairfield Metro to Fairfield-Black Rock.
 * Link: https://new.mta.info/map/22461
 * Thanks again. Pedroperezhumberto (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, its now June 30th. The name is obviously Fairfield-Black Rock.  Its on the MTA website and on all their maps.  The signs at the station have been changed, so just change it already and let get on to other tasks. Milepost947 (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's been changed officially for the last two weeks. Can we move on now? FlushingLocal (talk) 03:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Post RM discussion
Sorry to ping you right after the close, but I didn't get a chance to change my previous oppose to support before the close. I do now think the article should be moved - the name has been changed on official websites (info page, timetable, map), and I've added a secondary source to the article that confirms the name change has taken effect. Since I was the only formal oppose in the discussion, I think this should be sufficient to now move the page. Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It's okay, you've done nothing wrong, it's okay to ping me. Unfortunately, there could be many more support !votes and it still would not override Wikipedia policy. The source you added that reports the name change is a start; however, the policy requires that there be more than one, "sources", and the policy also states: the reliable sources written after the change is announced must routinely use the new name. So just an announcement of the name change from News 12 Connecticut is not enough. Reliable sources (more than one, three or four is best) have to use the new name routinely in the course of whatever else it is that they're writing about. Until then, the old name remains the common name that is familiar to our readers. Thank you and please do keep abreast of those reliable sources!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 01:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth: This isn't a station that normally receives a great degree of press attention. In the last three months, there have been exactly two news stories mentioning the station: June 26 noting the name change taking effect, and July 1 with a trivial mention that uses the new name. There is no policy requirement for a specific number of sources, merely that they consistently use the new name. Given the total lack of recent sources that still use the old name, this is as definite evidence of the changed common name as is possible in this case. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:46, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Article title policy does not allow for good or poor press coverages. That second source above, patch.com, is precisely what the community consensus in article title policy is looking for, a mention of the station under its new name routinely. A couple more sources like that and this article's title can be properly updated.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Paine Ellsworth: There is clear editor consensus, clear evidence of the official name change, and multiple news stories using the new name. A second RM filed now would obviously have consensus for a move. You seem to be imposing an arbitrary standard on the amount of press coverage that you deem sufficient for a move. Where does it say in policy that two post-name-change news stories are insufficient? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The only "clear editor consensus" here is the community consensus that supports the Article title policy, which greatly overwhelms local consensus. Clear evidence of the name change comes from a few primary sources and one, just one, secondary source, patch.com. The policy sets the standard of multiple secondary sources since the name change, and believe me, there are some editors who think that means at least a dozen sources that use the new name routinely, like patch.com does. In my own humble opinion, four secondary sources that use the new name routinely would be best, three would be acceptable, two just shows you're trying. So I would hope that you would spend your time more wisely and find reliable secondary sources that use the new name routinely. What you don't seem to be getting is that WP is adamant about using article titles that are familiar to our readers, and in this present moment, the title of this article, "Fairfield Metro station" is the most familiar name of the station and therefore the common name.  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some way to find this "Article Title Policy" that you keep referring to? I can't seem to find it.  I find it troubling that whenever someone finds a flaw in your argument, you come up with some new policy.  Community consensus vs local consensus for example.  The title name change instructions I could find don't anything about "primary " vs. "secondary" sources.  Also, please don't put your humble opinion in this.  You seem to be demanding we follow the letter of the policy, then please follow that. Milepost947 (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, where sometimes we miss things when we read. You missed the link to the article title policy that I offered in my RM closing statement. Here it is again. And that's the only policy I've come up with, and it is not new. In fact it is a very old, tried and true expression of WP community consensus. That's one of the strongest policies we have. You should find everything you need in that policy for you to understand why this article's present title is the WP:COMMONNAME. Again, welcome and I hope you continue to enjoy your WP experience for many years to come!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 03:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, so because one person decided to cause all this back and forth, the article will remain with the wrong name until another, if any, news agency does another story on it. Just wonderful. 98.116.105.28 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep. I just simply gave up. There was a reason I stopped editing wiki articles many years ago and I kind of forgot why...now I remember.  These editors want help to keep Wikipedia updated but they throw every possible obstacle in your way to do it.  And if you find a way around or thru one of these obstacles, they throw another one out to stop you.  Its not enough that several sources say it has a new name, including the owner of the station itself, we are suppose to find more sources to say it in a very specific way.  So, they win.  I give up.  Again. Milepost947 (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, you're both right. It's just silly to think of our readers and what they get sent to when they search for the name they still know as the common name. WP should just chuck all those policies and do our best to satisfy editors instead of readers. Let's get right on that!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 02:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not appreciate your sarcasm or the subsequent roadblocks that you keep putting out for something that is simple when your time could surely be spent better elsewhere. Matter of fact, where do I go to file an official complaint to go over your head since you can't seem to listen to reason? 98.116.105.28 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, you're correct, and this time I mean it sincerely. I was on vacation when I wrote that and feeling a little low because it was ending soon. I'm back now, and all I can say is I'm sorry for the sarcasm and I'm sorry that you see WP policy as roadblocks rather than as the consensus of a community that is dedicated to its readers. If you think you can convince other editors that the outcome of the move request was wrong, then the next step would be WP:move review. Again, I'm sorry that I offended you, and thank you sincerely for your contributions to this encyclopedia!  P.I. Ellsworth &thinsp;, ed.  put'er there 20:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)