Talk:Kings Avenue station

Title

The title that's actually used for this station is Kings Avenue Station, per JTA.[1] Additionally, the current title is natural disambiguation which is preferable to a parentheses.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

But it's specifically a JTA Skyway station, hence the previous name. -------User:DanTD (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by "Fram follower". This station is demonstrably called "Kings Avenue Station", not "Kings Avenue". As there are no other articles titled "King Avenue Station" the parentheses aren't necessary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Kings Avenue Station, of the JTA Skyway. -------User:DanTD (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Of course it's a station of the JTA Skyway. We don't need to add the parenthetical unless there's some other article to distinguish it from, and there's not.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, because it is one, we do need to. In answer to your other query, Fram is another editor/administrator who has habitually tried to rip up naming conventions of train stations that specifically identify the articles as being for train stations and the agencies in charge of them. Many of us on TWP have had some heated arguments with him and others on his side who destroy naming conventions for Sacramento Regional Transit District stations and MAX Light Rail stations. -------User:DanTD (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your implications. So far as I can tell, there isn't another article called "Kings Avenue Station", so no, disambiguation is not needed. And I don't know what "naming conventions of train stations" you're talking about, but they don't trump the article titles policy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to the new notifications system, I became aware of this discussion and of the fact that I now officially have followers. Hurrah! Anyway, I support Kings Avenue Station. Further discussion with DanTD is fruitless, we both have stated our reasons enough times, I still don't get why train stations are different to all other subjects and need to be explained in detail in the title, and I probably never will. But the bottomline is that a local consensus (assuming it exists) of train station writers can't overrule the global consensus written down in the MOS, and that there is no good reason why it should in this cae. Fram (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

And I've told you why: It's because they often share names with other structures, other sites, and other subjects. At least Cuchullain leaves the word station in the names, but even that can be a hassle when you have other types of stations with the same names, like power stations, fire stations, coast guard stations, etc. Also, it's not really a question of whether there are articles for them or not. -------User:DanTD (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is, we only distinguish between existing articles. Disambiguation is only required when "there is more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead" per WP:DAB. There are no other articles called "Kings Avenue Station" so far as I can see.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)