Talk:King Street–Old Town station

WikiProject class rating

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 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change--not yet?

I think we've jumped the gun on renaming these stations. The memo about the approval of the name changes was November 3, 2011, yes, but as I understand it, they don't go into effect until June 2012. This particular one is minor. But this came to my attention because of the change of "New York Ave/Florida Ave/Gallaudet U" to "NoMa." (I saw it in the article on Artomatic.) As of this morning, when I rode to work, the signs at that station showed the old name, and the operator of the train I was on was still announcing the old name. Admittedly, this is an operator who, until recently, was announcing "Silver Springs," with an "s." But as of 30 seconds ago, Metro's own website was still using the old names. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Whether Metro has updated the Web site yet is kind of irrelevant. Our verifiable source says that Metro has changed the names, and Metro will likely not provide a verifiable release saying that the names have been changed on station signage and on the site. Besides, there are still some places in the system that have not been updated in many decades. So have we jumped the gun? I say no. The fact that we were remarkably quick and thorough in changing the names after the names were formally changed even though Metro itself has yet to make the corresponding changes just reflects the nature of the beast as the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, since we're just going in and changing electronic encyclopedia entries and not having to manufacture new signs, print new maps, and retrain the employees on the new station names. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I beg your pardon for posting the question in several places; I ran into it in the article on Artomatic, and I wasn't sure you'd see it there. In addition, I wasn't sure how to get to your talk page. I didn't mean to hammer the point or anything--just wasn't sure where it would be seen.

My point here is, I don't think the names have been "formally" changed yet. The source in question says that Metro has APPROVED name changes. It seems to me that approving them is different from the changes actually having been made. The announcement from Metro says the changes are approved for the June 2012 map. That's why I figured June 2012 is when the changes go into effect. I offered the points about the signs and announcements not as proof, but simply as support. And it does seem to me that even though signs and printed maps might take some time, they could easily update their own website. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

I think Stephen has a point; the changes have been approved but no one would say that the name of a particular station is, at this moment, "NoMa". Perhaps it's similar to the Willis Tower - there was a gap between the announcement and the actual change. --Golbez (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To change the names when the signs are changed without a source would be original research, which is prohibited. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming the only change would be 'oh the sign is different', and not some future release that Metro has begun formally renaming stations, or the online map has been changed. Using this press release is not OR but I think it's premature. To say the name is currently New York Ave is not original research, it's backed up by 99% of Metro's website, only the press release disagrees. The path of least confusion right now is to stay with the old names until more official documents reflect that the change is actually happening, rather than saying it will happen. Again: Ask 99.99% of the people in the DC area and they will say the name of the station is New York Ave. Hell, ask 99.99% of the people at WMATA. No one refers to it by NoMa yet except on this website. The moves were premature, just as it would have been premature to rename Sears Tower on the date of the announcement. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I knew I'd find something more concrete about when a rename becomes effective. Here is the press release from the 2004 renaming, which renamed three stations: [1]. There, Metro is explicit in saying that the stations were renamed upon the board action. No reason to believe that this was not again the case in the 2011 renaming. In the 2004 renaming, signage did not go up for six months or more after the renames happened, but the names were effective as of board action. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In 2004, yes, the language used was "three stations received new names today.". In the latest release, though, they say "will", and elsewhere it specifies June 2012 for the map update. Now, we're getting into somewhat pedantic levels here, and I'm not exactly going to roll back the changes... but I still think they were premature. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

So far, there is nothing but the press release--that one that says the name changes are for the new maps in June 2012--that calls the stations by their new names. If you feel that going by the new signs would be original research, then I suggest that going by Metro's website would be the equivalent of going by the press release. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

By the way, I'd like to explain something. The reason I've been so concerned about this is because I saw it first in an article, largely written by me, not related to Metro (apart from mentioning certain things as being near this or that station). Then, it involved the most radical--by far--of the changes (everything else is fairly obvious--this is not). And when I encountered it, the link was no good. I put the first of my comments there on that discussion page before I discovered that the article on that station had been changed too; the link on the page I was looking at had simply been miscoded (I fixed it; you're welcome!). Since I had a feeling you wouldn't run into my comment on that page (it seems I was right), I then put it on what I figured was a more likely page for you to see it. Then I found something better; then I found that one person had done it all, and that one person had a talk page that I could actually post something on. The multiple posting sort of happened by semi-accident; it wasn't to hammer a point, but just because I wasn't sure where you'd see it. 173.79.191.234 (talk) 01:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

It seems to me, this has been decided because one individual has decided it--regardless of arguments to the contrary (HIS source is authoritative; other sources are Original Research). I've been editing as an IP user for several years. I've never really seen much reason to register. But now, I'm seriously thinking of doing that, in order to be able change things back to what is patently the correct situation. Since this one Decider hasn't noticed the last several arguments against his unilateral decision, I'm guessing he won't notice that, either. 140.147.236.195 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Mr. Schumin:

In this discussion, you said,

To change the names when the signs are changed without a source would be original research, which is prohibited.

But then, the article on the Union Station Metro says:

The station was originally named "Union Station-Visitor Center" but when the National Visitor Center there failed, it was renamed Union Station. In fact, one or two pylons still read "Union Station-Visitor Center," and a number of older stations still display this name on signage.

[Emphasis mine]

Why is the one Original Research, and not the other?

I still maintain that the station name changes were announced, but haven't actually happened yet--thus, changing the titles on the article to imply that these ARE the station names was premature. The Project Page for Metro says to use the names on the official map, which still has the earlier name (I checked just this minute). The new map, according to Metro, is to come out June 18. I maintain that that is the effective date of the changes. I would point out that the new map also reflects realignments of the lines; certainly nobody would disagree that it would be premature for Wikipedia to give those alignments as current--since the trains aren't running in those ways.

When I first took this up, I was unable to make the changes back again; now I'm able to do it. If I don't hear anything, I intend to change back ONLY NoMa--since that's the most radical name change. In all the other cases, the new name and old are recognizably related, so I'll probably only annotate the articles (to save having to update a lot of linked articles).Uporządnicki (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Found basis for not changing station names yet

OK, I'm now a registered Wikipedian.

I've been arguing that it's premature to change the names of some of the Metro stations based on that Metro Press release of a couple of months ago. Now, I've found the basis to keep the old names for the time being.

On the project page for the DC Metro, under a subsection for "Naming Conventions," it says

Wikipedia:Metro stations: Use Station Name (WMATA station), as written on the official Metro system map.

I've looked. The official Metro Map still has the old station names.

It was argued that the press release was as good as any earlier one about name changes, and that to go by such details as the signs on the stations would amount to Original Research. But I still maintain that the press release strongly implied that the name changes are to go into effect in June 2012, and that reference to the official map is not OR. Now I have it in black and white that the official map is supposed to be the arbiter of the names of the stations. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pentagon (WMATA station) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2015

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. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

---

King Street – Old Town Station → King Street–Old Town Station – I think that King Street–Old Town Station without spaces is correct per MOS:ENDASH. But User:Epicgenius dose not think so. Refer to User talk:Epicgenius#MOS:ENDASH. This station name is a compound when the connection might be expressed with "to," "versus," "and," or "between." Give me the definite manual of style for Category:Washington Metro. Furthermore, I submit Forest Hills–71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) of Category:New York City Subway stations to here. Sawol (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Then, I support moving this page per the reasons that Sawol mentioned above, and because the Washington Metro naming conventions follow MOS:ENDASH.

However, as the NYC Subway has different naming conventions, I oppose moving Forest Hills – 71st Avenue (IND Queens Boulevard Line) unless other articles, such as Briarwood – Van Wyck Boulevard (IND Queens Boulevard Line), Kew Gardens – Union Turnpike (IND Queens Boulevard Line), and Jamaica – 179th Street (IND Queens Boulevard Line) are similarly moved. That issue can be brought up independently at WT:NYCS, since there are 30 articles in Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, New York with spaced endash, 17 in Category:New York City Subway stations in Brooklyn, 67 in Category:New York City Subway stations in Manhattan, and 17 in Category:New York City Subway stations in the Bronx; you'd need to move 131 articles in total. Epic Genius (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:NC-NYCS#Stations says that for any name that requires an en dash, the en dash is unspaced, per the WP:MOSDASH guideline. However, the full move of all articles has not been done yet. WT:NYCS already knows. Sawol (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Sawol: That revision to WP:NC-NYCS was added by Dicklyon nearly 3 years ago and was opposed by Acps110, so this is still disputed. Epic Genius (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Epic Genius, although the article numbers that I have are slightly different. Vcohen (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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 modified 3 external links on King Street–Old Town station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100113082838/http://wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/docs/metrofacts.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5081
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/20130306113949/stationmasters.com/System_Map/KINGSTRT/kingstrt.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on King Street–Old Town station. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319062522/http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/2014%2010%20Year%20Historical%20Rail%20Ridership.pdf to http://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/2014%2010%20Year%20Historical%20Rail%20Ridership.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5081
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219003631/http://wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=48 to http://www.wmata.com/rail/station_detail.cfm?station_id=48
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327112815/http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=C13 to http://transit.schuminweb.com/transit/wmata/blue-line.php?station=C13

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)