Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway

2012 Sainte-Rosalie abandonment

Montreal, Maine and Atlantic Railway#History has the line from Farnham to Sainte-Rosalie as abandoned and for sale. This article has:

The CMQR will own and operate the following rail lines:

[...]

• Ste-Rosalie Subdivision (26.4 mi (42.5 km) Farnham, QC to Sainte-Rosalie, QC)

I'm tempted to put one of those ugly {{cn}} tags on "will operate" as (so far) there's no reliable info as to whether the new operators will rebuild and operate the broken line to Ste. Rosalie. K7L (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Track are too damaged right now, but since CP is going to take over operations soon, they will probably fix soon. IJxrxmy (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Central Maine and Quebec Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130808095635/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rail-company-involved-in-megantic-disaster-files-for-bankruptcy/article13644535/ to http://www3.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rail-company-involved-in-megantic-disaster-files-for-bankruptcy/article13644535/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2023

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: no consensus. It was highlighted that WikiProject Trains' style guide prefers the usage of "and", whereas MOS:& prefers the usage of the ampersand. No consensus emerged as to which style should prevail. As was noted in the discussion, a more widely scoped discussion on whether to use "and" or "&" for titling railway station articles may help this question to be resolved more decisively. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

---

Central Maine & Quebec Railway → Central Maine and Quebec Railway – Longstanding consensus has been to use "and" in place of ampersands in article titles for railroads. I attempted to boldy move the article title and was reverted without any explanation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per nom, Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Article name. Courtesy ping to Useuntarge who reverted the move. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Long-standing consensus to use "and" for article titles in these cases. Mackensen (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: I'm not aware of this "longstanding consensus", which is presumably a local consensus described somewhere, but it sounds contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. WP:& says to "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T." The self-published logo and all but one (four out of five) of the cited sources that name this railway in their headlines use the "&". This should be handled together with Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad#Requested move 9 August 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral comment - I don’t actually have a preference regarding the outcome of the RM, but it sounds like we have conflicting guidance between MOS:& and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Article name. I think that conflict needs to be resolved before we can decide whether to move or not. I would therefore suggest this RM be put on hold, pending a wider consensus on which guidance should apply. Blueboar (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, MOS:& states: retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. In this case & is used in the trademark as demonstrated by the crest in the infobox. Useuntarge (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. Ampersands are generally only retained in very limited circumstances. This is not one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

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.