Talk:Westport station (Metro-North)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Westport (Amtrak station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 15 April 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: not moved. Good arguments that the current title conforms with current subject-specific naming guidelines. Jenks24 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Westport station (Connecticut) → Westport (Metro-North station) – This article title does not fit with the naming conventions of the rest of articles in or, which follow New York City Public Transportation guidelines. Since this is not an Amtrak station, it may not fall under the purview of WP:USSTATION, which is why the article was moved in the first place.

Alternatively, I propose that all articles in that have the naming format "XXX (Metro-North station)" can be changed to "XXX station (Connecticut)" (like this article title), and all articles in  that have the naming format "XXX (Metro-North station)" can be changed to "XXX station (New York)", with article titles according to WP:USSTATION. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – All such articles should match WP:USSTATION, and not the other way around. RGloucester  — ☎ 02:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that WP:NYCPT naming conventions are inferior to WP:USSTATION? Anyway, that is not a matter for this RM. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "WP:NYCPT naming conventions" mean nothing. That's just a Wikiproject essay, nothing more. WP:USSTATION, on the other hand, gained project-wide consensus and attained guideline status. It applies to "rail, including intercity rail, commuter rail, rapid transit, and light rail, and bus rapid transit stations in the United States", which includes this page.  RGloucester  — ☎ 03:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * These are not "Wikiproject essays." These were agreed on by wide consensus from the editors of a specific wikiproject. WP:USSTATION, on the other hand, was agreed on arbitrarily by a few admins. It is not "project-wide consensus" if a long-standing wikiproject disagrees with the consensus. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This article already is at the appropriate name per WP:USSTATION...it is the other articles in and  that need to be renamed. However, they should not all just have their disambiguating term changed to "Connecticut" or "New York". Rather, each individual article needs to be assessed whether or not disambiguation is even necessary. All of these articles should follow the guidelines at WP:USSTATION (which has scope including all US rail stations - not just Amtrak ones). --Scott Alter (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - the return to the previous name, and Oppose the alternate proposal. My opposition to the current trend on WP:USSTATION is that it creates disambiguation (Danbury Union Station vs. Danbury Metro-North station, and Mount Pleasant, Westchester County, New York vs. Mount Pleasant, Ulster County, New York.), and creates a jumbled mess in the category pages. It also removes their identity as Metro-North stations, including those that also serve Amtrak, Shore Line East, New Jersey Transit, and the upcoming Hartford Line. We used to pride ourselves on preserving that structure. -User:DanTD (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then you should petition to change the guideline. For now, it must be adhered to. RGloucester  — ☎ 13:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * NYCPT should be exempt from these guidelines for now, because the members of NYCPT do not agree with them (for example, DanTD). epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "members of NYCPT" are irrelevant. Little cabals of people can't oppose project-wide guidelines. Furthermore, I see no evidence that the NYPT essay disagrees with USSTATION. It simply says to follow the "WikiProject Trains" conventions, whatever those are. Regardless, projects have no power. Only guidelines approved by widely advertised RfC have force, and anything that the project may have decided to do does not have said force. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so we'll follow WikiProject Trains. (And actually, WikiProjects do have power, but only to a certain extent, and only if a majority of people also agreed with the project's guidelines, which applied in this case. Then again, if anything isn't explicitly outlined as part of an RFC's outcome, we face being accused of WP:GARDEN. Right?) epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "trains" project doesn't appear to have any essays on station naming, so now I'm not even if sure if you knew what you were talking about when you mentioned "NYCPT naming conventions". Can you show me what these are? As far as I can see, NYCPT points to the trains project, which doesn't seem to have anything. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just checked right now. Turns out that the guidelines only cover subway stations. Still, I'll leave this open if anyone wants to comment. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, are you saying this RM was founded on the misleading idea that there are "NYCPT naming conventions" in conflict with USSTATION, but that in actuality no such conventions exist? RGloucester  — ☎ 02:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct, and I probably wouldn't have created this RM if I'd known that. epicgenius, presented by reddit.com/r/funny (talk) 02:11, 17 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.