Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Australian and New Zealand stations)

Acceptance
This article has now been in the proposal stage for over two years without any comments. I would strongly recommend that it now be considered as accepted at least as far the Australian part is concerned. The move from Australasian to Oceanian seems to have achieved little as still only Australia and New Zealand are covered although some other countries are covered in the lead only but no details specified.Fleet Lists (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * , I'd like to do a little editing here based on what has and hasn't been accepted at WP:USSTATION, WP:CANSTATION, and WP:UKSTATION to help smooth the process. When I'm done I'll bring it up at WP:WPT to see if it's ready to be considered a full on naming convention. I think it's very close as it is, it mainly just needs references back to the main naming conventions.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, this needs more work than I thought. There's a wide variance in how stations are titled and disambiguated in both Australia and New Zealand. This needs more thorough vetting before it's treated as a guideline.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:41, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * @Cuchullain, Is this ready to be treated as a guideline yet?. -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

""

Page name
What was wrong with the original name of Naming conventions (Australasian stations)? Useddenim (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's confusing as there are no articles on stations in Australasia or Oceania besides Australia and New Zealand. "Australasian" is also less recognizable than just "Australian and New Zealand"--Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation
Is there any guideline that says that station naming and disambiguation must be the same in two different countries? Useddenim (talk) 12:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Australia and New Zealand could easily have two separate conventions, if that's what you mean. In fact, I'm leaning towards recommending it, since New Zealand could use "New Zealand" as a disambiguation in most cases.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Things to sort out
I have a few thoughts that should be hammered out by wider discussion. We could probably loop all of them in to one RfC: --Cúchullain t/ c 19:34, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should we stick with the current practice of comma-separated disambiguation, or shift to parenthetical disambiguation? Comma-separated disambiguation is what's currently in use for stations in Australia and New Zealand, while parenthetical disambiguation is more in line with the WP:DISAMBIG guidelines and the related naming conventions WP:CANSTATION, WP:UKSTATION, and WP:USSTATION.
 * The current guidelines have mention of "Xxx metro station" as an acceptable title for articles on metros/light rail. However, I don't see any articles that use such titles, nor do I see a lot of precedent for that in sources. IMO, we might be better off advising "Xxx station" for rail stations that aren't intercity or commuter rail. That seems to better follow local use, and would dissolve the issue of deciding if something is a "railway station" or a "metro station". For instance, "Kellyville station" returns far more Google News sources than either "Kellyville metro station" or "Kellyville railway station" (the article's present title is Kellyville railway station).
 * The current guidelines also include "Xxx station" as an acceptable title for stations that serve more than one type of transit. This seems reasonable, but I can't find any articles that currently do this. I'd support it if others are cool with it.
 * For disambiguation, we need to sort out what goes in the disambiguator. I see Australia and New Zealand as having different needs in this regard. The other countries' guidelines do this differently:
 * For Canada and the US, the breakdown is Province/State for some stations, City for others, System for others, and in the US, Line (for stations that are ambiguous in the same city system). For the UK, the breakdown is Country (England, Scotland, etc.) for most stations, County/local community for those ambiguous within the same country, and System for those needing more.
 * For New Zealand, there's little consistency currently, but moving forward I think a system close to UKSTATION will be better. "New Zealand" will work for disambiguation in the vast majority of cases, followed by local community and then system. There just aren't a lot of ambiguous stations within New Zealand, and New Zealand is more recognizable than any of its cities.
 * Australia is more all over the place. Generally, the state is used. But in other cases, a city is used, even if the station isn't actually in that city. I don't know a lot about Australian local government, so perhaps this reflects local use, but it bears clarification here. If we are going to use cities, the guideline should specify which cities are used and when. And of course, the line will be necessary in some cases.
 * As such I might suggest the following trees: For New Zealand, Country for most situations, City/local community for those ambiguous within New Zealand, and Line if further dab is necessary. For Australia, State for some situations, City/metropolitan area in other, specific situations we explain here, and Line if further dab is needed.
 * I can only speak for the state of New South Wales where currently the suffix, Sydney is used for all stations served by Sydney Trains which basically coincides with the Sydney metropolitan area and its local government areas. All stations outside that area use the suffix , New South Wales . Such stations are currently served by NSW Trainlink. The suffix is only used if there is a possible clash with other stations. It is suggested that this convention be continued and also cover future Metro stations as some stations will serve both types of rail. In the past the boundaries of the areas served between the two operators has not always been as clearly defined but the station naming convention has not changed.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I assume it's common to cover the suburbs under the main city's name if the metropolitan areas are at Sydney, Adelaide, etc.? It would probably be helpful to include a list of which cities get the "[Name] railway station, City" treatment. We did that (in a slightly different way) for CANSTATION; there are too many cities to list for USSTATION. Judging by the list given here, it's Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, and Sydney.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Noord metro station is one example. Also, it is inaccurate to simply do a search to compare usage. People use expressions like 'take the metro to x station'. 'x station' is in context, whereas a page title has no context. Szqecs (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment out from the middle of mine for clarity. Noord metro station is not in Australia or New Zealand. I disagree that doing a search to compare use is inaccurate - even making a descriptive title we should try to reflect local use.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Fleet Lists. The convention used to be to name every article - both lines and stations - with the form [Name] railway station/line, [City] for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide & Perth, and [Name] railway station/line, [State] elsewhere in NSW, VIC, QLD, SA & WA. This was well adhered to in NSW (I can't speak for the other states). The convention extended to other public transport modes. In late 2010 and 2011, User:Crusoe8181 seemingly took it upon themselves to remove the disambiguation from as many articles as possible (looking through their logs, this seems to have been something of a hobby). This appears to have started with Minore railway station, New South Wales, of all things. It had the dubious effect of making you unsure whether you need to disambiguate when adding a link, and editors, usually new or IP editors who assume their link will Just Work, continue to make mistakes as a result. The only discussion linked in the logs was to Talk:Ballarat to Daylesford railway line. There certainly was an excess amount of disambiguation (it extended to depots etc. as well), but the loss of certainty when creating links to or searching for station articles continues to grate every time I end up at a (usually) British article.


 * Speaking of Britain, this guide appears to be derived from the British version. The "any two or more of the above" recommendation contradicts established Australian usage. For instance, we have Bondi Junction railway station (one article covering buses and trains), and Roma Street railway station, Roma Street busway station and Brisbane Transit Centre (three separate articles). In combined articles, the railway station trumps everything else.


 * The issue of what to do with rapid transit stations is just starting to emerge, as the first stage of the Sydney Metro will open next year. This is the first rapid transit line in Australia, so there is no naming precedent. For reasons that probably aren't entirely rational, I really dislike [Name] railway station being used for Sydney Metro stations. Moreover, I'm unaware of any overseas system that uses this style. One thing is certain: we need a naming standard for combined Sydney Trains/Sydney Metro articles - the design of the stations, Chatswood in particular, means that separate articles are non-viable.


 * One final thing I'd like to point out is that, due to a combination of historical and geographic factors, Australia's railway systems are largely isolated from each other - each state's Wikipedians could go off and do their own thing with minimal impact on anyone else. Gareth (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the pointer to User:Crusoe8181 - I have just found out that he also made a number of changes to Template:Sydney Trains stations (or its predecessor under Cityrail) and other templates to coincide with his station name changes and it appears that they were the cause of many of the wrong suffix problems referred to in Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_13. In fact one change I am about to make turns out to a reversal of something he did in 2011. It appears he had no idea what he was doing when he made some of those template changes.Fleet Lists (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Great feedback, and . IMO it looks like the removal of the place names where it wasn't needed for disambiguation was ultimately for the best, even if it caused some other issues down the line. We had a similar problem of pre-emptive disambiguation with American stations, and it became a major navigation issue - no one was bothering to add the articles to disambig pages, include hat notes, or even put them at names people would actually expect to find them under. It took us years to get a handle on it and the result was a very different form of disambiguation than what had been used previously.
 * So what I'm hearing is that for Australia, we need to have conventions for disambiguation by state (for stations outside the major metro areas) and city (for those within the metro areas). I think that should be relatively easy to write up. The Sydney Metro is going to cause some complications - I agree with Gareth that calling these "Xxx railway station" just won't look right. How does just going with "Xxx station" for light rail stations (and stations that serve both light and heavy rail) sound?--Cúchullain t/ c 17:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, another thing to consider - I see that several Australian cities have tram systems. There's at least a possibility that someone will come along and create articles for all the stations (that's happened in both the U.S. and Canada for almost every system). As such it really would behoove us to have a convention for local transit, whether that's the "Xxx station" format or something else.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as your first reply is concerned, Metro and light rail are not the same thing. Sydney has heavy rail and the start of a light rail system which could be considered the same as trams. That light rail system will be expanded by 2020. Stations on both the existing and planned system have not been been given individual station articles but are defined within the light rail line article. See Dulwich_Hill_Line This in itself raises a further issue as to whether line name should be different for rail and light rail (and also Metro). The third system is Metro which is much more like heavy rail and will be the one which will share stations with heavy rail such as Chatswood railway station on the Sydney_Metro_Northwest - note 'line' not used in name - this is due to open second quarter 2019. Melbourne has heavy rail and trams (light rail is mentioned for some lines) Trams_in_Melbourne from which there is an article for each route such as Melbourne tram route 1. No mention of any station articles - not even for the light rail ones which used to be heavy rail stations in the past - they are now just stops like other tram stops - I travelled on one of the so called light rail lines on a recent visit to Melboune. Adelaide has a single tram/light rail line although from 13 October this year it appears to be defined as three separate routes - again no stations as such - just stops in streets - Glenelg_tram. Outside of the Major Cities, Newcastle in New South Wales will have a light rail system by early 2019 - in this case the stations are defined within the line article Newcastle_Light_Rail. There is also a light rail system on the Gold Coast in Queensland List_of_G:link_stations where there appear to be some light rail stations defined but I am no expert in that area.Fleet Lists (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks. Either way, I think the "Xxx station" construction could work for any of the stations that aren't heavy rail. "Xxx railway station" is likely to be confusing for those articles. Alternately we could have different disambiguators for "Xxx light rail station", "Xxx metro station", "Xxx tram stop", etc. but I think that gets very unwieldy quickly especially taking into account differences in local uses. I'll write up a couple of options here for review when I get a chance.
 * Looks like the titling of G:link stations is already causing problems. Queen Street Station (Gold Coast) redirects to List of G:link stations instead of the current article at Queen Street light rail station. There's also Parkwood light rail station, which conflicts with Parkwood station, a light rail station in Charlotte, North Carolina, US. Well, I'm glad we're sorting this stuff out now!--Cúchullain t/ c 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fixed that Queen Street redirect.Fleet Lists (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been having a look at the tram/light rail stops. The only system that features articles for every stop (bar one) is G:link on the Gold Coast. These articles were created only a few months ago. They take the form "Xxx light rail station". Some older articles about bus stations along the route were merged into the light rail articles. The light rail article for the Helensvale stop was merged into the railway station article following a discussion. Twenty one articles (if including Helensvale) covering a twenty kilometre, single line system seems just a little excessive and reader unfriendly. Melbourne seems to have only three articles: Domain Interchange, St Vincent's Plaza and Melbourne University tram stop. Melbourne's tram stops are often more like bus stops, so having a separate article for each one would be ridiculous. These are all the extant articles.


 * Adelaide, Newcastle and Sydney have all previously had articles for at least some stops; these have all been merged or deleted.
 * P.S. Adelaide has just opened two extensions. Wikipedia's coverage of the new multi-line system is still a bit of a mess.Gareth (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that it's bad practice to have articles for every station and stop - in general I think readers would prefer one good article to several weak ones - but that hasn't stopped hundreds of articles for comparable stations in the US and Canada from being created. It could easily happen again here. And considering that there are at least some articles in the Gold Coast and Melbourne, it's worth incorporating them into this guideline. That wouldn't suggest that the articles should be created, just that if they are, they should follow consistent guidelines. I'll have a few drafts ready for review this week.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Merging naming conventions for stations
Hi. I am proposing a merger of all naming conventions for stations. Please give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Thanks. Szqecs (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested main conventions
Here are some suggested options for the main conventions. They could work for both Australia and New Zealand. I'll handle disambiguation below.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Option 1
Generally, stations should take the following forms: "[NAME] railway station" for heavy rail stations; "[NAME] metro station" for Sydney Metro stations; "[NAME] light rail station for G:Link stations; "[NAME] bus station" for bus and coach stations; and "[NAME] station" for stations that serve more than one type of transit. Comma-separated disambiguation should follow if necessary; see the disambiguation guidelines below. If the station has a common name that does not follow this format, always default to the common name per the WP:COMMONNAME policy.

Option 2
Generally, stations should take the following forms: "[NAME] railway station" for heavy rail stations; "[NAME] station" for other types of rail transit, or stations that serve more than one form of transit; and "[NAME] bus station" for bus and coach stations. Comma-separated disambiguation should follow if necessary; see the disambiguation guidelines below. If the station has a common name that does not follow this format, always default to the common name per the WP:COMMONNAME policy.

Discussion
I strongly prefer Option 2. I think it's cleaner, more concise, and easier to follow than creating separate conventions for every local system. It also appears to better follow local use in Sydney and the Gold Coast at least, judging by Google news. What say the others?--Cúchullain t/ c 17:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Suggested disambiguation conventions
As I said above, I think Australia and New Zealand will need separate disambiguation conventions. In the latter, the country will suffice in most cases, similarly to WP:UKSTATION. However, Australia, being too geographically large and spread out, could continue to use states and cities. At any rate, we should determine whether we want to keep using comma-separated disambiguation or shift to parenthetical disambiguation. Comma disambiguation is what's used presently, while parenthetical disambiguation is more in line with WP:DISAMBIGUATION and what is done with WP:CANSTATION, WP:UKSTATION, and WP:USSTATION, among others.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Australia disambiguation
If a station's name is ambiguous, disambiguate it according to the disambiguation policy and guideline. Use natural disambiguation where appropriate. Otherwise add a distinguishing term using comma-separated disambiguation. The following options are appropriate depending on the circumstance:


 * State: This option is appropriate for stations served by intercity rail outside the major metropolitan areas (see below), especially if the station shares the name of its town (e.g. Croydon railway station, Queensland in Croydon, Queensland).
 * City: This option is appropriate for stations located within the metropolitan areas of Australia's major cities: Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, or Sydney (e.g. Croydon railway station, Melbourne in the Melbourne suburb of Croydon, Victoria.
 * Other: Use dates, railway names, etc., for cases where there are multiple stations of the same name in the same place, as may happen with historical stations.

Examples:

New Zealand disambiguation
If a station's name is ambiguous, disambiguate it according to the disambiguation policy and guideline. Use natural disambiguation where appropriate. Otherwise add a distinguishing term using comma-separated disambiguation. The following options are appropriate depending on the circumstance:


 * Country (New Zealand), for cases where the name is only ambiguous with entries from other countries.
 * City/local community, for cases where the name is ambiguous within New Zealand.
 * Other: Use dates, railway names, etc., for cases where there are multiple stations of the same name in the same place, as may happen with historical stations.

Examples:

Discussion
In my opinion, Australia and New Zealand would benefit from having separate disambiguation schemes. In New Zealand, the country will suffice (and be much more recognizable) in nearly all cases, as the stations are only ambiguous with those outside of New Zealand. In Australia, the states are the better top-level disambiguator due to the way rail systems work, and the fact that there are regularly ambiguous stations within Australia. In fact, it may be preferable to have separate guidelines for Australia and New Zealand rather than keeping them together here.--Cúchullain t/ c 18:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sydney Metro
In the case of the Sydney Metro North West Line the same naming convention was adopted for the new stations as for the heavy rail stations. This also saved renaming those stations which were converted or now cover both forms of rail. I will amend the convention page. See Talk:Sydney_Metro Fleet Lists (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Adoption
How can this guideline be made official? SCP-053 (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Also train line names?
Should this be expanded to also include the naming convention for train lines in Australia & New Zealand? Just in the state of Victoria there is a mix of: -- ThylacineHunter  (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * XX railway line
 * XX railway line, Victoria
 * XX railway line (Australia)


 * Also something that need some consideration is the following from Railway line naming convention discussion on WP:Trains from back in 2015: "Looking at some of the lines that have been partially closed in Victoria (Australia), there is some inconsistency in the naming conventions applied to articles where a line opened from Point A to Point D and was later cut back to Point C and then again to Point B. For example, Orbost railway line reflects the name of a line opened from Melbourne that originally ran through to Orbost, but has since been cut back to Bairnsdale, while Warrnambool railway line, Victoria reflects a line that originally ran from Melbourne to Port Fairy that has since been cut back to Warrnambool."
 * This was never resolved on that page. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand station link template
I would also like to suggest a replacement for the template used for heavy rail: with