Talk:Seaford railway station (England)

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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

Sussex Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sussex, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sussex 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.SussexWikipedia:WikiProject SussexTemplate:WikiProject SussexSussex-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations

Requested move

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: move the page, per the discussion below. However, it is not clear to me that the applicable naming convention, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations) (which was at one point marked historical), actually enjoys consensus as constituted, and for those objecting to this sort of close or naming convention, I would suggest that the topic be brought up there. Dekimasuよ! 03:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seaford railway station, East Sussex → Seaford (Sussex) railway station – To bring the station into line with the general naming convention applied to other stations including Berwick (Sussex) railway station and Heathfield (Sussex) railway station, according to which the disambiguator follows directly after the station name. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Lamberhurst (talk) 17:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Redrose64 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reasons as at Talk:Fairfield railway station (Greater Manchester)#Requested move 2 - i.e. this station is not named "Seaford (Sussex)" - such disambiguation in other article's is not Wikipedia's but Network Rail's. Thryduulf (talk) 00:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/stations/SEF/details.html --Redrose64 (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did look somewhere on NR's site and didn't see disambiguation, but I haven't been able to find where that was now. In any case it seems my objection was wrong and this is the correct name of the station. Support. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose a natural disambiguation is far better than an artificial construct, clearly the general naming convention has not been thought out and we dont need to impose a made up name. The current name is fine as it is. MilborneOne (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MilborneOne: Why do you think that the proposed title is "an artificial construct" and "a made up name"? Did you check the link that I provided at 08:07, 19 October 2014? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look at the source you gave but that doesnt give the official name it is just made up to make the enquiry system easier to use for people, I also looked at local council information and such like and as expected the name used is just Seaford station (either Railway or the dreadful Train). I could not find any evidence that the station itself uses the name Seaford (Sussex). So all we are doing is using one made up name that was used to make the national rail enquiry system better and forcing it on to the article (or as it seems multiple articles). Also note that nationalrail.co.uk is contracted out and not actually a website of the operator and http://www.southernrailway.com who is the operator calls it "Seaford". MilborneOne (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Seaford" is the common name, but that is ambiguous in Wikipedia's contexts so we need do disambiguate. What we do in these cases is use the official name, "Seaford (Sussex)", which is a name used for all purposes by the railway industry (not just the online journey planner) when "Seaford" is ambiguous - for example if you buy a ticket to or from there it will say "Seaford (Sussex)". Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is already disambiguated with "East Sussex", not convinced by what I have seen that "Seaford (Sussex)" is an official name, in fact all the sources except the ticketing one use "Seaford". Dont have a problem if it has to be Seaford railway station, Sussex, or Seaford railway station, England or even Seaford railway station, United Kingdom but I still object to the made up Seaford (Sussex). Southern railway seem to be happy to call it Seaford and they operate it, and I cant find any evidence of any signage at the station that says "Seaford (Sussex)". MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't ambiguous on the Southern network so they don't disambiguate it, nor do the local council and there is obviously no need to disambiguate on the station signs. [1] is another National Rail source, but not related to ticketing. Searching is hampered by google ignoring the parentheses even when specified as an exact phrase. [2] is an independent guide to UK railways that uses it, using data sourced from National Rail, BTP and Network Rail. I can understand you not liking the form (even though IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant to what the title should be), but I don't get why you think it is made up? Network rail, in conjunction with National Rail, are the people whose decide what the official name of a station is, and this is the format they have chosen to use for every ambiguous station name on the network. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So all they are doing is making up a disambiguation scheme for railway stations, that doesnt mean we have to copy it. The signs outside the station or on the platform or the operator do not use Seaford (Sussex), the article is already disambiguated so I dont see any reason to change it. MilborneOne (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses natural disambiguation where possible. Where the common name is ambiguous and the official name is not then the natural disambiguation is to official name rather than inventing our own. As we do at Newport (Essex) railway station, Whitchurch (Shropshire) railway station, Bramley (West Yorkshire) railway station, etc, etc, etc. In this context "Seaford (Sussex) railway station" is no more a made up name than Southend Victoria railway station, Cardiff Central railway station, Pontefract Tanshelf railway station, East Midlands Parkway railway station, etc, etc. that also include disambiguation made up by the railway industry in the official name. Just because this station uses parenthetical disambiguation is no reason to treat it differently. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK you clearly dont understand the point or I have not explained it properly that "Seaford (Sussex)" is not the name of the station but my objection still stands for what its worth. MilborneOne (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear what you're saying: I am better informed than the people who actually run the rail network. However, I don't like it because I know better is not a valid argument. Verifiability is what counts, regardless of personal opinion. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steady Lamberhurst you need to assume good faith here and have a read of WP:NPA and perhaps withdraw your remarks. MilborneOne (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just read it MilborneOne and I found this sentence particularly apposite: "Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justifcation for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack." Lamberhurst (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand exactly the point you are making. Your opinion is that "Seaford (Sussex)" is not the name of the station, and you prefer the current disambiguation. However, the evidence shows that it is the name of the station, and your dislike of that is not relevant. The local council and train operator can call the station whatever they want, but they don't get to decide what it's actual name is any more than our calling it "Pink Blancmange railway station" would impact it's official name. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again I dont have a "dislike" for the Seaford (Sussex) name only that my reading of the sources is that it is not the common or official name, it is just used as a disambiguator for the ticket system. I could find loads of references that use anything but Seaford (Sussex), and the network rail (who actually own the station) tend to use "Seaford" on the bits of http://www.networkrail.co.uk I have looked at. Also I dont have a preference for the current name I would support Seaford railway station, Sussex or the like. MilborneOne (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be in line with the standard naming format for railway stations. Number 5 7 12:48, 6 November 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.