Talk:Medford branch (Boston and Maine Railroad)

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

Requested move 16 May 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 Medford branch (Boston and Maine Railroad). I have created a disambiguation page at Medford branch. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medford Branch (Boston and Maine Railroad) → Medford branch – Disambiguation is not needed, as there are no other such articles or mentions that I can find. And branch doesn't need caps, per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, as many sources show (including most of the cited sources where I could find the term). I would have just fixed it, but its creator has just objected to downcasing branch elsewhere, so I have reason to expect he'd object to that part. Dicklyon (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and speedy close: Disambiguation is needed, as a quick search of Google or Wikipedia would have revealed - the Medford Branch of the West Jersey and Seashore Railroad and the Medford Branch of the Green Line Extension both share the name, and it's unlikely that this would unambiguously be the primary topic. As for capitalization, every modern source in the article (four books and the NRHP documentation) capitalizes the full name. Those sources discuss the line in the most detail; they represent more ref uses in the article than the remaining 13 sources, over half of which have the line name in all-caps or not used. Older non-newspaper sources that I'm preparing to add also capitalize the name, because it is a shortening of the original company name of Medford Branch Rail Road. It's disingenuous to claim that the old newspaper sources are worth giving any weight to re capitalization - many names that are now unambiguously capitalized ("XXX street" and "YYY square" notable among them) are not capitalized there. This RM was clearly filed in retaliation for the ANI report I filed last night about Dicklyon's page moves. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm OK with disambiguating if we put a disambig page at Medford branch. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support either the original move proposal, or a disambiguation page at Medford branch, as long as we use "branch", per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and a zillion prior RMs about "branch", "line", "station", etc. This "trainspotters just love to capitalize everything" stuff isn't going to fly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Clear bad faith nomination per the ANI report. Hey SMcCandlish; if MOS is going to vote-stack this one (I appreciate your newfound interest in Massachusetts railroading), is it cool if we invite the dreaded railfans along for parity's sake? Mackensen (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's with the accusation of bad faith? Instead of just moving it I opened a discussion. With the DYK nomination, letting the style error slide was out of the question. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're approaching this all wrong. You shouldn't be involved at all. You're involved in a dispute, and you've now extended that dispute to a new article the user recently created, on the grounds that letting a potential title capitalization issue through DYK is "out of the question". You need to step away from this. Mackensen (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense. I follow normal WP processes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This bullshitty bad-faith accusation is a personal attack, and a personalization of style disputes, that is itself ANI-worthy (or even AE-worthy, given WP:ARBATC).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Take it to the appropriate noticeboards if you like and I'll answer for whatever I've got coming to me, but it's not a personal attack to question the timing of the move request. Assuming good faith does not mean ignore all context. You might also consider toning done your increasingly intemperate remarks, it's just an abandoned branch line, for heaven's sake. Mackensen (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a question on the timing? It's a new article, by an editor who is attacking me at AN/I, but that's not the reason to want to fix it. Did I look at his contribs after he responded at AN/I instead of at his talk page where I started a conversation after he reverted me? Yes, I did. Is this relevant somehow to the capitalization question here? Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And the railfans were already invited. See article alerts. Dicklyon (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources that use lowercase branch for this line: 1886, 1901, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1929, 1962, 1975, 2004, 2005. Sure, there are more modern railfan books capping it, but that doesn't make it a proper name. Oh, there's also the 1975 "National Register Data Sheet", the last page of this PDF, which calls it the "Medford branch of the Boston and Maine RR"; other pages cap it, as is NRHP style on listing. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lowercase "branch" per MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS. Not consistently capped in sources. Not opposed to a disambiguation page with lc "branch". Arrived here via ANI thread. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Sigh. MOSCAPS et al., and consistency with other WP naming practices. Tony (talk) 06:01, 21 May 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.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that the last train on the Medford Branch delivered a single carload of fish? Source: The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2 ed.) p. 296
  • ALT1: ... that the Medford Branch had 21 daily round-trip passenger trains in 1906, but carried just a single carload of fish in 2010?Source: The Rail Lines of Southern New England (2 ed.) p. 296; Boston's Commuter Rail: The First 150 Years p. 69

Created/expanded by Pi.1415926535 (talk). Self-nominated at 05:52, 16 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • New enough (May 14), long enough (3,100 chars), neutral, cites sources, passes Earwig and eye tests (AGF on offline source).
Hook is short enough and is cited, but I feel there's a missed opportunity in terms of interest; I think an ALT that contrasted the peak service of 21 round trips a day with the single cart of fish after two years of inactivity would be better than the current hook, which lacks context (of how the mighty have fallen).
QPQ present. No image.
@Pi.1415926535: Can you come up with an ALT or two to choose from? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@The Squirrel Conspiracy: How does ALT1 look? Congrats on your Commons RFA, by the way - you're a great addition to the mop-holders. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 is great. This is good to go now. Thanks re: Commons. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram[edit]

Pi.1415926535 - nice article, but a diagram would improve it. Mjroots (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Medford_branch_(Boston_and_Maine_Railroad)&oldid=1202765870"