 | A fact from Chili Line appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Name change?
editAn editor recently changed the name, without discussion, from Chili Line to Chili line. When I lived there, I'd always seen the name capitalized (as are most named train lines). Three of the four references we cite give the name (in caps) as the Chili Line. So I think we need to discuss this proposal. My inclination would be to keep the original name: Chili Line. --Pete Tillman (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC), former area resident.
- I agree. It is a proper noun, derived from a casual expression. A cursory check of the sources can support this idea. Synchronism (talk) 07:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to boldly revert the title change soon. The common name, being a name of a specific thing, is indisputably a proper noun. But, of course, if anyone out there wishes to discuss that then they have had ample opportunity to do so. Their lack of objection or defense of the assertion that this article's topic is an ordinary, common noun is noted. The consensus at present is to revert.Synchronism (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Imma pontificate upon this further. One could say that it is a proper name as opposed to a noun, in a strict (somewhat pedantic?) sense. Nonetheless, it is the name used by reliable sources. And it is a bit jarring to my eyes personally (and I am no fan of extraneous punctuation). I think this would be analogous to changing Silk Road to Silk road, and the attendant ambiguities associated with that are similar to this case.Synchronism (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to be a proper name/noun; it's not descriptive like "the Fooville–Bartown line". But just FYI, the Proper name (philosophy) concept has nothing to do with capitalization on Wikipedia; only Proper name (linguistics) does. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Imma pontificate upon this further. One could say that it is a proper name as opposed to a noun, in a strict (somewhat pedantic?) sense. Nonetheless, it is the name used by reliable sources. And it is a bit jarring to my eyes personally (and I am no fan of extraneous punctuation). I think this would be analogous to changing Silk Road to Silk road, and the attendant ambiguities associated with that are similar to this case.Synchronism (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to boldly revert the title change soon. The common name, being a name of a specific thing, is indisputably a proper noun. But, of course, if anyone out there wishes to discuss that then they have had ample opportunity to do so. Their lack of objection or defense of the assertion that this article's topic is an ordinary, common noun is noted. The consensus at present is to revert.Synchronism (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Noted. And agreed. I noticed that are, indeed many other examples of unnecessary capitalization among railroad pages and that there has been a lot of discussion. Thanks for clueing me in!Synchronism (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
wrong photograph
editThe photograph labeled Rio Grande train is not of the Denver and Rio Grande in Colorado and New Mexico. It shows the engine number one from the Rio Grande railroad in far South Texas. It should be deleted. Steameng (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)