Talk:Charles/MGH station

Over-capitalization

@Qwirkle: Why keep capping "subway" where it's not part of the proper name of anything, as evidenced by usage in sources and as decided by the RM discussion at Talk:Boylston_Street_subway#Requested_move_14_December_2018? In books in the specific context of "opened" it's often lowercase, though you assert "Obviously being used as a proper noun phrase" in your third revert edit summary. At least that tells us what you're thinking, which is better than your first two revert summaries of "Revert to better" and "Begging the question, as usual." But why are you thinking it, and how/why do you think we need to hash this one out yet again for this context? Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course its part of the proper name of something in this context, what do you think the proper name is? Qwirkle (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like you think everything has a proper name. That's not the case. Subways are most often not treated as having proper names. What you're claiming as "obvious" is what has been rejected by consensus already. So please stop reverting my fix; you've done it three times already, and if you do another I will report it per WP:3RR. Dicklyon (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

{{ec}It looks like you have a problem simply replying to the matter at hand. You have now reverted to your preference how many times? Qwirkle (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Perhaps by doing the fourth revert you've saved Qwirkle from 3RR violation. But it's still edit warring against a consensus established at an RM discussion. You were told at AN/I what processes are available to you to contest that, yet you just do this. Dicklyon (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

A property of a proper name is that it is not descriptive of what is being named. "X station" tells us that it is a station; therefore, not a proper name a priori. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I look forward to your RMs of Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have no intention or reason to downcase proper names, that is, names that are consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that my reply was to a comment addressed to Cinderella157; still, I have no such intention and I think neither does he. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm, no. That is not an accurate definition of a proper name. It may be the tool wiki has adopted, but that is not the same thing. You are confusing the map with the territory. Qwirkle (talk) 01:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: You have a more theoretical take, while I have a more empirical. What's your analysis of this one? Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

There is oft confusion between what is a proper name grammatically and capitalisation, which is a matter of orthography. Capitalisation and proper name/noun are sets "defined" by quite distinct criteria which overlap but are not mutually inclusive. They are, therefore, not synonymous but are often confused as being synonymous. MOS:CAPS tends to perpetuate this false equivalence. I will also note that there is no clear "definition" of what is a proper name/noun but there are defining properties. As you rightly point out Dicklyon, MOS:CAPS relies on empirical evidence to determine what should "necessarily" be capitalised (but unfortunately it refers to these as proper nouns). Some ambiguity arises with geographical locations, where the descriptive part of the name is often (but not necessarily) capitalised. In my OP, I have quite correctly pointed to the fallacious assertion that the title [of this article] is a proper name (and should therefore be capitalised in full). Whether it should be capitalised for other reasons has not been agrued. The burden rests with showing empirically that it is necessary per the criteria of MOS:CAPS. I have no doubt that Brooklyn Bridge and Golden Gate Bridge will meet these but such an arguement of analogy is a red herring. The criteria must be met and evidence accumulated for each specific instance. I have provided rationale causing doubt that this is reasonably "necessary" and see no "evidence" (beyond unsubstantiated assertion) to the contrary. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

To begin with, the central assertion, that a simple descriptive can not be part of a proper name phrase, is wrong on its face. Ford Motor Company General Motors Corporation, East India Company, First Marine Division, First Marines...one could go on endlessly with this. I realize that you have added a little nuance later, but you really need to strike the hyperbole.

Next, there are a vanishingly small number of proper names which do not capitalize nouns within them. Conjunctions and other function words often are not capped: it’s the Group of Seven, not the Group Of Seven, but the nouns themselves? Generally capitalized, so much so that specific exceptions are noted.

Next, many phrases can be a proper name in one context, but the identical words not in another. “The [[First Marine Division was the first marine division activated in WWIV” is grammatical, and may even be accurate come World War Four, who knows.

Next, article titles are, by one usage, proper names in themself; they are the proper name of the article. Wikipedia doesn’t use this convention, of course, but real encyclopedias generally do. (Descriptions of platonic ideals are also similarly capped, of course. Wiki doesn’t use this, but sources, especially older ones may). Neither of these apply here; if the Boston Globe generally shows caps for station, it’s quite likely it is because it as seen as a proper name. Qwirkle (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone making that assertion ("that a simple descriptive can not be part of a proper name phrase"), much less making it central to the issue here. Of they can be part of the proper name, and often are. But they are also often not, and if sources show caps unnecessary, then whether you call that a decision about proper name or not, we don't cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

A property of a proper name is that it is not descriptive of what is being named. Adding “need not” or “merely” might fix that, of course, but it is a very bad starting point. Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

As for the Boston Globe, they often use lowercase (even for street, surprisingly). Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. How often, and by whom, and in what context? Qwirkle (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Qwirkle, the authority (in the first instance) for my statement is proper noun. I am not just making this shit up. It is a universally accepted orthographic convention to capitalise company names even though the name might be descriptive of what the company produces. Whether a company name is a proper name is moot. The same can be said of military organisations. Of course its part of the proper name of something in this context, what do you think the proper name is?. This is an unsubstantiated assertion. There is certainly doubt because it is descriptive in nature but as with any "rule" in English, there are exceptions. Hence, I say, it is not on first principle a proper name but I have not excluded that it "might" still be capitalised if it meets the criteria to be applied per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. What is the evidence to support such an arguement? As an aside, personalising an arguement is never good form. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Passing over the fact that you are citing Wikipedia itself, you are misrepresenting the source. We are discussing proper names, which can follow slightly different rules than the narrower definitions of “proper noun”. Qwirkle (talk) 04:36, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A proper noun is a single word, while a proper name is a noun phrase (ie more than one word). This is the only distinction between the two and is covered at proper noun. It is also perfectly acceptable to refer to an article in a discussion even though articles cannot be used as sources in other articles. I am still only seeing lots of assertions without substance. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't seem to wrap my head around Dickylon's argument. The sources seem to use a mix of both, but when you actually think about how these terms are used, I think that it should be pretty clear that they are proper names. This is very different from the past discussions and consensus about "station" in names. For example, you could say take the train to Melrose Highlands; station is not an integral part of the name. When you are talking about these inclines, subways, etc, it's a different story. You cannot refer to them without the these parts and not cause confusion. This is exactly the same as "Bridge" as Pi stated above. Boylston Street is a light rail subway tunnel. What?, no it's a street?! Grk1011 (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Some would make a nerdly distinction between proper nouns and proper names, but doing so in this context is at best pedantic, and at worst suggests trolling or questionable competence. Qwirkle (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that is what I meant and I've fixed it above. Grk1011 (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the sources use a mix of both. Many decades ago, "street" was not considered part of the proper name of a street, and now it is. That transition hasn't happened yet for a bunch of other terms, such as subway, as you can tell by looking at sources. WP is not in the business of driving such transitions, though it turns out to be unreasonably effective at doing so. That's part of why we default to lowercase when sources are mixed. See MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

For values of “many decades” that might be more honestly expressed as “about a century.” Here is a representative example ngram (Which, of course, is only a starting point...) Here, by the way, is the same for representative stations...or, as the the ngram strongly suggests, Stations. Qwirkle (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, many decades, on the order of 10. And yes, there are a few station names that have become proper names, like the ones you have shown, which is why we leave their articles at Pennsylvania Station and Grand Central Terminal. But look at Boylston Street subway. Not there yet. Dicklyon (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

”Many decades, on the order of 10”. I”ll let that res loquititate for its own damned ipsa. Then there’s this, for which I’ll do the same. Qwirkle (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

"The sources seem to use a mix of both" lower and upper case? Then WP uses lower case. First rule of MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS: "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia" (emphasis in original); and "leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence." It's unclear to me why certain individuals seem to have trouble understanding this. It doesn't say "except when a certain wikiproject wishes it were otherwise" or "unless you feel strongly that a bunch of the sources are wrong and you really, really want to capitalize it".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nonsense. Sources routinely use grocer’s apostrophes and variant spellings, we don’t adopt them blindly, either. The same set of words can be used for variant meanings; an identical (save capitalization) phrase can used as a proper name and as a modified common name in the same document. What we should be looking at are reasonably expert usages that definitely are used to name the thing, and see how the capitalization looks there, not blindly accepting a (fellow) crusader’s hand-wave at it. How does Cudahy or Sanborn capitalze it? That might mean something. Qwirkle (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Excessive "open"?

"The Boston Elevated Railway (BERy) opened its Cambridge Subway opened Park Street Under to Harvard on March 23, 1912". Not sure I understand this sentence. (Reading chapter 4 of Jill Lepore's "The Secret History of Wonder Woman" one has "... the subway opened as scheduled on March 23, 1912..." but I'm not sure how to edit the sentence above-quoted from our article so that it makes sense? ELSchissel (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch. Qwirkle and I have fixed it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles/MGH station/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ArnabSaha (talk · contribs) 06:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• "Three southbound trains collided inside the Beacon Hill Tunnel just south of the station on August 1, 1975, injuring 132 passengers." - this doesn't fit in 'Modifications'.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, there's no better place to put it, as the history is more or less chronological. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Any modifications made after this? Also, one thing can be done, making a separate section 'Incidents' and describing it as the incident seems serious. (mainly suggested by epicgenius in discord)  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  15:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I've adjusted the section title to mention the MBTA, as I don't think a separate heading is needed for a one-line summary of that collision. Does that work? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
        • Yes, it's better now.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  05:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
• If possible, rewrite them "...replaced the BERy in 1947. In 1965, the MBTA designed..." as the years, 1965 is right after 1947.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  12:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Done

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Blue and Red are proposed to meet at Charles/MGH station? Source: Draft Environmental Impact Report, page ES-2)

• Reviewed: Snailfish

Improved to Good Article status by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC).

• This article is a newly promoted GA and meets the newness and length criteria. The hook facts are cited inline, the article is neutral and I detected no copyright issues. A QPQ has been done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)