Talk:London Victoria station/Archive 1

Article name
I don't understand the rationale behind this article name. The station is officially called London Victoria (see ). I appreciate that most Londoners and frequent users drop the London, so there would be an argument for naming the article just Victoria station, provided that was not ambiguous. But it is ambiguous, and dropping the London off the front and then sticking it on at the back as a WP bracketed disambiguator is just perverse, confusing to our readers and ugly. I move that we rename this article London Victoria station. -- Chris j wood 16:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Seconded - sorry to format your text but I felt the proposed name should be redlinked to emphasise the point! [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm - the proposed name is a redirect page... my redlink idea didn't really work... [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The underground part of the station is not called London Victoria. MRSC 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The tube station isn't called Victoria station (London) either. People who name London tube stations don't worry about ambiguities with names in Manchester, let alone New York or Beijing. We have to, in naming Wikipedia articles, so articles necessarily sometimes have different names from their subjects. That is life. In my opinion London Victoria station is still a better title than Victoria atation (London). -- Chris j wood 19:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is clearly the primary use there is a firm argument for moving it to Victoria station and moving the disambig which is currently there to Victoria station (disambiguation). MRSC 19:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 1) Move page to Victoria station as it is the primary use (this is the official name of the London Underground station and the standard wiki naming of all other London mainline station articles). or
 * 2) Move page to London Victoria station to reflect the official name of the mainline station.

Voting

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ for each of the options you have an opinion on. Longer comments should be placed in the Discussion section lower down the page.

Victoria station
Move this article to Victoria station and move the disambiguation page to Victoria station (disambiguation)
 * I support this move in preference to the current naming and to prepending London stations with "London". MRSC 19:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * [Oppose Victoria station] - move the page to London Victoria. [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 12:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This vote was changed from a struck out support for this option posted in the following section and moved here by Thryduulf when the voting was refactored. Thryduulf 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose Victoria station is ambiguous and the London Underground station is less important than the mainline station nationally, and the mainline station is not necessarily the most important internationally. Thryduulf 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * comment moved to discussion. Thryduulf 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose To me "Victoria station" is in Manchester. -- Arwel (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Victoria Station is clearly ambiguous, with major stations called this in London, Manchester, (historically) Nottingham, and quite likely other places; none of these are sufficiently well known globally to merit allocating one "Victoria Station" with a "(disambiguation)" page; "Victoria Station" should be a dab page. -- Chris j wood 16:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - Victoria station is ambiguous, and by WP:DAB should be a disambiguation page. Furthermore, stations should be named by their offical name, not their common name.

London Victoria station
Move this article to London Victoria station and leave the disambiguation page at Victoria station.
 * Stong Support - disambiguous, and (most importantly), the official name of the station. [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] [[Image:Anglo-Indian identity.svg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose unless the other major stations in London are similarly renamed. Thryduulf 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - all major London stations should be similarly renamed. [[Image:Anglo-indian.jpg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 14:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Support iff the other major stations in London are similarly renamed. Thryduulf 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose this option because of the implications for other station naming. MRSC 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support and all other mainline London termini should be similarly renamed. -- Arwel (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Support in the case of Victoria - Victoria station is ambiguous, we have a generally accepted name in London Victoria station which is not ambiguous and we should use it rather than inventing our own disambiguated name. Agnostic as to whether other London termini, which are not ambiguous, should be renamed. -- Chris j wood 17:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Support adding the city name removes any ambiguity. All other London stations should also be renamed using this format. Our Phellap 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Support, this name makes it clear which station is under discussion, and is the actual name used in London. (although the "London" is often dropped conversationally, this is the official title)--Jackyd101 08:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Victoria station (London)
Do not move any pages anywere - i.e. oppose all page moves
 * Support the status quo. The current name fits in with the naming conventions of major stations in London, but with the necessary bracketed disambiguation. Thryduulf 14:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I support keeping Victoria station (London) over going through the business of adding "London" to beginning of other stations. Not sure where it would end and its creating work for no benefit. MRSC 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments


 * Comment - both stations have over 60 million entries and exits a year each. They are clearly the primary meaning nationally and internationally. We put dab messages at the top of primary meaning articles to direct the reader to the disambig pages. MRSC 15:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC) [moved here by Thryduulf, 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)]


 * I'm sorry, but I don't accept that. I do accept that this is the general meaning in London and the south of England, but certainly not in Greater Manchester or the north west. When you hear, for example, the BBC talking about the station they will usually include the 'London'. In any case the key issue for giving Victoria station to the London station is not UK usage but global usage. You need to justify that the typical mental image brought up by the term Victoria Station to a native of Illinois or Ulan Bator is a station in London, rather than just confusion and lack of understanding. I don't think any railway station anywhere in the world passes that test; it is hard enough to justify it for a major city. -- Chris j wood 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In the UK "Victoria station" generally means the mainline station in London, rather than the Underground station or the mainline station in Manchester. The "official name" proposal should therefore relate to the mainline station ("London Victoria" station) rather than the underground station ("Victoria" station). Thryduulf 16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * National Rail, who own and manage Victoria station, call all stations in London just by name but prefix stations outside London with the place name. See here: MRSC 19:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then why do all the National Rail signs in all London stations say "London Victoria" or "London Euston" etc. ?  [[Image:Anglo-Indian identity.svg|20px]] Deano (Talk) 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if this is true, its misleading. London Victoria is managed by National Rail; Manchester Victoria isn't. Network Rail, the people who actually co-ordinate the UK passenger network (almost) always uses the London prefix when referring to main line stations. For example, if you go on my local station (Reading) and try looking up trains to Paddington under 'P' on the alphabetic timetables, you won't find any; but you will find lots of trains going to London Paddington under 'L'. -- Chris j wood 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at Category:Railway stations in London and I can only see three stations named xyz station (London) or xyz railway station (London). One is Snow Hill station (London), which closed in 1916 and hence has no current 'official' name. Another is Reedham railway station (London), which was the one that started this hare running; its official station name is Reedham (Surrey) and I believe the article should be Reedham (Surrey) railway station and the third is London Victoria. Three stations out of 344; that hardly constitutes much of a status quo needing protection. -- Chris j wood 17:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (UK stations)
To try and keep these discussions together, I have created Naming conventions (UK stations) to try and define and agree a standard naming for UK railway stations. Thryduulf 13:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)