Jump to content

Talk:Hung Hom station

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Hung Hom Station)

Requested move 17 December 2017

[edit]
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: pages moved. from discussion below, consensus is clear that the pages should be moved (non-admin closure) Mahveotm (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


The article says "Hung Hom is a station ...". The sign on the platform says "Hung Hom".
Just as in the US: the outside signage usually includes "Station" but the article (Newark Broad Street station) doesn't cap it because sources often don't.
As at Hung Hom station, the platform signs omit the disambiguator because you already know you're in a station and "Station" is not a proper part of the name. All countries do this the same way.

– Decap Station per convention in all other countries, and per common lowercase in edited sources (news and books); only cap the part that is proper name, in agreement with how the articles are written. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Hong_Kong#Railway_and_Station_capitalization. These are the MTR stations in Category:MTR stations in Kowloon, and there will likely be other categories of stations that need similar adjustments; this RM discussion is not intended to suggest limiting to just these. Dicklyon (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As nom, support – The articles say "Hong Hum is a station ...", making it clear that "station" is not a necessary or proper part of the station name. As in every country that has converged on title conventions for stations (including WP:USSTATION and WP:UKSTATION which serve as models for most countries), station should be lowercase to agree with the recommendations of WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Assertions that "it's a proper name" may be heard from some, but the frequent lowercase rendering in reliable sources argues against that interpretation, just as the articles as written argue against it. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—this is widespread practice on WP; and besides, it matches guidance from the most authoritative external style guides. Tony (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: "Station" is part of the proper name of any MTR station, because omitting "Station" in the name is ambiguous beyond the MTR system. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is suggesting omitting station (like the MTR does on signs on station platforms and such); it works perfectly well as a disambiguator when lowercase. Just like in WP:USSTATION; nothing different in Hong Kong in these respects. Dicklyon (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – per my reasoning in the WPHK talk page. "Station" is definitely part of the proper name in the Hong Kong context, and this is reflected in the way it rendered in lowercase in Hong Kong news media with much less frequency than in other countries. Per WP:TITLEVAR, it is OK for the article title to reflect the Hong Kong context – there is no need to change all Hong Kong articles based on "widespread practice on Wikipedia"... as with the WP:ENGVAR policy we don't impose uniform standards across different countries that may use English differently. As a Hong Kong editor, the proposed changes look odd. "Hung Hom station" sounds like a generic station in Hung Hom – but there are multiple stations in Hung Hom. What purpose does it serve to move these articles? It ain't broke, don't fix it. Citobun (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The arguments you make about Hong Kong stations are not different from what a few editors have said in other countries. Yet usage suggests lowercase, as much on Hong Kong as elsewhere. Per WP:USSTATION, WP:UKSTATION, WP:NC-PLSTATIONS, WP:Naming conventions (Australasian stations), etc., caps don't really make much sense in this context. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there is a reason that the folks in the land of the rising sun capitalize the "Station" in "station". Would you prefer calling it:
You would probably prefer the latter since the people there, just like HKers, treat the entire name a proper noun. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS, with the sole exception of Olympic Station. The rest as far as I can tell so far are entirely WP:CONSISTENT with all the other RMs like this we've already done. Dicklyon's just doing them in batches. A slight increase in capitalization in sources that happen to be in Hong Kong isn't indicative of anything other than local familiarity (in the SF Bay Area we refer to San Francisco as "the City", and to Van Ness station as "Van Ness Station" – WP doesn't) and conformity (HK is a small place). English is not the majority language in HK, so whatever is going on with style there isn't authoritative for how to write a general-audience, English-language encyclopedia. All that's going on here is a mixture of WP:IKNOWIT (whether it's how locals write is irrelevant; they're not writing on Wikipedia to our style guide, but following their own internal house style), and WP:OFFICIALNAME (mimicry of signage and government publications, which over-capitalize everything like mad), and WP:CSF (a majority of sources isn't sufficient to force a style variance on Wikipedia; it has to be an overwhelmingly consistent practice in RS, across English, for the article in question), and WP:SSF (railfans love to over-cap everything to do with trains, and Wikipedia does not follow suit, sorry). The ENGVAR argument is also bogus; there is no ENGVAR wiggle room for capitalization changes, only for wording (trunk/boot) and spelling (color/colour) differences.

    Olympic Station is an exception because it's not a descriptive name of a station being at a place like a street – even Prince Edward station is referring to a street name – but is named after the Olympics in an evocative sense. It is thus a proper name, like naming my house "the Venus Estate" is a proper name, but "SMcCandlish's house" or "the blue house at the corner of Captain Ray Gonzales St. and Beatrice P. Jackson Ave." is just descriptive (those streets named after people are not, but are the same as Olympic Station). See also Van Ness Avenue, named for a person honorarily, but Van Ness station, named after the street descriptively.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source digging: Lowercase is quite common for these: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11], and on and on. Two key facts here:
    1. There are hardly any sources in English that mention these stations at all, certainly not enough to be statistically meaningful. The Google News hits almost always fit on a single page of results, and it's mostly the same handful of newspapers over and over again. While the capitalization is in the lead a bit, WP doesn't care. It's not consistently capitalized.
    2. Even more damning for the pro-caps case, the very same publications wander back and forth between lower and upper case in different stories! No claim whatsoever can even be made that HK and South China newspapers treat these as proper names (not that we'd slavishly follow their style anyway; we'd want corroboration from other types of sources because WP is not written in news style, and virtually nothing but part of MOS:IDENTITY in our MoS every came from a journalism style guide). The HK and China papers use whatever random style the writers liked at the time, and their editors don't bother to normalize it.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the correction on Olympic Station; I've struck that one in the list above, as I think we'll all agree. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why make Olympic an exception when it's actually quite common to treat an adjective or genetive/possessive ('s) case like a self-containing noun in proper name. I believe you never write "a McDonald's/Carl's Restaurant", do you? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've unstruck Olympic station. I do notice that it's often lowercased in news. Let's discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2017 (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.

Have the cross-border trains from Hung Hom been discontinued?

[edit]

Félix An (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Railway Approach" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Railway Approach has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Railway Approach until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hung_Hom_station&oldid=1213804130"