Talk:Aquarium station (MBTA)

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Yoninah in topic Did you know nomination

Old discussion

edit

Is there any reason that the station is called Aquarium/Financial District on this page? I rode the blue line in from Wonderland many a time and never saw or heard any sort of indication that the financial district was part of the name. 76.102.50.71 (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

(Note: this was fixed in April 2010.) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 9 November 2019

edit
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)Reply



Aquarium station (MBTA)Aquarium station – Clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in a WP:TWODABS situation. Pageviews for this article outnumber those for Aquarium station (River Line) 7-to-1. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Agreed with JE98.~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
How does a 7-to-1 ratio of pageviews (not length) not satisfy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? Clearly, the vast majority of people looking for "Aquarium station" on Wikipedia are looking for the MBTA station, not the River Line station. And how does them being unrelated stations matter? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Those are topics for an RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. Current titles fit WP:USSTATION guidelines for disambiguation. Yeah, the MBTA station gets more views, but we're talking a difference in absolute numbers of less than 15 views difference on average, for two articles that average less than 30 views a day combined. The ratio doesn't really tell the story than both of these are obscure, low-traffic articles and that neither of them is really a primary topic. oknazevad (talk) 14:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

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.

Did you know nomination

edit
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk22:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC).Reply

  •   New enough Good Article. QPQ present. Sources back up the hook and are included in the right spots. The hook is _quite_ catchy! Not seeing any other issues. Raymie (tc) 19:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Reply