Talk:Watt/I-80 West station

Requested move 03 February 2016

 * 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Watt / I-80 West → Watt/I-80 West – Removing spaces that aren't used by the RTD –  Sounder Bruce  01:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain, but I think this should have a full discussion. Dabomb87's rationale for adding the spaces in 2010, MOS:SLASH, looks sound. Jenks24 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Jenks24 (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment MOS:SLASH / WP:SUBPAGE if we can avoid using a slash, we should. How about Watt &mdash; I-80 West instead? -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So Blue Line (Sacramento RT) shows us that there are two adjacent stations at the end of the line:
 * Watt/I-80, which redirects to Watt/I-80 (Sacramento RT), and does not surround the slash with spaces. The station is located in the median of Interstate 80 below Watt Avenue.
 * Watt / I-80 West, which is not parenthetically disambiguated, but surrounds the slash with spaces. The station is located in the median of Interstate 80 at Longview Drive. So why isn't it called Longview/I-80? Probably because Watt is a major street which has an interchange with I-80, while Longview is a minor street and it parallels the station so it isn't as close to it.
 * Let's try to make these more consistent. I-80 West to most people means the Interstate highway heading in the westbound direction (towards San Francisco). MOS:SLASH says use a spaced slash to separate items that include at least one internal space. What's the rationale for that? Take the example Alkali Flat / La Valentina. It's located in the Alkali Flat neighborhood, by the La Valentina apartments. The spaces balance the relationship; without them you have the "Alkali Flat/La Valentina" station, whose name consists of three components, with "Flat/La" being the middle component.


 * Applying this to Watt / I-80 West, it tells me that this station is at the interchange of Watt and I-80 West. That's the wrong signal to send. Watt/I-80 West is the correct signal to send, as that says it's the West station at Watt/I-80.
 * Actually, Watt/I-80 West (Sacramento RT) is better, as that is consistent with Watt/I-80 (Sacramento RT), and the parenthetical dab clearly indicates that the topic is a Sacramento RT station, and not a highway/street intersection. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to Watt / I-80 West station, follows standard naming convention for stations without adding the unnecessary specific disambiguation. See Naming conventions (US stations). Fram (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * List of Sacramento Regional Transit light rail stations shows that the local convention in Sacramento is the parenthetical "(Sacramento RT)". Can we punt that issue to another big multi-move request for train stations?
 * What is your response to my rationale for removing the spaces around the slash? wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't really care for the local Sacramento convention, it is totally unnecessary and goes against wider (but still fairly local) US stations guideline. If we move this article, we can just as well move it to the correct name, without bothering at the moment with other Sacramento station articles. As for the rationale for or against spaces, I don't get the signal you indicate from either version and don't really care one way or the other. With the spaces looks better to me though. Fram (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, per my rationale above. This is analogous to using hyphens and dashes in tiles, e.g. Etixx–Quick-Step, which clearly indicates a partnership between Etixx and Quick-Step, rather than Etixx-Quick and Step. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Watt/I-80 West station. In other words, remove the spaces per WP:SLASH, and conform with WP:USSTATION.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

(Note: this was closed as "no consensus" yesterday, but in light of the fact that most of the discussion happened in the last few days, I asked the closer to reopen it, which they kindly did. Fram (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Recap
So far, the following have been proposed (feel free to add other ones I missed or which seem still better):


 * 1) Watt / I-80 West (current name)
 * 2) Watt/I-80 West (original proposed move)
 * 3) Watt &mdash; I-80 West
 * 4) Watt/I-80 West (Sacramento RT)
 * 5) Watt / I-80 West station
 * 6) Watt/I-80 West station

Perhaps it's time to see if we can get consensus on any variation?


 * Support 5 or 6, makes it clear that it is station without being too clunky. No preference to either of the two. Fram (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support 6. As originally proposed, with "station" appended. I suppose if dab was needed, then it would be Watt/I-80 West station (Sacramento RT). – wbm1058 (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support 5 Support 6. I'm happy to go with the consensus on the slashed name + station, that has been reached above, but I think personally I prefer 5 rather than 6. As pointed out above, the original reason for the move was to conform to MOS:SLASH, which says we should use a spaced slash to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), where for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable. I do find it more readable that way, it makes it clearer that the "West" is attached to the "I-80" rather than the whole of "Watt/I-80". Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no, you've missed my point! The "West" is not attached to the "I-80" rather than the whole of "Watt/I-80". If "West" was attached to just "I-80" then:
 * the Watt/I-80 station would be named Watt/I-80 West, as the station at the intersection of Watt & I-80 West(bound), rather than the station at Watt & I-80 east- & west-bound
 * this station would be Watt/I-80 West West. The "West" indicates that this station is west of the Watt/I-80 station. wbm1058 (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well isn't that's a pip! I've been misunderstanding this, I thought it was for the westbound I-80. On that case I'm happy to change my vote to option 6. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * This discussion has run 68 days. Please someone decide what do to. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Anthony Appleyard. It looks to me that there is a consensus for Watt/I-80 West station, does everyone agree? Fram (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. That looks like the consensus to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.