Talk:Route 128 station

Moved here from VFD

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

Old VFD discussion

Route 128 (MBTA station) This article was recently undeleted on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Undeletion policy requires that undeleted articles be re-listed on VfD. The previous vote can be seen at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Route 128 Station. The previous reason for the deletion nomination was: This page is an advertisement for a train station. I don't see any evidence of its notability in the article. Acegikmo1 22:22, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC). Please review the article and process, and vote again. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 03:54, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) Keep. There's precedent for such articles existing. In cases where an article fits into a greater framework the threshold for notability should be lower. Mackensen (talk) 03:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep. Part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations. --SPUI 04:01, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep. It is a very large station. iMeowbot~Mw 04:03, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) No, it isn't. At least, it's not one of the great monumental temples of railroad station architecture. It's not even a picturesque historic depot. It's just a bland functional box. A better claim to special treatment would be that it is one of the three stations that is a stop for virtually all (all?) Amtrak trains in and out of Boston, including the Acela. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep. Factual articles shouldn't be deleted. Grue 09:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Borderline Keep. (I voted the other way last time. So sue me). Language could use a bit of cleanup (removing peacock words). I think some different word needs to be used for "attractions;" this is not a tourist destination! Although it is the correct answer to the question "What Amtrak train station is nearest to Norwood Airport," the suggestion that it is convenient to Norwood Airport seems strained. I don't perceive it to be an ad, or at least I don't think that was the motivation in its insertion. I am influenced by SPUI saying it is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stations, which I presume means there is a group of editors who will be paying attention to it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep in current form. I don't think it's too notable, but it is factual and I've seen stations of similar notability make it to WP. --Deathphoenix 20:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep Philip 22:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep and send to cleanup. It being part of a project makes me confident it's going to get the attention it deserves (especially if listed on cleanup as well). Also, being part of a bigger set of stations makes a lower notability for its inclusion acceptable in my opinion. Mgm|(talk) 22:40, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC) Keep. --JuntungWu 11:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep. Obviously. --Centauri 00:06, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep. RustyCale 02:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep--Boothy443 10:15, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) Keep Chazzoz 00:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.

Geotag coordinates

The map coordinates (wikimapia, google map) are wrong - they point to an area of Kyrghistan (?), definetly not correct. I don't know how to fix this, maybe someone will ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.40.180 (talk)

Fixed; the geotag template had a positive longitude value, which means East of Greenwich, not West like anywhere in New England. Should be fixed now. —CComMack (t–c) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Station Signage

I was about to edit the station's infobox station to Route 128/University Park as multiple signs throughout the station use this title, and while less notable, google search results also use the title.

However, when I began to make the edit, I came across the comment in the station infobox template. I'm here to ask what the general consensus is for signage in this case, especially as both the MBTA and Amtrak signs do say "University Park station" but on the bottom of the sign, as seen in the second and third images I've linked here. I will note that the station page for T.F. Green Airport notes the platform signs saying T.F. Green Airport/Warwick as well, despite (like Route 128) the MBTA not using this to refer to the station. Pokemonred200 (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Pinging largely because after going through the page I found that the edit for this comment was yours, so I'd like to understand the particular ideas and standards in regards to station names and infoboxes. Pokemonred200 (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Good question. That platform signage, as your pictures show, generally uses "Route 128" on top and "University Park Station" on bottom as a secondary title. TF Green, in contrast, has it all on one line. Both the MBTA and Amtrak websites just use the simpler "Route 128". Given that, I think it's best to keep the simpler name in the infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Gotcha. I asked in part because I noticed "Also subtitled Route 128/University Park" was removed from the article lede, which I felt was somewhat odd given the station signage and online maps information implying it to be an official name for the station (not unlike Wilmington's Amtrak station being Joseph R. Biden Jr. Railroad Station, or how Anderson RTC is announced as Anderson/Woburn on MBTA digital signage). It appears to be prominently featured at the station site itself, so I do believe the name should be featured in the article somewhere. Pokemonred200 (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed it before because I couldn't find a good source. I found a decent ref and re-added it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)