Talk:Saint Paul Union Depot

Minnesota Mid‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places 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.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	March 30, 2019

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

Mid

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

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

SPUD?

"sometimes referred to as SPUD" -> really? Is there a source for this? Having lived here for well over a decade, I've never heard it referenced by that name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that usage, and Amtrak also uses it, at their Great American Stations site.[1]. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amtrak has now edited this page to remove the "SPUD" reference. Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC) The former text (referring to both "St. Paul Union Depot" and "SPUD" can be found here. Kablammo (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball and infobox bloat

I have removed some material, previously added in good faith, from the infobox and article under the policies of WP:CRYSTAL, which states that "scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Completion of the University light rail line and the return of Amtrak meet these criteria; Red Rock corridor service and other postulated light and heavy rail commuter services do not.

In order to keep the infobox from dominating the article even more than it does now, I have also removed content from the infobox on historical rail services from the station. I hope to expand the text to include a more comprehensive and balanced description of those services. Kablammo (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you object to having the historical railroad services be listed at the bottom of the article? That would seemingly cause no problems to the "infobox bloat" as you stated. I've worked really hard on those historical services across the United States, so I would like it to be included in all the stations I've done. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 04:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all-- that is where such data should go. Infoboxes, where used, should be a summary of main points, and detailed tabular information should be at the bottom of the article.

If you have access to the Diers book you will find a wealth of infomation on the services from the station and the dates of termination. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

The name of this article has been "Saint Paul Union Depot". A textual edit yesterday changing the name in the lede had the following edit summary: Building is only known as Union Depot. No longer St. Paul Union Depot. Shortly thereafter another editor did a page move to "Union Depot (Saint Paul).

I have restored the name of the article to Saint Paul Union Depot, which was the status quo prior to the page move.

The question is whether the article should be named "Saint Paul Union Depot" or "Union Depot (Saint Paul).

I have notified the following Wikiprojects of this discussion: Trains, Stations, and Minnesota . Kablammo (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

___

I support using the historic name of "Saint Paul Union Depot". While I don't think Google hits are determinative, they are a tool, and the phrase "St. Paul Union Depot" yields 111,000 results, and "Saint Paul Union Depot" 230,000. (A search for "Union Depot" will of course yield many more, but there is more than one Union Depot in the world, and a search for "Union Depot" -"St. Paul" shows about 449,000 hits.)

I give deference to the usage in the Diers book listed in the sources. The book is entitled "St. Paul Union Depot", and that phrase is used throughout the book. Mr. Dieers is a recognized authority on transit in the Twin Cities.

I therefore believe that the title of this article should be kept as is--Saint Paul Union Depot--with St. Paul Union Depot as a redirect. Kablammo (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a perpetual question with USA stations, which User:Mackensen/Naming conventions (US stations) hopes to address. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

____

I received the following message from JzG, which I am copying here for wider currency, together with my reply:

According to an OTRS ticket from a representative of the municipality, the Union Depot at St Paul is not called the Saint Paul Unioon Depot, but the Union Depot. Therefore MoS says Union Depot (Saint Paul) is the correct name. Guy (Help!) 13:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME says that the most common usage is preferred. While I do not doubt that the facility now prefers to be called "Union Depot" (as indicated by User:Uniondepot here), that is neither the historic nor the most common usage. To expand upon the examples given in the article talk page: John Diers' book "St. Paul Union Depot", published in the last few months, uses the name "St. Paul Union Depot" in the text of the Acknowledgment page, on pages xi, xi, xiii, xviii, xix, xx, xxxvi in the Prologue, pages 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 in the first chapter, and throughout the rest of the book. There are (or were) other "Union Depots" Minnesota, the name "Union Depot" was part of the names of stations in Saint Paul, Duluth, Mankato, and Owatonna, and for now-demolished stations in Minneapolis, Stillwater, Taopi, and Waseca. Mr. Diers has served on the Metropolitan Transit Commission in the Twin Cities for 25 years, on the board of the Minnesota Transportation Museum, and the editorial board of the Ramsey County Historical Society. Kablammo (talk) 16:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

____

People are making very valid points about how Union Depot should be titled. The point about the recent book and the history is valued and treasured. Moving forward it makes the most sense to have the station titled as its official name --Union Depot-- to avoid confusion. Because Union Depot is fairly common, adding the location within the parentheses also makes sense. Any secondary references, alternatives can use redirects or secondary titles. The less ambiguous the better. Official title should read -- Union Depot (Saint Paul) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj24hour (talk • contribs) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Union Depot

Wikipedia, ever-prescient, is asserting that Amtrak has returned to Union Depot, even thought the first Amtrak train scheduled to stop there is running over five hours late, and is becalmed somewhere west of Hawley. It is reasonable to expect the train will eventually wander in sometime this afternoon (if congestion and the BNSF allow it), which will then make Wikipedia's assertion correct. But that claim is cited to a five-week-old news report announcing the expected return, rather than a report documenting the actual event.

It would be better to await an event before announcing that it has already occurred, and to cite it to a source. Kablammo (talk) 12:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that the eastbound train would be the first to Union Depot, but according to the Union Depot website, the eastbound train will stop at Midway; the first Amtrak service to Union Depot will be the westbound Empire Builder the evening of May 7.[2][3] Consequently service will not begin until the evening of May 7. Kablammo (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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, default to current title. Jenks24 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Paul Union Depot → Union Depot (Saint Paul) – Union Depot (Saint Paul) is the official listed name for this train station and supports the common name. Many people use this popular location for transit, events, restaurants, and tourist stops. Changing the name in important to make it less ambiguous for these people. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC) 98.240.167.253 (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. I'll also note that "Union Depot ([city])" or "Union Station ([city])" is the common naming scheme for these kinds of station articles on Wikipedia already. --IJBall (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the reasons set forth above, Talk:Saint Paul Union Depot#Name of article. The commonname policy does not refer to Wikipedia conventions for disambiguation, but rather how others refer to the subject. The name "Saint Paul Union Depot" has a long history, and continues to be used for the station, as discussed above. That name, and its abbreviation, were also used by Amtrak. Kablammo (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks, It's my understanding that the facility is now called "Union Depot" by its operator and owner. The parenthetical "(St. Paul)" is not part of its name. Instead, that parenthetical is one way Wikipedia disambiguates; it is not part of the common name. "St. Paul Union Depot" however is a common name for the depot. Kablammo (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2014 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Saint Paul Union Depot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100924174951/http://www.metrocouncil.org:80/transportation/ccorridor/construction/CCLRTConstructionScheduleAtAGlance.htm to http://www.metrocouncil.org/transportation/ccorridor/construction/CCLRTConstructionScheduleAtAGlance.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]