Jump to content

Talk:Union Station (Toronto)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Union Station (Toronto). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted move

[edit]

Hi, I've just moved the page back to Union Station (Toronto). "Union Station" is both the common name and proper name. "Toronto Union Station" is not a common name, and so I don't think WP:NATURALDIS applies. Citobun (talk) 14:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NATURALDIS says, "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." The phrase "Toronto Union Station" is in wide use in reliable sources,[1][2]. WP:CANSTATION also says to use natural disambiguation when available, as at Montreal Central Station; there are also related articles at Toronto Union Station (1858) and Toronto Union Station (1873). So it should fit our needs ("Toronto Union Station" may not be as common as the unavailable title "Union Station", but it's obviously more common than "Union Station (Toronto)", which is just a Wikipedia construction). However, it'll probably be best to take this to RM.--Cúchullain t/c 14:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the instances of "Toronto Union Station" in the Google searches you linked to say "Toronto's Union Station", which is not the same at all. In that phrase, the word "Toronto" is not intended to be part of the name. Secondly, I would argue that the other related articles you linked to should also not imply that the name of the station was "Toronto Union Station" if it historically wasn't called that. Placing the word "Toronto" in parentheses, as in "Union Station (Toronto)", accurately separates the disambiguating word from the subject's actual name...it doesn't imply that Toronto is part of the name. Naming the article "Toronto Union Station", which isn't the proper name nor the name used in common parlance, is confusing. Citobun (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few examples of "Toronto Union Station" found in those searches.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Even Via[10] and Amtrak[11] use the term "Toronto Union Station" in some situations. It's clearly in well established use.--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Toronto Union Station" is not the common name and proper name, and it certainly is not how it is referred to in Toronto or even Ontario, maybe not even Canada. To claim otherwise, in my opinion, is totally false. What seems to be occurring here is we're having a debate between two valid methods of disambiguation; parenthetical or natural. I believe which one to use, as per WP:CANSTATION, is still under discussion under two prongs: GO stations and Toronto disambiguation. --Natural RX 17:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is that there are many sources that use it, making it perfectly acceptable for natural disambiguation purposes. Even outside of WP:CANSTATION, natural disambiguation is generally preferable to a title with a parentheses per WP:NCDAB. Now, if editors don't want to use it, that's fine, "(Toronto)" is acceptable disambiguation as well. There aren't as many articles in Canada, but many Union Stations in the U.S. have gone through RM discussions, and generally natural disambiguation has been adopted if it's in established use, eg at A few examples include Talk:Texarkana Union Station, Talk:Tampa Union Station, Talk:Hartford Union Station, and Talk:Waterbury Union Station. At any rate, RM would be the next step here; I may get to that at some point.--Cúchullain t/c 18:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the predecessor stations then? Union Station (Toronto, 1873), for example. Is that a valid article title? Because I do agree it is called Union Station. Alaney2k (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Services listed in infobox

[edit]

@Cards84664: Could you explain your edits to the service boxes for Union Station and other stations in Ontario? For example you replaced the Toronto–Ottawa and Toronto–Montreal routes with a single Toronto–Kingston route despite the fact that almost no eastbound trains from Toronto terminate in Kingston. The same is true for the other lines. Thanks, BLAIXX 15:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Blaixx: Ok, It's possible I got confused, because according to the timetables, there is a Fallowfield–Ottawa–Montreal, and an Ottawa–Montreal–Québec City. Before I started my edits, there was already a Montreal–Québec template instead of an Ottawa–Québec, so I figured it was standard to break up the templates into places where the trains stop, and exempt the Canadian and Ocean because they are named services.
So based on what you are saying, I should use these: Aldershot–Montreal, Fallowfield–Montreal, Ottawa–Québec City, Toronto–Ottawa, Sarnia–Toronto, Windsor–Toronto, and Toronto–New York (since The Maple Leaf is officially a corridor service in Canada).
If this is correct, I'll start reverting asap. Cards84664 (talk) 16:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I agree with your new proposal except for Aldershot–Montreal. If I'm reading the schedule correctly, there is only a single westbound train per day so I'm not sure if that counts as a major service (Toronto–Montreal is most common). BLAIXX 16:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Blaixx: True, but that goes against what you just said about making sure to list through services. How about this:
{{s-start}}
{{s-rail|title=Via}}
{{s-line|system=Via|line=Aldershot-Montreal|previous=Guildwood|next=Port Hope}}
{{s-end}}
Cards84664 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add separate section for Amtrak Maple Leaf in Services?

[edit]

VIA Rail does not operate the Maple Leaf, Amtrak does, but its shown under Via Rail. 167.88.225.31 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Maple Leaf is a joint Via/Amtrak service. It is staffed by Via Rail in Canada (there is a crew change in Niagara Falls). BLAIXX 02:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, thanks for the correction! 167.88.225.31 (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Station_(Toronto)&oldid=1257603255"