Talk:Richmond station (Quebec)

Canada: Quebec Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

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.

Name

Should I have this at Richmond railway station same as other Canada stations? Martin Morin (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. I've been working on these. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I created Grand Trunk Station (Richmond) and I don't approve, because the station was built by the Grand Trunk Railroad and built during the reign of Charles Melville Hays who died aboard the Titanic. It would be like calling the CN tower in Toronto, the Toronto tower.--Chnou (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the station is "Richmond", and the fact that it was operated by the GTR for a time should be included in its history but not the title. Secondarywaltz (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the Grand Trunk built it SW. Don't they deserve the title as well? Look at the Eiffel tower. It was built by Gustave Eiffel, and even though he is dead, they did not rename it the Paris tower.--Chnou (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, there is a bigger problem, because Richmond is a very popular name, there is Richmond, Virginia; Richmond, Michigan; Richmond, Texas; Richmond, California; Richmond, Kentucky; Richmond, Indiana; Richmond, Illinois; Richmond, Victoria; Richmond, Missouri; Richmond, British Columbia; etc. etc.--Chnou (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The single reference you give calls it "Canadian National Railway Station" Those other names you cite are proper names, that are the title of the building or structure. For stations that would be like Gare du Palais in Quebec, Windsor Station in Montreal, Union Station in Toronto or Grand Central Terminal in New York. If you look at the old photographs, this station is clearly marked "Richmond". See Richmond railway station for how disambiguation is applied to the same name in various parts of the world, with different regional naming conventions applied. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:07, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but look at Portland, Maine. There were 3 stations, the Grand Trunk Station, the Union Station and the Maine Central Station. You have to differentiate them. What was sad is that they demolished the Union Station which was a work of art. Take Michigan Central Station in Detroit, the city wanted to demolish it and someone brought the city to court and saved that lovely station.--Chnou (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping I had explained the reason for the need for name change, and that I could now do that unopposed. Every question you bring up can be answered and explained, but all of the Portlands have no relevance here. If you still want to dispute the change, I will formally request a move, which will just take up more time that could be better spent improving the article. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you, but try to understand me please. I noticed you did a name change on Grand Trunk Station (Coaticook). That's okay in a way I guess because there is only one Coaticook. But Richmond is different. Like I told you, there are many Richmonds. Furthermore, in all due respect to the late President of the Grand Trunk Railroad Charles Melville Hays, who ordered the construction of these historical stations, I feel the name of Grand Trunk should remain. If Charles Hayes had survived the Titanic, the Grand Trunk Railroad would have survived too. Don't you have enough Richmond Railway Stations?--Chnou (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Richmonds are no problem. Did you even bother to look at the link to Richmond railway station disambiguation I gave you? Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did!!! Look at it in another way; a town or village has only one historical grocery store called say IGA. Will you call it Grocery Store of TownX, or IGA Store TownX?--Chnou (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 April 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: no consensus. Harej (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Trunk Station (Richmond) → Richmond, Quebec, railway station – The name of the station was always "Richmond", no matter which railway company operated it. This is the naming convention for Canadian railway stations, except when its title is a proper name or there are multiple stations. Where disambiguation of the town is required, the Wikipedia name is used with the suffix "railway station". This is similar to the naming of railway station articles for other countries. --Relisted. — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC) Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – I disagree because when the train arrives, the name of the locality is on the station, not the station name.--Chnou (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Station (Canton, Illinois),Union Pacific Railroad Depot (Concordia, Kansas),Greeley Union Pacific Railroad Depot,Santa Fe Railway Manzanola Depot,Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Depot (Oregon, Illinois),Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Depot (Wyoming, Illinois),Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Depot (Centerville, Iowa),Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Freight House (Chariton, Iowa),Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Depot (Red Oak, Iowa),Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Depot (Galesburg, Illinois), etc. etc. You did not bother looking!--Chnou (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "No Support" to "Oppose" to avoid confusion. Epic Genius (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The current name is very non-standard. Let's move to a more standard rail station article name. --IJBall (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – A historical name should be kept. The Chrysler building retains it's name even though Chrysler no longer owns the building.--Donnacona (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I suggest a move because that is not the way of naming other railway stations. I don't see why all the argument for something obvious like this. Sometime I stay off Wikipedia. Martin Morin (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Was the only railway station of this city. --Fralambert (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I created the Grand Trunk Station article in Weston, Ontario for historical reasons and it was eliminated; even though the station no longer exists and has been replaced by a Go station and not even at the same location. Why do we say Weston Go Station when there is only one Go station in Weston.--Iberville (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from "No Support" to "Oppose" to avoid confusion. Epic Genius (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – This move is an obvious one. Let's follow the usual conventions, not use names that are hard to understand. Let's move this per WP:NATURAL. RGloucester — ☎ 15:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~, as the new name makes no sense. What is "Quebec railway station" as a disambiguator, and why is it comma spliced? Dicklyon (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now Support since RGloucester modified the proposal to include the matching comma. Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained above, the naming of Canadian railway stations follows the convention of using the disambiguated community name used by Wikipedia with railway station as a suffix. In this case Richmond, Quebec + railway station. I did not start this method, and you may not agree with it, but it has been consistently used for a long time. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate your objection, and it is the first intelligent one, but this is not the place to have a general discussion on the convention for naming this series of railway station articles. Thanks. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the convention of "the disambiguated community name used by Wikipedia with railway station as a suffix", but that would make it Richmond, Quebec, railway station. The matching comma to set of the disambiguator Quebec is not grammatically optional here. With the comma pair it means the Richmond railway station in Quebec. With one comma, who knows what it could mean? Dicklyon (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon is correct. I sadly did not pay attention at the time that I supported the proposal. I have fixed the comma. RGloucester — ☎ 17:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's hilarious! Have you forgotten what happens when one modifies an RM proposal in mid stream. Someone else's even? Can you do that? In any case, I take it this means you won't object if I fix Farnham, Quebec railway station as an uncontroversial move. Dicklyon (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a difference, given that neither the capitalised nor uncapitalised form is considered "wrong". In this case, the lack of the comma is simply WRONG. Please do fix that. RGloucester — ☎ 18:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK - That's good. Should I renominate it or is the addition of a comma uncontroversial? Afer this, every similarly named railway station in Canada should be moved. I will have some related templates to repair, but once they are all moved to the same standard I will be able to do that. Is that acceptable? Thank you both for the constructive feedback. In time I will assemble a documented naming convention, but I am not about to advocate widespread movement. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors agreed to the move to a standard naming convention, and I think the addition of a comma does not change that. Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Station need to move to a normal name. You know what that should be. Martin Morin (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the new title is the common name. Epic Genius (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The station is no longer used for rail service. Hello? It is a restaurant! You mislead people to confusion by not giving its real historical name once it is no longer used for that purpose.--Donnacona (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is about all of the station history for SL&A, GTR and CNR. The restaurant is not a well known thing. Martin Morin (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read, the Grand Trunk built it after acquiring the SL&A, and the CNR continued using the Grand Trunk name until the building was sold to become a restaurant in 1999.--Donnacona (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If the article was for a functional railroad station, I would approve. However, the station has become a restaurant and its inclusion in wikipedia is for historical reasons and not for its present day function. If the latter is the case, then eradicate the article.--Varing (talk) 04:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – If I didn't already know that Grand Trunk Railroad didn't operate this far south of the border, I would've suspected it was in Richmond, Virginia simply by reading the title. That might seem to make a case for the nom's rename proposal, but his suggestion eliminates the former owner/operator of the station. If I may offer a suggestion, try Grand Trunk Station (Richmond, Quebec). -------User:DanTD (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CN and Via also operated the station and the name of the company should not be included. Under the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act it is known as the "Canadian National Railway Station". These things are outlined and referenced in the article. Disambiguation is why the suggested name includes "Quebec". Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2015 (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.