Jump to content

Talk:Vienna station (Washington Metro)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Vienna (WMATA station))

Parking numbers needing an update

[edit]

Owing to the closure of the "temporary overflow lot" at the corner of Saintsbury and Vaden Drives near the South Garage, we now have outdated information in our article about the number of parking spaces. Thus why I've added the {{update}} tag to the article. Metro has not yet provided us with new numbers for us regarding number of spaces, so there's not much we can do yet at this point.

Additionally, plans for a third parking structure are allegedly in the works, based on signage presently at the station. If I can find a good source for that, I'll incorporate it into the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Updates?

[edit]
I (User:JoshEdgar) have made a few edits to this Vienna/Fairfax-GMU Washington Metro article, but I am not sure

if my edits qualify to bring this article up to date. For details on the edits I made, see User:JoshEdgar/ViennaArticle

JoshEdgar 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I see now that the {{update}} tag shouldn't be removed now because the update was needed because of parking. But, these are my updates if anyone needs to know about them JoshEdgar 23:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits actually show up automatically in the page history. Not bad, though I did clean it up a bit. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting per WP:DASH and WP:SLASH?

[edit]

There has been discussion at User talk:SchuminWeb#Dashes regarding how Vienna/Fairfax–GMU should be formatted per WP:DASH and WP:SLASH. What it boils down to is, does the difference in punctuation types create two units, one multi-word and one single (i.e. formatted as "Vienna / Fairfax–GMU" or Vienna/Fairfax – GMU"), or are the different punctuation types irrelevant, and we have three single-word units (i.e. Vienna/Fairfax–GMU)?

I'm taking the discussion here because I'd like to get a wider opinion on how people think we should treat the different punctuation types. What do folks think? SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2014

[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: moved. Consensus is less clear than in the other simultaneous RMs, but still appears to be in favour. Plus for the sake of WP:CONSISTENCY it would be odd to move all the other articles but not this small set. Number 57 16:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


– Following the move of the Green Line stations per the new WP:USSTATION guideline, these stations should have WP:NATURAL disambiguation (and eventually, consistency within the whole system). I think consensus there can be interpreted as a mandate to move them all, but for now, I thought this would be helpful for more pairs of eyes to check for possible naming conflicts. Note that Vienna, Clarendon, and Court House need disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 19:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USSTATION. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually isn't intended to favor the state over everything else, especially when more precise terms are more identifiable. In this case I'd think either the cities or "Washington Metro" would probably be the most recognizable to readers, especially for "Vienna", which is ambiguous with Austrian stations as well. Clarendon Station doesn't seem to need any other disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/c 16:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the location, Virginia for Vienna and Court House, rather than system. "(Washington Metro)" is also not a natural disambiguator. Nothing in parentheses is a natural disambiguator. Agree that Clarendon doesn't need disambiguation. (A hatnote to Central Frontenac, already in the article, should suffice.) --Scott Alter (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is wrong. When people think about the Vienna Station in Fairfax, VA, they don't think, "Oh, this is the Vienna Virginia Metrorail station" because that's wrong; it's the Washington Metro although still in Virginia. Virginia is actually not a natural disambiguator because "Virginia" suggests that an entity in the state of Virginia, or the state itself operates the station, or that it is a long distance railway station rather than a metro station. Why exactly are we changing the naming style to geographical, anyway? Epicgenius (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An entity in the state of Virginia does operate the station, inasmuch as WMATA "is a tri-jurisdictional government agency". --BDD (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then why can you not use the same disambiguator throughout, and avoid the confusion that you are supposedly resolving in the first place? Epicgenius (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that "Virginia" was a natural disambiguator. But neither "Virginia" nor "Washington Metro" are natural disambiguators - thus the need to put them in parentheses instead of the actual title. The purpose of disambiguation here is to differentiate "Vienna station" from other articles also named Vienna Station, which includes Vienna (VTA), Vienna (WMATA station), Calhoun, Kentucky (formerly named Vienna Station, Kentucky), and a few European stations. Instead of the trying to figure out what people are thinking when they want to refer to the Washington Metro station in Virginia, we as editors need to figure out how best to differentiate between the articles that we have. The need for disambiguation is because of the technical limitation of Wikipedia being unable to have 2 articles at the same title - not the need to provide the most information about the article in the title. Having "Vienna station (Virginia)" and "Vienna station (California)" provide more clarity and differentiation to me than "Vienna station (Washington Metro)" and "Vienna station (VTA)". To an uninformed reader, they may have no idea where (or what) Washington Metro, WMATA, or VTA are, and they might not know what transit system the station they are looking for are in. (Perhaps "Washington Metro" may refer to something in Washington State, and who knows what VTA stands for - maybe the V stands for Virginia?) They may only know that they are curious about a station named Vienna somewhere in Virginia. Another reason for not preferring using the transit system name as the disambiguator across the board is because many stations serve multiple agencies and systems. Many US stations serve Amtrak and the local train, for instance. By using a system as a disambiguating term, you are excluding the other system that stops there. In this case, other non-Washington Metro bus lines stop at this station. So by disambiguating the station by location, you don't need to worry about potentially changing the name of the article if services change. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Scott answered your question much better than I could, Epicgenius. I think there's a bit of a miscommunication here because you're referring to "natural disambugators" and the rest of us are thinking WP:NATURAL. A parenthetical disambiguator is almost never natural disambiguation, but I think I see what you mean: disambiguators that are more intuitive, or expected, perhaps. --BDD (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:USSTATION. Adding station to the article title provides natural disambiguation, without the need for parenthetical disambiguation (in most cases) per WP:NATURAL. Regarding capitalization, if "station" is not in the official name (and I do not think it is), then it should be lowercase. If "Station" is in the official station name, then it should be capitalized. --Scott Alter (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom with "Station" capitalized as the signs at the stations do. Would greatly prefer "Washington Metro" as a disambiguator to "WMATA" or "Virginia" which are far less helpful to readers seeking the correct article. (Yes, I know that other systems use the stations but their primary use is by Metro train and bus). —  AjaxSmack  03:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – the guideline says to use lowercase "station" unless "Station" is part of the official station name. The evidence seems to show that it is not; the official station lists do not include "Station" as part of the name, nor do many books, and the signs that include "Station" are capitalized because they are signs. If we're trying to implement the new guideline, let's do it right or not do it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reread the original nominating statement: consistency within the whole system is sought. Hello, we already have consistency here, and the proposal's attempting to dismantle it. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nyttend, we have two US state articles with disambiguators (i.e., Georgia (U.S. state) and Washington (state)). Should we seek consistency within that whole system (e.g., Colorado (state), Virginia (state))? --BDD (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, although it's absurd that the two are differently disambiguated. The point is that we currently have consistent nomenclature here, just as we have almost-consistent nomenclature with the US states. Nyttend (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't WP:NATURAL disambiguation preferable though? --BDD (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the USSTATION guideline suggests it would be lowercase, as "Station" is not part of the official names of these stations. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But - I can't believe you are still going on and on about this. That is your POV. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? Which part of the two simple things I said do you disagree with? Dicklyon (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But then I would be ranting on and on and on too! I just wonder if Sherlock would waste so much time on the case of the upper case. It does not matter doctor - the patient is dead. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:39, 28 January 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.

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Greenbelt Station which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vienna_station_(Washington_Metro)&oldid=1207872846"