Talk:Perris–Downtown station

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 31 May 2018

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: consensus to move the pages to the proposed titles at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 20:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The proposed names match Wikipedia naming conventions and Metrolink's current naming conventions. These are city names with a dash as a modifier showing the neighborhood when Metrolink serves more than one station in a city. Making this move matches the names of other stations including Riverside–Downtown station and Riverside–La Sierra station which were also the subject to a requested move discussion where the consensus was to use this naming convention. RickyCourtney (talk) 03:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposed station names also match the naming convention used on Burbank Airport–South station and Burbank Airport–North station which was also subject to a requested move discussion. --RickyCourtney (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The nom's cited RMs do not provide the precedent stated. The first discussed whether a hyphen or dash would be more appropriate in the title, and the second provided explicit evidence of reliable, independent sources using the proposed name. Neither address the issue at hand: whether we should override COMMONNAME because of an external naming convention. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Setting aside the external naming convention, this discussion is about establishing a unified internal Wikipedia naming convention for Metrolink stations. Consistency is one of the criteria for an article title and the previous RMs help provide precedence for names to be used on these five articles. The prior RMs established that dashes were the proper form in the name, and there are reliable, independent sources using current naming convention. Establishing a common name for these articles is difficult for two reasons:

The stations are relatively new, but not brand new, so current media coverage on the station, with the new naming convention is very limited as compared to a brand new station.
Metrolink has been very indecisive over the names for these stations. From my research the names have changed as many as four times in the last five years.

I believe that this naming convention is best. What matters most to our readers is the city where the station is located, then we can use the hyphen to disambiguate. --RickyCourtney (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all. The limited number of reliable external sources discussing the stations use the current titles as names. An official name assertion cannot override COMMONNAME, and as acknowledged above, the official names do not even have the benefit of being temporally consistent. James (^talk/_contribs) 00:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- See, for example, [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] James (^talk/_contribs) 00:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most area journalists are not in agreement on what names to use for Metrolink facilities, this is a problem that was discussed in the move discussion for the 91/Perris Valley Line. I'm not sure if this is a problem of Metrolink's messaging, overworked journalists, or just force of habit. But, in my opinion, it shows that really, there is no established "common name" for these stations. Again, in requesting this RM, I hope to finish a transition to a consistent naming convention on Wikipedia for Metrolink stations. The previous RMs help provides precedence for the naming convention to be used on these articles. --RickyCourtney (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CONSISTENCY with so many similar article titles. If sources aren't consistent, that's what we fall back on. And, yes, it should be an en dash not a hyphen, per MOS:DASH. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposed move to more consistent naming conventions. I don't understand James's objection; his assertion that an "official name assertion cannot override COMMONNAME" is hard to interpret in this context, where no strong evidence of a common name has been shown, and nobody is saying that the convetion is based on an official name assertion. And commonname is not some magic policy, just a strategy for recognizability. It seems to me that the proposed new names are adequately recognizable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2018 (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.