Talk:Wattle Glen railway station

Naming
Renamed the page to make Wattleglen one word, which is correct for the station. (See VICNAMES, click on Find>Find a place>, enter place name "wattle*", enter municipality NILLUMBIK SHIRE, and click Find. You will notice that the entry marked RSTA (railway station) is one word, even though the other three entries are two words.)


 * Nevertheless, the name used by Connex is Wattle Glen - that may be an error on their part, but the two-word name is the one presented to the public - on maps, in the street directory, even on the platforms. If the official name isn't actually in popular use, and exists only in some arcane database, should we use it? It seems a case of two conflicting "official" names, that used by the Geographic Place Names Register, and another used by the relevant transport authorities/companies. Which would take precedence? T.P.K. 11:07, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The correct name has been drawn to the attention of Connex' marketing department, and I think you may find that the next published timetables have the correct name. Connex do use the correct name on at least some internal documents.  Philip J. Rayment 11:42, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The station name is still given as two words in all the timetables on the Connex site, so four years on, I think this page should be called Wattle Glen, even if the area isn't. WillE (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The reference to the VICNAMES site should be enough. The suburb is Wattle Glen, but the station is Wattleglen.  Check the VICNAMES website.Supt. of Printing (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No matter what the name is, a mention should be made about how the official name differs from that in use by various groups. Wongm (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The train timetables ALL says Wattle Glen. I think the train timetables, produced by the train company, for passenger train usage from train company owned stations should hold more sway than VICNAMES. That siad, if you feel so strongly that you wany inconsitsency, be my guest. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 11:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If people were using this site to plan their rail travel, I might agree with you, but the site is to give general and historic information about the station for educational purposes, so it needs to be accurate. Supt. of Printing (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. It IS accurate to call the STATION "Wattle Glen" - in that Connex has a different view to what the vaunted VICNAMES says. Stand in front of the sign for a few years if you like. If it suddenly changes to "Wattleglen", I'll accept your argument.WillE (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the name has been changed to Wattleglen again, in places. I guess staring at the Station sign worked then? Or maybe your view that "it is better" has received a parliamentary mandate? No? Thought not. Do what you like - your history suggests you will anyway. WillE (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * VICNAMES can be wrong. Eg, there is a street in Kew that VICNAMES calls High Street South, when in fact the street is just called High Street in the titles of the properties that abut it. Which is correct, VICNAMES or the property titles? And the same here too, is it VICNAMES or Connex? – Marco79 14:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it came to the Government versus an operator who is only a lessee, I would go with the Government. Also, I have tracked down the official advice of the Victorian Railways when it changed from Balee to Wattleglen (as one word) which was announced in their Weekly Notice No. 32 of 1922. Supt. of Printing (talk) 11:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As you say, this site is to give general and historic information - the historic being the name as given when it was first renamed, the information giving the name as is. A decision made in 1922 bears little or no compunction on the current operator to abide by it, and if it doesn't then who are you to dictate it should? I suggest you start to stare at the station sign again. If it still says two words for the title the next time I browse, we'll have a vote on it. Whilst you're at it, have a look at the old "Hemel Hempsted" station which used to serve Hemel Hempstead. The station name, signage, timetables, etc were always spelled differently from the place name, no matter what the view of the unitary authorities or its records were. The current station bears the same spelling as the town, and timetables etc now reflect that. Were there a page on the old station, it would be about "Hemel Hempsted" and not Hemel Hempstead. I note the current station page refers to the old station incorrectly - but critically does not cite any references. Over to you and your magic stare that will change the station name in the photo. WillE (talk) 08:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved  GB fan  05:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wattleglen railway station, Melbourne → Wattle Glen Railway Station, Melbourne — The station signage (featured on the page), and all of the train operator's timetables and literature, as well as the place name itself as of today (not 1922) all refer to Wattle Glen. Now - a question - what happens should no clear opinion arise, where there is indisputable evidence in the article already? WillE (talk) 21:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. I lived in nearby Kangaroo Ground for three years recently, and the local name for the railway station is definitely Wattle Glen, matching the station signs and the suburb name. It's most unlikely that common usage would follow the historic and perhaps legally correct usage. Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Renaming
I strongly object to the renaming back to Wattle Glen. The official State Government gazetted name is Wattleglen, whatever lessees or anyone else might refer to it as. The date of this name being gazetted makes no difference—the passage of time does not dilute the gazetted-ness of the name. The name remains the gazetted name until it is gazetted otherwise—why don't people get this? Living in Kangaroo Ground for the last three years was well after the mistake was made in incorrectly naming it Wattle Glen and has no bearing on the official name. Most names in common usage DO follow the legally correct usage—what is your point? No-one has made a convincing case for naming it the incorrect name just because the operator has it wrong! Supt. of Printing (talk) 12:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has staring at the station signage changed the signs to one word? No? Good Lord, I am stunned. Suggest you look at wikipedia practice on UK station names. What is stated in signage in current photos in the article holds sway. You'll just have to face it - you are wrong on this topic.WillE (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Has displaying Wattle Glen as two words on station signage and public time tables changes the name that is gazetted? No? I am stunned why people think that an incorrect display of a name makes the incorrect name hold sway. You'll just have to face it—you are wrong on this topic. See, I can use the same emotive language as you to make the argument sound good, but what about the facts? Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Incorrect by what, or who's standards? Yours? The Gazetteers? Gazettes can become out of date. The station is owned by the train company, and it has the right to call its station whatever it likes. Neither you, nor current or historic Gazetteers, and certainly not anything or anyone dating back to 1922, have the right to tell them otherwise. But - and it's a fairly significant but - I do not have to accept I am wrong, as Wikipedia due process has made the decision. Argue with the process if you like - but you now can't win this argument the process changes. You could record the history of the station, by all means, point out the discrepancy, by all means - even say that there was never a proper mandate to change the name (if you can cite it) - these will all enrich the article with information you are clearly knowledgeable about that I cannot contribute. You could even put in a redirect from the one word name, if you feel it will help. WillE (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have a reputation for not being brief, but there's so much here to comment on.
 * Gazetted name: What Supt. of Printing has assumed you realise is that the "gazetted name" is the official government decree on the matter.  To say that "Gazettes can become out of date" is incorrect; they remain official until officially overturned.  That is, they are prescriptive, not descriptive (i.e. they are primary sources of official decisions, not third-party lists of what is).
 * Station ownership: No, the station is not owned by the "train company" (railway operator); it is owned by the Government of Victoria, who contract with the operator to operate services, maintain the station, etc.  But the operator doesn't own the station and does not have the right to call the station whatever it likes.  Look, for example, at the new station being planned near Pakenham railway station, Melbourne.  A competition—to decide on a name for the station—was held by the (Victorian Government) Department of Transport, not by the operator.
 * Company documentation: in the archived discussion above it is claimed that "all of the train operator's timetables and literature... refer to Wattle Glen", despite me already pointing out a long time ago that some of the internal documentation of the operator has the name as one word. This is still the case, as you can see on page A41 of their Working Timetable Addenda.  I think you'll also find that the dot-matrix displays on the trains refer to it as one word.
 * Wikipedia policy: Of course none of that mandates what Wikipedia names the page.  This is about the only argument you have left; that the page name conforms to Wikipedia precedence.  However, that argument is weak until and unless someone shows that this really is the case (the examples given may not be typical) and the circumstances really are the same, which has not yet been done.
 * Due process: You seem to be arguing that because the name was changed via "due process", it can never be changed again, as though the decision is irrevocable. Clearly, you are wrong on this implication also.  Supt. of Printing is not bypassing due process to revert to the official name; he's making use of due process to argue that the previous decision was wrong.  Further, I'm not sure that customary due process was actually followed.  It's customary (if not actually mandated or recommended somewhere, which it may be for all I know) to notify interested parties when discussions like this occur.  My contributions have been sparse for some time, but if you looked at Supt. of Printing's contributions, you would see that he edited the day before discussion started.  Given that he was clearly still around, why was no advice put on his page about this discussion?  (There is, for example, advice on his talk page that an article he had commented on was up for deletion.)  Was there a hope that this could slip through before he noticed?
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, Philip.

1. No, this was not made clear. But it is still true to say that Gazettes become outdated in that current common usage fails to match decisions of yesteryear. Plenty of examples in the UK exist, such as Becontree/Beacontree in London suburbanised Essex. A relative of mine lived in Wattle Glen (hence my curiosity about the page) and all his legal and municipal documents refer to Wattle Glen, so in spite of the weight the Gazette might carry, not even the local authorities abide by it.

2. If the state is responsible for the station's name, notwithstanding ownership, it obviously doesn't care enough to tell Connex to change it.

3. Internal vs external. Interesting, but how valid are references to internal documents when they are not available to all Wikipedia editors, either as a source or to use to check a citation? The article can use a citation from a timetable - but from an internal document that isn't in the public domain? But, as a matter of interest, the change you expected to happen after a notification to Connex in 2004 hasn't happened six years on.

4. Then set the precedent. Ask for the creation of the same sort of naming convention for Australian stations as exists elsewhere (for example, for UK stations) so there will be no doubt about what should be seen as a title on a Wikipedia Australian station page. If you go nationwide/wikiwide on a poll, I doubt you'll get a consensus that names a page directly contradicting photographic evidence in the article. Have a vote on it, though, gain consensus, and if appropriate, make a change - I won't vote on the topic. 5. Nope I wasn't, perhaps could have worded it better. Unless a further name request change is made, the current decision will stand. And, nope, I have no secret agenda to get changes past Supt. of Printing, I followed the stated process for requesting a change. I expected, given his previous interest/obsession with this page that it would be on his watch list. I will bear this point in mind in future - though if you review the process of this page you will find that the requested courtesy was not given to me in the past.

For now, at least, the next train from Hurstbridge goes to Wattle Glen. WillE (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's questionable that current usage not matching official decisions means that the official decision is "outdated". As for the local authorities, that point is irrelevant, because of a point made above, that "The suburb is Wattle Glen, but the station is Wattleglen. Check the VICNAMES website."
 * True, but is that relevant?
 * My original point in mentioning this was simply to point out that argument can be made both ways, not that one trumps the other. But in my last post I gave you a link to a copy of an internal document, so it can be checked and cited by anyone.  As for the change I expected in 2004, I believe that it was made, but was later reverted.  I can't prove that, though.  I hasten to add that I think it very likely that the reason it was reverted was the same sort of reason that you are arguing here: the name on the station is...; that is, it was not changed because of any sort of official policy.
 * What you are suggesting is not a precedent but a ruling. There already was a precedent with this page until you got it changed.  But I wouldn't be so sure that there would be widespread support for a policy favouring a photograph over an official document.  And we are talking about what might be a small handful of stations in this situation, so I don't consider it worth it trying to get a formal convention set for such a small number of cases.
 * No, the next train from Hurstbridge goes to Flinders Street via a station officially named Wattleglen but with Wattle Glen incorrectly on the nameboards!
 * Philip J. Rayment (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Again thank you for your well thought out comments.


 * I guess we'll have to disagree on that. Current usage, however is a dangerous thing - it can, and in this case, has informally but effectively overridden Government Statutes. The locals refer to WG and not W; as mentioned above, adding detail of the discrepancy would enrich this article.
 * Absolutely. Six years ago you felt this was important enough to write to Connex about it - but why didn't you write to the state? As you've stated that Connex has no part in any decision, that surely was a wasted communication. That no change has been made is rather telling.
 * OK, that's interesting - I could not use the link. Will have to check my settings. But - if it is an internal document, do you have permission to disseminate it? (Actually - ignore that bit. I can see having gotten the link to work that it's publicly available.) Plenty of previous infighting over this topic on (London's) DLR changes. (Plus the issue of OR crops up - when one uses a station everyday, changes are obvious, but cannot be used until they appear on the company website.)
 * Hate to burst your bubble on this, but the page was called Wattle Glen when I first saw it. The first change that I am aware of was by Mr Printing. But, again, we'll have to agree to differ here. It's not the photograph that is relevant though - it's the signage. That the evidence of signage is usually a photograph is usually just the easiest to use. I think it's far more common in the UK, where http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28UK_stations%29#Official_names has been agreed and is applied.

Lastly, if you put Wattleglen into Connex's journey planner, see what happens....

Regards. WillE (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As it has been almost a year with the title as Wattle Glen but all references in the article are to Wattleglen, so I propose to rename it back to its official name of Wattleglen.Supt. of Printing (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As it has been over a year with the title as Wattle Glen, a useful redirect is now in place from the gazateered version of the name, and the historical details about the Gazette adds to the value of the article, but all references in the article are to Wattleglen, I propose to amend all the in article references to Wattle Glen. WillE (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move. I still maintain that official gazetted names must prevail. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia giving information "about" a subject, NOT primarily a "guide" to users. As for the "common sense" argument used below, if someone is looking for information on "Wattle Glen railway station", it would be redirected to "Wattleglen railway station", so that argument holds no water. Supt. of Printing (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You have demonstrated my point beautifully. WillE (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose the move. The station may best be thought of as Wattleglen railway station (no argument about the official name) trading as Wattle Glen railway station, which is what it is known as to all who use it. Localities in Australia only have one name which we must use; railway stations are not so bound and WP:COMMONNAME may apply (Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)).
 * I also oppose on the grounds of common sense. If someone is looking for information on the area or the station, they will not type in "Wattleglen" unless their space bar is not working. WillE (talk) 11:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Photo
So, who replaced the photo of the station? What justification is there for using a photoshopped image of a sign that (unless it can be shown otherwise) does not actually exist? *sigh* WillE (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Photo's been missing for a while. Don't know what is meant by "who replaced the photo", or the reference to photoshopping. Supt. of Printing (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody has replaced the photo, though I cannot see the event in the page history. The image in place is a composite of a logo, with the word Wattleglen added by means of a computer programme. If the siogn doesn;t exist in the real world, which given all the signage and media, I don't think its presence is, or can be justified. WillE (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * now as it is in the real world, but stand by for reversion (Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)).
 * Where in the real world? If so, I'll buy it, but it doesn't appear to be cited. WillE (talk) 11:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Aagh! It';s changing in front of my eyes. I'd best go lie down! WillE (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Crazy
Four of the six links in the article refer to Wattle Glen, yet still the text in the article says "Wattleglen." Oy vay. WillE (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)