Talk:Mount Dennis station

Article Name

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Mount Dennis (TTC)" to be consistent with other TTC station articles?Reaperexpress (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

What would you do with the many duplicates on this line? I think all TTC stations should be moved to the generic Name subway station and Name LRT station, but I see no point in messing about with that current naming convention. There is no need for a system name in the title unless it is part of a proper name - like GO Station. We don't have VIA Rail stations, just railway stations. For municipal and suburban systems in Canada, the O-Train, SkyTrain and West Coast Express simply use "Station"; C-Train, TTC, Montreal Metro and Agence métropolitaine de transport include a paranthetical system name; Edmonton uses "LRT Station". In view of the fact Metrolinx is going to have new LRT systems popping up all over Ontario, I think we should stay with a universal naming convention of "LRT station", using a lower case descriptor because it is not a proper name. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Almost all LRT Station worldwide (Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, etc.) articles are ending in "LRT Station" (capitalized) just like "MRT Station" articles, so i just carried out standardization, please do not act based on your wants or beliefs.PhilippineRevolution (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a proper name. Stop interfering if you don't understand that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How come it became a "This is not a proper name" if majority of "LRT Station" articles are written or named this way? So if im going with your argument too therefore stations named "MRT Station", "Railway Station", etc is also wrong? What is your basis?PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Since you don't know what a proper name is, perhaps you should read about it first. Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2014

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. 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: no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC) Dekimasuよ! 20:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Mount Dennis LRT station → Mount Dennis LRT Station – Follow standardized naming from "LRT station" to "LRT Station" just like the majority of the LRT Station articles. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose, because it is not a proper name. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Article title format "Use lowercase, except for proper names". Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Move by Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Lower case 'station' as in 'railway station', 'tube station', 'metro station', etc. Martin Morin (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose -- If at some point the TTC publishes an official list of official names they assigned to stations, I'd be willing to reconsider renaming. Currently, Union Station (TTC) is capitalized, but isn't it the only one? For all the other stations the TTC seems to think "station" is implied. Geo Swan (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: I could go with a rename other than what I proposed as it seems that this is the lone article in the station system that uses "LRT station" plus its an intermodal station of different types of system so renaming it to Mount Dennis station is much better as it is not only for LRT but also for TTC and GO Transit . PhilippineRevolution (talk) 01:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have a draft I have worked on -- waiting for additional references -- tentatively to be entitled something like Mount Dennis (GO train) or Mount Dennis GO station. I visited the Mount Dennis site last April, and took some pictures of where the GO facilities would go. As I understand it, the GO facilities will be separately run, and the GO station will have a separate fee-paid-zone. I figured that merits two separate articles. Additionally, someone who wanted to review all the train stations on GO's Georgetown line will want to go to an article that is only about GO's Mount Dennis facility. They should not have to plough through a much larger article, that is also about the TTC and Metrolinx's Mount Dennis station, in order to tease out that portion that is about the GO facilities. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Correct me if im wrong so the only lines that would meet in this station would be the TTC and the proposed LRT line? So if that is the case, then the GO Transit line station details for this line should be deleted and that the articles should be named Mount Dennis station (for LRT and TTC) and Mount Dennis GO station (for GO transit) instead. PhilippineRevolution (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The tunnel that connects the underground LRT platform to the at-grade kiss-and-ride and to the at-grade 15 bay TTC bus terminal will be tunneled under the GO station. Geo Swan (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – It is not a proper name, and it should actually be Mount Dennis (TTC). Epicgenius (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Nominator says "just like the majority of the LRT Station articles". How many LRT systems are there in the world? One hundred? Two hundred? About half of the stops on the Eglinton Crosstown will be large, deep, underground structures, built at considerable expense. The other half will be at grade level, but will be much more than streetcar stops. Because the LRTs will use the Presto system, an honour system, I imagine there will be no need for fare collectors or barriers isolating a fare-paid zone? The above ground stops will have to have enough space allocated for them to accommodate the long trainsets the system is supposed to be capable of -- if it is to run at full capacity.

On some of those LRTs aren't the stops too modest to be called "stations"? If the stop merely has a kiosk to keep commuters out of the rain, and an automated fare-paying machine, does it deserve the dignity of being called a "station"? To write a standalone article references are needed. There are hundreds of LRT systems, each of which may have dozens or hundreds of stops. That would be potentially over 10,000 stops. We don't have 10,000 articles on LRT stops, do we? Most cities that have heavy rail, like the TTC's subway, don't have separate articles for each station -- due to a combination of a lack of references, and a lack of interest on the part of contributors.

So, what does "just like the majority of the LRT Station articles" really mean -- if 95+ percent of the stops don't have separate articles? Geo Swan (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This not about Crosstown. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#LRT stations show attack on many LRT station for rename. Martin Morin (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2014 (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.

Requested move 7 September 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: The moves as proposed don't look like they have consensus. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

---

• Mount Dennis station → Mount Dennis LRT station
• Keelesdale station → Keelesdale LRT station
• Caledonia station → Caledonia LRT station
• Fairbank station → Fairbank LRT station
• Oakwood station (Toronto) → Oakwood LRT station
• Forest Hill station (Toronto) → Forest Hill LRT station
• Chaplin station → Chaplin LRT station
• Oriole Park station → Oriole Park LRT station
• Mount Pleasant station (Toronto) → Mount Pleasant LRT station
• Leaside station → Leaside LRT station
• Laird station → Laird LRT station
• Sunnybrook Park stop → Sunnybrook Park LRT stop
• Science Centre station → Science Centre LRT station
• Aga Khan Park & Museum stop → Aga Khan Park & Museum LRT stop
• Wynford stop → Wynford LRT stop
• Sloane stop → Sloane LRT stop
• O'Connor stop → O'Connor LRT stop
• Pharmacy stop → Pharmacy LRT stop
• Hakimi Lebovic stop → Hakimi Lebovic LRT stop
• Golden Mile stop → Golden Mile LRT stop
• Birchmount stop → Birchmount LRT stop
• Ionview stop → Ionview LRT stop

– This stems from a discussion at WP:CANSTATION, a proposed transit station naming policy for Canada. Some moves were done without complete discussion, and this is a formal process to re-examine our naming policy for Line 5 Eglinton, as well as other future light rail transit lines in Toronto. The general reasons for this proposal are numbered below for ease of discussion.

1. Consistency with WP:UKSTATION - This policy contains a naming convention of three parts (in most cases): 'Formal name' - 'transit mode' - "station/stop". For example: Swindon-railway-station; Bilston Central-tram-stop; Poplar-DLR-station. This change adds the mode: LRT (light rail transit). While LRT is a recognizable but perhaps predominantly North American term, it can be defined in the opening line of the article. Furthermore, WP:ACRONYMTITLE notes that acronyms can be used to disambiguate articles and save space.
2. Using sentence case - WP:TITLEFORMAT advises to use sentence case. "Station" and "stop" use sentence case as per item 1.
3. Eliminating parenthetical disambiguation - There are stations with similar names, requiring disambiguation: Forest Hill, Oakwood, and Mount Pleasant. Adding the mode eliminates the parenthetical disambiguation. This is consistent with WP:PRECISE, as well as WP:ACRONYMTITLE as per item 1.
4. Using official names - Another discussion at WP:CANSTATION resulted in at-grade "stations" being moved to a name that reflects it as a "stop." This is consistent with the official names listed on the official Crosstown website, while retaining "LRT" as per item 1.

Please note that I have left out existing subway interchange stations for now: Eglinton West, Eglinton, and Kennedy. I intend to initiate a discussion about those at some other time. --Natural R_X 18:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose this move for a very simple reason. The stations and stops actually have official names, for example "Mount Dennis station" is actually called "Mount Dennis Station", and likewise the official name is "Aga Khan Park & Museum Stop". So by "while retaining "LRT" as per item 1" you are likely in violation of WP:OR because you've changed the name of the station. You can see this here at the official site [1] for all the official names. I don't know why we shouldn't use the official names, they are easy and recognisable. Mattximus (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  I thought of one more problem that is quite important. You missed a station, Cedarvale station, would you want to change that to Cedarvale LRT station or not? To make it consistent? Because it is also a subway station. The easiest solution is just to use the official name Cedarvale station, otherwise you are not even consistent for line 5...! Mattximus (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

  Yeah, Cedarvale is different because it is an interchange station, and I have other thoughts about that (that go beyond the title itself). I wanted to scope this RM. --Natural R_X 13:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

  For me it's just simpler to stick with official names, period. If disambiguation is required, then I can see merit in adding something like (Toronto) or LRT station, but those are rare. Mattximus (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME (since the latter does not conflict with the former in this case). Things like "LRT" are overdisambiguations when added without necessity. WP:CONSISTENCY takes a back seat to other criteria like WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONCISE which are impeded by adding on unnecessary disambiguations. Wikiprojects really, really need to start understanding that their job is helping to produce content, not trying to invent naming schemes that conflict with policy (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I personally was the one who proposed adjusting WP:CANSTATION to be in line with WP:UKSTATION; however, I believe the WP:USSTATION convention should be more tidy considering the vast range of transport options here compared to the UK. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Having looked over the US naming convention I have to agree with SOME GADGET GEEK. It fits our system way better than the UK one. So that would mean these LRT stations remain named as they are now (ie: Mount Dennis station), but that would also mean changing the subway stations to match... (ie: King (TTC) would become King station (Toronto) which actually sounds better to me). Disambiguation should match the American one by simply adding the city, for example Forest Hill station (Toronto). What do you think about aligning to the WP:USSTATION standard? Mattximus (talk) 00:12, 14 September 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.

Intermodal facility or two separate stations?

In the 15 August 2016 edit, user @EelamStyleZ changed the article from describing Mount Dennis station as an intermodal facility (serving LRT, buses and trains), to a "metro station" (later changed back to intermodal facility), and removed the Kitchener Line and UP Express line templates. This change is contrary to all documents that I have read, which describe Mount Dennis as a single facility, albeit one that has two noticeable parts. However the same is true about Spadina (TTC) yet we still consider it a single facility due to its unified function. Given that planning documents include both rail and light rail components, and that there is a single undifferentiated name for the facility, I propose to reinstate the GO Transit and UP Express line templates.Reaperexpress (talk) 03:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Any attempt should be made to unify all parts of an intermodal station into a single article, IMO. It makes for one more fullsome article instead of 2 or 3 stubs. --Natural R_X 14:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

• A couple of years ago I thought we would need two separate articles, but, after more documents have been published, I have changed my mind. Both GO Transit riders and TTC Riders will have paid their fare with a Presto card, and there will be a single fare paid zone, so I now agree there should be a single article. Geo Swan (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)