Talk:Union Square station (Somerville)

Requested move 26 July 2015

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: moved, I guess. These were moved almost a month ago, without waiting for an impartial closer I might add, but it doesn't seem anyone has had an objection to it. Jenks24 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

---

• Union Square (MBTA station) → Union Square (MBTA Green Line "E" Branch station)
• Union Square (Allston) (MBTA station) → Union Square (MBTA Green Line "A" Branch station)

– Established practice with MBTA station articles is to disambiguate identically-named stations by their line and (for the Green Line) branch, not by their location. Also, the current title for the "A" Branch station has two sets of parentheses in a row, which looks horrible to the eye, and is, in addition, quite clunky, even if its ghastly appearance is ignored. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 19:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 09:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support as WP:SNOW - this is a technical move on low-traffic pages and supported by both existing naming conventions, so I'm not sure it even needs a full move discussion. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
• comment "Union Square (MBTA station)" will necessarily need to point to the disambiguation page Union Square, since it uses ambiguous disambiguation, failing WP:PRECISE (also, these articles need to be added to the dab page) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I suggest Union Square, Somerville (MBTA Green Line station). The fact that E line trains are planned to run to on the GLX could change. In fac, it is likely to change, granted the history of Green Line operations over the last century. How far north each of the A/B/C/D/E trains ran/run (i.e. turned around) has changed regularly over the century history of the Green Line, as well as operationally several times on many days. A/B/C/D/E designations made/make sense on the west end of the Green Line, after each of A/B/C/D/E fork off. There are a geographical reality. On the North End of the Green Line, it's just operational, so the established WP naming practice shouldn't apply. More importantly, the typical MBTA rider does not think of the stations from Kendall to Lechmere as being on anyone of the B/C/D/E lines. Way too early to know if the typical GLX rider will think it's stations are part of the E line. — Lentower (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The name of the station is not "Union Square, Somerville". It is "Union Square". Article title disambiguation by branch in this exact manner is long-established practice, and the "E" Branch running here has been decided for nearly a decade. Unlike the downtown terminal switching (which responds to year-by-year ridership surveys and other changeable elements), the northside branch identities are unlikely to change. They were decided by long-term operational characteristics - the Medford Branch is the longest and is thus paired with the grade-separated D which has superior schedule reliability, and the Union Square branch gets the E because of the utter dysfunction of the B and C. Only truly substantial changes elsewhere - we're talking grade-separating-the-B-through-BU or light-rail-on-the-Grand-Junction level substantial - will result in a change in which branches are through-routed. We can deal with that naming issue in a few decades. This is nothing more than a maintenance move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This move was implemented way too soon. For something like this it's best to wait at least 10 days to a month. Not everyone with experience and a valuable opinion edits every day. Vacations, family emergencies, business trips, etc. can all take someone away. — Lentower (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot see an inline citation that clearly identifies this future station as being part of the "E" branch. Until this article begins to meet minimum standards for articles I shall continue to oppose. Naming an article based on speculation is wrong on so many levels. -Bethayres (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Another issue I have is that most of the MBTA Green Line stations are suffixed with "(MBTA Station)". So the naming of this article is already creating a conflict with the majority of articles on stations on this line. Also, the infobox states that the previous/following station is Lechmere. That's correct in name only ... the current Lechmere station will be demolished as part of the project, and a new Lechmere station will be built on a different plot of land. So the reference to Lechmere in the article should be to the new station, not the current one. This article is a mess.Bethayres (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You're making some very incorrect assumptions here. First, it is well documented which branches will be extended to which stations; I believe the decisions were made as far back as the Beyond Lechmere study in 2006. I have added two citations (the most recently available Green Line operations plan, and the ridership results used in the federal funding application) to each of the Green Line Extension articles. They were not difficult to find; one was already cited in the Green Line Extension article. Second, the standard (MBTA station) is not a viable postfix here because of the reuse of "Union Square" as a station name, and that's a problem that crops up numerous times in the MBTA system because of common street names. Disambiguation with an expanded parenthetical is well established; Massachusetts Avenue (MBTA Orange Line station) and St. Paul Street (MBTA Green Line "B" Branch station) and their doppelgangers used the postfix disambiguation by 2008, and it is in heavy use on Commons as well. Third - and this is utterly unrelated to the naming of this page - when a station is rebuilt on the same location or extremely close to it, it is strongly preferred to keep both iterations in the same article rather than splitting the history into two places. Thus, the new Lechmere station will share an article with the old one. That is a feature, not a bug. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support per Pi.1415926535. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 11 August 2015 (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.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lechmere (MBTA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Union Square station (Somerville)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Trains2050 (talk · contribs) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I will be revewing this article over the next few days, please see the table bellow on my progress in the review. Thank you for nominating this article Trains2050 (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

General notes

• With the opening 1 month away, is there an exact opening date?
  • Frustratingly, no. I'll be adding that the moment it's announced.
• "This was delayed in June 2021 to a December 2021 opening, and in October 2021 to a March 2022 opening" Specific reason on why it was delayed? Covid?
  •  Done Added the listed reasons.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	"Union Square station is an under-construction light rail station on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)" could this be more clear, for example "Union Square station is a light rail station under-construction in Somerville and is on the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) network", is this better, what do you think? Trains2050 (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC) No, I think the current wording is better. The format of operator/line then location is pretty standard for station articles; see Amory Street station for a recent GA of mine on the same line as this station. "but will afterwards be served by the Green Line D branch." ETA of when served by green line D branch? Not available yet, unfortunately. I'll add that as soon as it's announced. "but Station Plaza will not be completed until 2023" did you mean the Station Plaza? I don't think the article is necessary here given that it's a proper name. "A starter booth is located at the east end of the platform," Maybe use a clearer word such as a dispatcher booth? A starter specifically dispatches trains at a single location (usually to make sure they leave a terminal on time), rather than controlling movements across a whole line or system as most dispatchers do. That's also the wording used in the source. "Train dispatcher" is wikilinked for clarity. what do you mean by this "at-grade emergency exit walkway"? It's a narrow walkway (basically a sidewalk with fenced sides) at grade (track level) that serves as a secondary exit from the station in case of emergency. I recommend seeing it in context (page 9 of the source); I've added the page number to the article. Can you go source hunting for an exact date of demolishment? (Optional) What's there is the best I could find after a lot of searching newspaper archives. Mid-century rail history is poorly documented because of public disinterest; I can't even find a specific mention of the closure of the predecessor of another GLX station (Somerville Junction).
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	seems good
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	seems good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Seems good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Seems good
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	seems good
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	very good coverage
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	sticks to the topic
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	seems good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	no edit wars currently
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	good alt text and own work
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	all good
	7. Overall assessment.	On hold until changes are made @Trains2050: Thanks for the detailed review! I've left my replies above. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC) @Pi.1415926535: Thank you for replying, I will pass this. Trains2050 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)