Talk:Leamington–Stratford line

Requested move 4 February 2017

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: page moved to Leamington–Stratford line. While several editors have suggested an RfC on capitalization, there has not been any expressed opposition to this individual move. As such, I am closing it to the version with a lower-case line and a dash as that appears to be the positive consensus for a move on this particular page. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Leamington to Stratford Line → Leamington to Stratford line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use the symmetric dashed version (Leamington–Stratford line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Evidence in sources

• news
• books

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 form is perhaps more common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support as nom, somewhat preferring the dashed Leamington–Stratford line version. Dicklyon (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support—and yes, I do prefer the typographical version: it's much easier for readers to apprehend. Tony (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
• Can we address this via a RfC that would apply to all "Line/line" articles instead. Category:Railway lines in the West Midlands (region), just as an example, is complete mess of inconsistent capitalisation and going through every article one-by-one would be a tremendous waste of time. Jenks24 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  I agree with you that one-at-a-time is lame, but let's get these closed, in line with most others and with policy and guidelines, and try to do something different next. The basic question of capitalization is not at issue, just whether each one is a proper name. Some of the rail fans have objected that we need to do these on a case-by-case basis, while others have said we can't do these on a case-by-case basis. None of them are actually opposing, though. See my attempt at discussing it out, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Moving_forward most particularly. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  In that category you mention, there are several things to know: (1) the ones ending in Railway are usually proper names of companies; (2) some like West Coast Main Line are pretty consisently capped in sources so are treated as proper names; (3) most other capped Line ones are currently in unopposed RMs waiting for a closer; (4) there will be a few more to take care of, as under discussion at the project page link I provided. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the explanation. I can't say I'll be helping out with closing these, it still feels like a waste of time to me. But to make sure my position doesn't scare off any other potential closers, I will make it clear that I do not oppose this move. Jenks24 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm actually considering an RfC on a moratorium on capitalisation-only RMs. There is a LOT to clean up, and there has been a lot of discussion.

Our avoidance of capitals seems to date from a very early comment by Larry Sanger, who was then a demi-god, and the defense of this since then has been based on primary-school grammar rather than modern linguistics. Our treatment remains controversial and inconsistent because we have more recently often but not always decided to go with the styles adopted by reliable sources rather than following our own MOS.

With fear and trembling, I think it's time to try to sort this out. Some will say "not again", but I don't think we've ever had a dispassionate look at the issues. We've just followed Sanger's feelings, which many share and defend as correct but which he explicitly labelled as a personal opinion. Andrewa (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What are you seeing as a conflict between our MOS and reliable sources, in relation to capitalization? Example? Dicklyon (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots and lots and lots... Many bird species, for example, see this google for a start. Have you already forgotten the bitter and recurring discussions regarding that, which led to the departure of a number of editors? If so have a look at User:SMcCandlish/Organism names on Wikipedia which is a work in progress indexing the sorry saga to date. And that's just one area. Andrewa (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is that sources were very mixed there, and that some birders were wanting to cap all species names when a preponderance of sources did not. But I'll take it as an example of what you're talking about, and point out that the train lines are nothing like that, as there's no large faction, inside or out of Wikipedia, pushing to cap them. Dicklyon (talk) 12:15, 13 February 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.