Talk:Central Terminal (LRT)

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Trains: Stations / Rapid transit Stub‑class 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

Stub

This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Rapid transit.

This article lacks references.

Name[edit]

Later explanation: The station is called Central Terminal as the station is originally the only terminal station in between the line.
Earlier explanation: The station is so-called because it lies at the center of the line.

Which one is right, a source should help us out according to policy (All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, per "WP:SOURCE"). In the mean time, the specific line should better be left out, imho. - Na Na Utlog (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The later explanation is right and uncontested, then if you need sourcing better remove the entire or majority of the articles as this are all lacking references. I know this for a fact that I had worked for LRTA back then and the name is derived from being such and even a no-brainer would get why it was named as such. Therefore, removal/reverting of this edit will merit you a suspension. JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your explanation JSD, the later one, does not correspond to the one which has been in the article for years. In that way, the reason this LRT station got it's name, is a subject of doubt, is contested. The reasons you're giving you know this for a fact are, what Wikipedia uses to call Original Research. What's more, you were born during Ramos' administration, which even disqualifies you, as you were not even born when the station was named. A source on the naming is needed. - Na Na Utlog (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you are out of your mind, first is that this is a unquestionable no-brainer fact and a person who has a very low comprehension skill would be the only one not to be able to decipher even without resource backing why the station is named as such. To make it simple there are only three terminals in the original or main line of the LRT Line 1 namely the North end or Monumento Terminal Station, South end or the Baclaran Terminal Station and the only terminal between these two terminals of which the name was derived and thus called Central Terminal Station. Age is not the issue here as i had my On-the-Job training in the line just this 2011 and part of our task is to get to know the history of the line which included history on why Central Terminal is called as such and not Arrocceros which by the way is more unreferenced and puts your argument on bad grounds. In the mean time if you really want to contest the fact, dont revert the edits I made just yet, but wait and let the other wikipedians decide on the matter especially those like me who have been doing this for a long time and leave my edit until a consensus is made.JeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, some day when you actually have a reliable source that states this, then you may include it. Otherwise, it's called original research, and is not permitted. You've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that "it's common sense" and "everyone knows that" are not acceptable - so don't start calling people names when you it's you who is breaking the rules you already know! ES &L 17:48, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The insults aren't necessary, but really this is a debate about nothing. The original wording was that it is "the only terminal station in between the line", obviously referring to the fact that it is not a terminal at the beginning or end of the lines (vis Monumento Terminal and Baclaran Terminal). The second version, that it is so-called because it lies at the "centre of the line", does not contradict the first statement at all. It's really just a question of clarity in the wording. Making this an issue of "original research" for something which is presumably obvious (and well documented) does not help. It should just be a case of stiving for clariry in the wording. Paul B (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well to clear things up Im not saying that it is him whom im referring to in the statement but if you find it offensive then I Apologize for making it seem rude Well then if that is what you think then other details like "Arroceros" should be removes as it also lack reference which the user obviously is also unreferenced.Again, I Apologizs for being seemingly rudeJeromesandilanicoJSD (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Roosevelt station (Line 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 June 2020[edit]

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Central Terminal (LRT) per consensus (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 18:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Terminal station (LRT) → Central Terminal (LRT) – If it hasn't changed since 2010, the signage in the station refer to it at as "Central". Now, despite not being at either terminus, and it being in the middle, it's called "Central Terminal". Now, as for the name "Central Terminal station", Google search turn out 16.2k, while just "Central Terminal" (I specifically restricted it not to include pages where "Central Terminal station" shows up), is at 65.9k, a 16:66 ratio. Restricting it to news sources, "Central Terminal station" coughs up 8 articles, while ""Central Terminal" without "Central Terminal station" has 183 articles, or a ratio of 8:18. If we're basing the assumption that the word "terminal" replaces "station" to describe "Central", the "Central Terminal" more than satisfies WP:AT. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I board/alight at Central everyday. Train drivers and security guards never call the station as "Central Terminal station". They either call it as "Central", "Central Terminal", or "Arroceros" only. A terminal is a station. HiwilmsTalk 10:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.