Talk:Redhill–Tonbridge line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Redhill to Tonbridge Line)
Jump to: navigation, search

TOC[edit]

Has anyone got a confirmation if the main stopping service has switched from Southeastern to Southern, as the infoboxes along this line don't reflect this. Pickle 14:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

See new South Central franchise 84.71.229.251 (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 26 January 2017[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed by nom as WITHDRAWN/SNOW due to general opposition to considering so many possible variations at once in one place. I'll re-file as a downcasing-only proposal, and defer consideration of "to" vs dash to individual articles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)



– Decap Line in descriptive titles. Also change to to symmetric en-dashed form. Both per previous big multi RM discussion at Talk:Chester–Manchester line#Requested move 2 November 2016. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

I link some book searches for each one here in case that helps people decide whether to support. You can click on "News" for another data point, or "All" if you want to look at web results, polluted as they are with Wikipedia clones. Mostly what they show is that there is no standard or proper name, and that in descriptive names the symmetric dash or "and" is usually more common than "to". Add quotes, with or without "to", to find explicit counts of different terms if you like; the search doesn't care about punctuation such as dash or hyphen or nothing. Dicklyon (talk) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Redhill Tonbridge – [1]
  • Picton Battersby – [2]
  • Exeter Plymouth – [3]
  • Bristol Exeter – [4]
  • Harrogate Church Fenton – [5]
  • Walsall Wolverhampton – [6]
  • Leamington Stratford – [7]
  • Glasgow Edinburgh via Carstairs – [8]
  • Eastleigh Fareham – [9]
  • Princes Risborough Aylesbury – [10]
  • Ascot Guildford – [11]
  • Castleford Garforth – [12]
  • Gospel Oak Barking – [13]
  • Waterloo Reading – [14]
  • Northallerton Eaglescliffe – [15]
  • Okehampton Bude – [16]
  • Reading Taunton – [17]
  • Acton Northolt – [18]
  • Reading Basingstoke – [19]
  • Hull Scarborough – [20]
  • Durham Sunderland – [21]
  • Cross Gates Wetherby – [22]
  • Eastleigh Romsey – [23]
  • Slough Windsor & Eton – [24]
  • York Beverley – [25]
  • York Scarborough – [26]
  • Yeovil Taunton – [27]
  • Southampton Fareham – [28]
  • Wolverton Newport Pagnell – [29]
  • Carmarthen Aberystwyth – [30]

Survey[edit]

Please respond with something like Support all, or Support downcasing but not dash, or Support with exceptions, or Oppose with reasons. Dicklyon (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose all : - Objection to dashes being used, and objection to downcasing of Line in all cases (it's the Foo to Bar Line not the Foo dash Bar line). Also these should be individual discussions, not a mass discussion. The correct venue for such discussions is WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    WP:RM is exactly how we got here, following your suggestion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    I don't feel strongly about the dash if people prefer "to". On caps, though, I'm baffled by your opposition. You withdrew your unsupported proposal to ignore WP:NCCAPS and capitalize Line on British rail articles. Are you going back there? Or you're thinking these are actually proper names? Or what? Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    @Mjroots: They are at WP:RM, see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions#January 26, 2017, it's the last one in that section. It's a bot-built page, and the "Discuss" link comes right back here, as it is supposed to. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Red XN Oppose: simply on the basis that this is the wrong place to raise the discussion. Useddenim (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Where, then? Dicklyon (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think there's anything wrong with mass nominations on a single talk page, provided that all relevant article talk pages are notified, but in this case there are already on-going discussions about the naming convention at WT:UKT, therefore I propose that this discussion is speedy closed pending conclusion of those discussions.  — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 14:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    The strong suggestion at that discussion, from Mjroots who is the main opposer of fixing the caps, was that I should open RM discussions on the affected articles. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: Both name formats are reasonable but usage varies and I see no reason to strongly desire to standardise on either one. I think it makes sense to go with the name in most common usage in each individual case as the article title having the other name as a redirect. The presumption should be that the current title is correct and anybody wanting to change it should need to show that the other name is more commonly used. This will avoid a lot of unnecessary moves and disputes. TBH, I suspect that most readers won't even notice if they get redirected to an article with a very slightly different title to the one they originally entered or clicked on so long as they end up at the correct article on the correct subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose mass nomination. Each case needs to be considered individually as there is no consistency in the real world and we should reflect the sources in each case. Because of that lack of real world consistency, a nomination this large will just be a WP:TRAINWRECK (no pun intended). Thryduulf (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
    The intention in putting together the list was to find cases that are essentially equivalent, and along the same lines as those at discussed Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016. And the sources show, I think, that the present titles are not common, as the descriptions of the lines vary all over the place. The previous consensus was that the dash, being more symmetric, was a more logical and widespread convention, and that it would be good if we could make the rest of the line articles consistent, which is what I have been working on. Certainly if you see exceptions that you would like to leave with "to", or if you would prefer to see all stay with "to" for now, say so. On the downcasing, on the other hand, there is no reason to object, as sources are very clear that none of these are treated as proper names; but if you see any cases where I'm wrong about that, please do point them out. I think you'll find it easier to get through the list here, or sample it at least, than chase a bunch of separate RM discussions and write a reply at each one. As RCSprinter123 wrote, "The thing is that we can't be looking at this on a case-by-case basis, because there needs to be consistency, otherwise it just looks weird and loads of links need updating." Dicklyon (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    In terms of capitalisation at least (I haven't looked into the dashes as much), you can't have both consistency and follow the sources because sources are inconsistent. Some proper names, which should obviously be capitalised, are descriptive - West London Line for example, while others are just descriptive. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Red XNOppose Aside form the question of whether this is the best place to discuss this, I feel we should stay with the status quo becasue
    • I don't think dashes are user-friendly, it's easier to type "to" than insert the correct length of dash
    • my personal view is the these are proper nouns and therefore deserve to be fully capilatised
    • the use of upper case Line is has been adopted by editors as a de facto naming convention across a large number of related articles (do we know the proportion of "Lines" versus "lines" before this debate started?)
    • it will no doubt break hundreds of links to and from Wikipedia Commons that editors will spend months fixing by hand, until which time there will be many frustrated users.
  • Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 27 January 2017[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Closed by nom as WITHDRAWN/SNOW. Apparently there is no appetite for looking at these as a group, even though they all have exactly the same simple issue. If anyone objects to the early close by nom, please just revert it within the next day or two. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2017 (UTC)



– Decap Line in descriptive titles, per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Sources
Survey
  • Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. We really need to get this mess consistent and sensible. This "I Really Love To Capitalise Stuff Important To Me" habit does not belong on Wikipedia.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  19:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Comment Strawmen like "I Really Love To Capitalise Stuff Important To Me" do not do your argument any favours. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose mass nomination for the same reasons I gave in the above move discussion, namely that the sources for each need to be considered individually. Thryduulf (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
    I've added separate links for books and news searches to make it quick and easy to check each one. If you find any suggestion that even one of them is a proper name, let us know. If for some reason this multi-RM process doesn't work, I can start 30 separate ones, but somehow I think most people would not prefer that route. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:POINT - I don't see why there should be a fresh thread started just minutes after the last was closed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said in the closing statement, I withdrew that in favor of this much simpler question. OK? Dicklyon (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose all the "sources" just search for the phrase in Google Books/News with no indication that those Google hits are actually the correct names for any of those lines. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 10:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Indeed, and no attempt is made to determine whether they are reliable or unreliable sources, nor whether they are actually naming the line and not describing it or even referring to something different. Thryduulf (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
      What the search links show very clearly is that it's hard to find support for capitalization. You can parse that any way you want, and I'm sure if I sorted it out by which ones I think are reliable you would just pick on my interpretation. Look and see if you find any cases where a proper name interpretation is possible; I don't find any. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
      "What the search links show very clearly is that it's hard to find support for non-capitalization." - I've fixed that for you. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lazy nomination; he might as well have said "per Google." It's an insult to the other participants on this project and should be withdrawn. No explanation is given by either the nom or SMcCandlish as to why WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS would apply here. Mackensen (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:NCCAPS applies to capitalization of article titles in general. MOS:CAPS applies to capitalization more generally, and talks about how to decide. The question at this RM discussion is capitalization. I don't understand why there could be any question of whether those guidelines appear in deciding this, or why some rail fans seem so willing to just ignore them. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
The question is why the guidelines require your desired outcome. NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS contain numerous exceptions. You don't get to just jump in, sprinkle some Google Books links, shout NCCAPS, and act like that's a defensible argument. I suspect most editors participating here consider railway lines akin to institutions (MOS:INSTITUTIONS), and capitalize accordingly. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
These are all descriptive titles; sources don't cap them. What else needs to be said? Dicklyon (talk) 05:25, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
They are descriptive names that, in at least some cases, are likely to be the proper name as well. Where this is the case some instances of the string will be describing the route, and others will be using the proper name. Where the two differ this is obvious, e.g. "Tarka Line" vs. "Exeter-Barnstaple line", but when the proper name is descriptive it is impossible to know whether the proper name or a description is being used without looking at each mention in context. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, I meant they are merely descriptive names, as evidenced by the fact that sources don't cap them. I haven't looked at the ones you mention that are not included in the present proposal. Do you see any in this list that have evidence of being treated as proper names? Dicklyon (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Red XNOppose I've nothing to add to my opposition to the previous proposal that hasn't been said by others here. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Since the multi-move was procedurally opposed, I'm starting over with just a single-article move here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 February 2017[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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Redhill–Tonbridge line. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)



Redhill to Tonbridge LineRedhill to Tonbridge line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use symmetric dashed version (Redhill–Tonbridge line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Evidence in sources

Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred. It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed (or hyphened or slashed) form is about as common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Survey

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.