Talk:Train station

Why "Train Station"?
I simply cannot understand who has decided that anyone searching for "Railway Station" will be directed to a page entitled "Train Station". Reading the various comments on the talk page, it seems clear to me that the overwhelming view is that "Railway Station" is the preferred term. Please, whoever has the appropriate authority, put this back in right order! 109.155.58.94 (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is English-language Wikipedia, not UK Wikipedia. Americans use the term "Railroad station" (which, like "Railway station", also redirects here) and don't use the term "Railway station".  Likewise, people in Britain use "Railway station" and not "Railroad station".  "Train station", which, these days, can be heard in both countries, is a compromise.  You can't please all of the people all of the time. --GuillaumeTell 17:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Since English is English and not American why should the term "train station" be given preference over the traditional English "railway station"?--PinzaC55 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PinzaC55 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, American English is as valid a form of English as British English is. But if the normal US usage is "railroad station" as suggested above, and not "train station", I agree that "train station" is the wrong title for this article. In the UK, "train station" is still widely regarded as an alien term used only by the ignorant or inarticulate. Where *do* they call it a train station? Is it Australian? -- Alarics (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "Train station" is perfectly valid American English; as is Railroad station. Railway station is very uncommon in North America. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In that case, what we have here is a straightforward case of ENGVAR, and I propose the article be renamed "Train station (Railway station)". -- Alarics (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I dislike the phrase "train station" and don't use it, but it is certainly a phrase that I have heard in use here in Britain, as GillaumeTell suggests. Your suggestion merely complicates matters for no benefit. As long as railway station and railroad station both redirect here, it ain't broke and don't need fixing. --ColinFine (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really about US vs UK English; the tension is between fluent English and slang. 'Railway station', or 'railroad station', are logically correct and readily understood. 'Train station', a colloquial fallacy (given that the station is a stopping point upon the railway line, not upon the train itself), is clearly not the best choice for the title of an article in an encyclopaedia, although its increasingly wide use should garner it some coverage. Shall we get it sorted-out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypocaustic (talk • contribs) 21:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, it looks like we will have let this particular matter rest for the moment. Unfortunately, we haven't managed to get conclusively to the bottom of the issue this time, but we can return to improving the article another day.  So, thanks again for those who have taken the time to get into a little research on this already, and further contributions will be welcome in due course.Hypocaustic (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Even though a request to move has been denied in the meantime (see below), I should like to see the remaing process re-started. As a compromise for rail{way|road} stations in countries where English is not commonly spoken, I propose to use the term which is the more likely English translation, i.e. "Railway station" for most of the Old World and "Railroad station" for most of the New World, unless there are official statements to the contrary, such as government publications. At any rate, the expression "train station" has usually been referred to as "kiddie talk" in the UK, notwithstanding the fact that even authors of newspaper articles occasionally fall victim to it (but that's more a reflection of the general state of education these days). --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but we went over all this at length (see above and below). The consensus was the present compromise. What justification is there for reviving this dispute now? -- Alarics (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Train station" is just bad English according to native speakers. --Schlosser67 (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, it's not. It was according to one obnoxious sockpuppet using, now-banned editor. The title is fine, as it is valid, common English in all countries, despite what that one liar said. oknazevad (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm a native speaker and it is bad English. Now take me to SPI or ANI, your choice. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess I should go back to ESL class then? Oh, wait, I'm a native speaker too. Tell me, how is it bad English? It's a place where trains stop, just like a bus station is a place where buses stop. It's not only standard English, it's the majority use in modern English. Childhood grammar teachers are not the source of valid English prescription, I'm afraid. oknazevad (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's also what college teachers and university professors say. Besides, a railway station is more than just a place "where trains stop". That's an oversimplification by people who haven not taken the rest of the railway operations into account. Traditionally, there were more services (passenger and freight) offered, and in many places they still are. Well, I've said my piece, see you next time when it comes to a vote on the topic. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Largest station in Western Hemisphere
There have been two edits to the article changing Penn Street in New York to Gare du Nord in Paris as the 'largest station in the western hemisphere'. Quite apart from the obvious suspicion over a new account whose only edit (as of this post) is to restore this claim. The edit cannot stand for a number of reasons. 86.149.137.167 (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) The claim has been synthesised from two unrelated sources. WP:SYNTHESIS states that you cannot compare two sources and then draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by either. Any such conclusion is original research.
 * 2) The passenger numbers for Gare du Nord are from 2016 whereas the passenger numbers for Penn Street are from 2018. They cannot, therefore, be directly compared as either or both are likely to have changed in two years.
 * 3) The document for the passenger numbers for Gare du Nord is published by SNCF and is therefore a WP:PRIMARY source.
 * 4) That same document only covers stations in France, which means there could possibly be a station with a larger foot fall not covered by it.
 * 5) But the most significant problem of all, is that Gare du Nord is not in the western hemisphere.


 * Yes I misunderstand western hemisphere as western world. My fault. But the statement about the busiest one in werstern world is still valid and very well known and therefore a better selection. I added your requested source. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Only the first reference that you have provided supports the claim. The other two do not and I shall remove them. And one reference is all that is required. But you still have not explained why the illustration and caption required changing in the first place, given that there was nothing wrong with the original. 86.149.137.167 (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone objected before I could oblige. Having had you first edit reverted, you should have discussed it here and obtained a consensus before restoring it anyway (see WP:BRD). 86.149.137.167 (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I also agree that Penn Station is the largest station in the Western Hemisphere, so the image shouldn't be removed. I added both images of Penn Station and Gare du Nord as a compromise. This way, they aren't being compared directly. epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Is the 24th busiest station in the world even encyclopaedia worthy? The busiest station in the world, yes. The illustration should be replaced with a picture of Shinjuku with the appropriate caption. I cannot find a suitable image with the appropriate copyright release. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a marginally irrelevant argument, kind of like asking "Is the 6th tallest skyscraper in the world even encyclopedia worthy?" It misses the point. Just like One World Trade Center is the tallest building in the Western Hemisphere, NY Penn Station is the busiest station in the Western Hemisphere, which is half the world. Why not just add Shinjuku in the multiple image box? epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I merely asked the question. Gare du Nord's inclusion does not detract from the article other than possibly cluttering it with an excess of pictures should Shinjuku be included. There are currently 14 pictures of stations in the article (ignoring the gallery of images which are frowned upon anyway per WP:GALLERY - tagged accordingly). TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential interesting nugget of railway history
I might have found what could be a contender for one of the oldest train stations. It's on the Canterbury and Whitstable way. According to http://www.canterbury-archaeology.org.uk/railwest/4590809528, the station here was opened May 3rd 1830. If someone more knowledgeable than me could look into this, that would be great. 212.140.143.4 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Random ip editor