Jump to content

Talk:Geumchon Station

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

Requested move 4 February 2025

[edit]

– Lowercase is the usual convention for stations in most countries, so fix these to be like the hundreds of others in Category:Seoul metro station stubs with them. Three of these stubs are unsourced, two still have over-capitalized section headings such as "Station Layout", yet they have all been moved back and forth between cases a couple of times already, without discussion beyond the small group at Talk:Achasan station#Requested move 20 January 2018 that closed in favor of lowercase for Korean train stations. Dicklyon (talk) 11:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. DrKay (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No station needed
If you need to think of these as an exception, then they are exceptions. It has been shown above that 'Station' is uppercased for these examples. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you need to think of these as an exception, then they are exceptions. That is an inherently circular statement. It has been shown above that 'Station' is uppercased for these examples. I see no actual evidence to this effect for these examples - only assertion that are inconsistent with actual evidence. There is no evidence at all that these are capitalised, let alone that they reach the threshold that they should be capitalised per WP:NCCAPS. Another example of proof by assertion. Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, same as a zillion prior "station", "line", etc. moves. These are totally routine. This one is especially clear because these names are not even their real names but English transliterations of their names, with "station" tacked on at the end simply because the corresponding 역 shows up frequently but not consistently on signage. That definitely does not make for "Station" as a proper name or element of a proper name.

    To address some half-baked points above: When you make a reference to something like "WP:PROPERNOUN" (better known as MOS:PROPERNAME), you have to actually read and understand the material. The fact that WP has a guideline section about proper names doesn't magically mean the thing you want to capitalize actually counts as one. In particular, MOS:PROPERNAME is a section of MOS:CAPS and is necessarily dependent upon (secondary to, following on, subordinate to) the lead principle of MOS:CAPS: only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia (emphasis in original). After it has been determined that something qualifies under that top-level requirement (i.e. it is a proper name as far as WP is concerned – we have no interest in or patience for conflicting and controversial attempts to define "proper name" in various subjective ways; we only care about reliable-source usage patterns), then the MOS:PROPERNAME section comes into play, and the purpose of that section is an instruction to capitalize such names consistently and not do weird stuff with them except when RS usage overwhelmingly makes such an exception (e.g. it is iPhone not Iphone).

    Similarly, WP:COMMONNAME has been radically misinterpreted and miscited above. This is the policy that tells us to use "Unseo station" (styled some way, determined by style guidelines) because it is the most common one in English-language sources, and not use some completely alternative name such as "Airport Town Square station" or whatever. COMMONNAME has absolutely nothing to do with stylization (capitalization or another style question) of the most common name after that name has been determined. It has never meant style stuff and never will. Every single attempt, for 20-odd years now, to elevate a style question to the level of policy (COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT policy) has failed, and will continue to fail if attempted again, because the community absolutely does not want stylistic quibbling raised to policy-level concern. All style questions are relegated to guidelines and always have been. Worse for a COMMONNAME argument is that none of these station names show up in enough English-language reliable sources to even do meaningful statistical analysis of what their most common names might be. What we're going on entirely here is what the Korean names are and how to transliterate those.

    The only two that show up enough in, e.g., Google Scholar searches to do any meaningful analysis of any sort are Sindorim and Unseo, and when you weed out sources that are not in English (whatever translation Google might be showing you as an abstract) and eliminate title-case titles and headings, to get to running-sentence usage in actual English, the casing is mixed. Another thing that becomes clear pretty quickly is that when the context is already established as transit-system stations, the word "station" need not appear attached to the station's actual name (simply "Sindorim", etc. will do, or it might be rephrased as something like "the station at Sindorim", "the Sindorim stop", "Sindorim train station", etc., if disambiguation from the locale more generally seems needed). This is a strong indicator that the "station" word is not an integral part of a proper name. But anyone familiar with the history of these debates would already have predicted this outcome because it's always the same story.
     — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geumchon_Station&oldid=1281085328"