Talk:Pennsauken Transit Center

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trains: Stations Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Stations.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. Solid consensus that the parenthetical is an unnecessary addition. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsauken Transit Center (NJT station) → Pennsauken Transit Center – The title "Pennsauken Transit Center" is a proper name. It is incorrect and unnecessary to use the suffixed disambiguation. Secondarywaltz (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Could we hash out an actual naming convention for US railway stations first? This is death by a thousand cuts. Mackensen (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. See Trenton Transit Center. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not disputing any naming conventions. There are valid reasons for using disambiguation where the "station" is named after its location at a town, street or landmark. This is a unique proper name. Note that in the infobox the Atlantic City Line runs between 30th Street Station and Atlantic City Rail Terminal. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. We don't have any naming conventions. If we're going to just use whatever the local name is then we should have a standard that says so, even if it gives us monsters like William F. Walsh Regional Transportation Center. If we're going to impose parenthetical disambiguation then we should say so. There is a peculiar, stubborn resistance amongst North American editors (of which I am one) to adopting any kind of reasonable standard, and that includes documenting the slowly-dying preemptive parenthetical disambiguation standard. As I said, death by a thousand cuts. Before we carve out yet another exception to the unofficial standard I think it would be awesome to actually articulate a standard. Or not. However, if articles aren't going to have consistent names that has implications for templates and potentially categorization. Mackensen (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It seems that in the absence of a naming convention, we need to default to WP:TITLE, which includes WP:CONCISE. Since there's no need for anything more than the proper name of the place for identification. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:33, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unneeded disambiguation. Even with the current discussion over US station naming conventions (which I generally support), this is a clear case where the proper name is unambiguous and a parenthetical is unneeded. oknazevad (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2013 (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.