Talk:Midland Mainline (train operating company)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title. It's not clear that the current titles are ambiguous or in need of changing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) — Distinguish from actual Midland Main Line. I hope this is not too ambiguous Simply south 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Based on the articles, there is no conflict. The company is Midland Mainline and the line itself is Midland Main Line. At least this is the way they are named and described in the intros of the articles. Vegaswikian 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In a way, i was following the convention of Thameslink and [[Thameslink (train operating company). Simply south 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not a convention. For a dab, you should use the shortest phrase that makes sense. In that case, I think it should have been Thameslink (company). However the convention says to use the full name instead of a dab. So it probably should have been something like Thameslink PLC. In any case this article should not follow a bad precedent. Vegaswikian 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What is Midland Main Line Limited? Is that the correct name of the company or the line. If it is the company name, then moving the article to Midland Main Line Limited might be a good move. Vegaswikian 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

xx25 to Sheffield

Having recently travelled on this service, it seems to now be operated by a Class 222 rather than the Class 43 stated. Cordless Larry 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of the services are operated by a Class 222 and some by Class 43. Its a mix. Year1989 11:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif

Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif

Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

assess

Refs .... 5 ... should have every para with a ref. But still "C" well done Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Project Rio

The whole point of the name is because Rio Ferdinand had moved from Leeds United to Manchester United, this being the same reallocation of the trains, from a Leeds to London service to a Manchester to London service, either have the full point in there, or make no refference to it, don't have half a story and then delete the full explanation when it's written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2011

It's an item which some people may well be sceptical about, so must be referenced, per our policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Where's the refference for the following: This service was known as Project Rio, named after the footballer Rio Ferdinand who had made a record transfer to Manchester United Football Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. That is why I've slapped a {{unreferenced|section}} at the top of the section. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Midland Mainline. 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/20071211125313/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise

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) 00:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 May 2024

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: Not moved. While the oppose was for the "company" parenthesis, the oppose supports a consensus for "train operating company" ambiguator if there was a need. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (company) – I feel as though that the Midland Mainline company is defunct for a long while, I think that it should redirect to Midland Main Line. Various sources use 'mainline' rather than 'main line'. Mainline= BBC railadvent railforums UK west bridgeford wire another BBC the business desk google scholars 338 results vs 500 results for midland main line I know that WP:SMALLDETAILS apply, but almost all mention of Midland Mainline refer to the railway than the (former/defunct) railway company. Plus my google search (even though im in UK, using the google.co.uk URL) comes with 'midland mainline' first. Do note that google no longer provides how many search results at least for me. JuniperChill (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose "(company)" - if this needs disambiguation it should use the standard "(train operating company)" (c.f. Thameslink (train operating company), Valley Lines (train operating company)) but I'm weakly unconvinced of the benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe it needs dab but if it does it should follow the normal format as per Thryduulf (talk · contribs)'s point. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  have a look at WP:SMALLDETAILS. it says that: a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling:

  • Cold war redirects to Cold War, with the broad concept discussed at Cold war (term)
  • Gray Poupon redirects to Grey Poupon; an album of that name is at Gray Poupon (album)

  It's normally a hit or miss but almost all sources within the last several years saying 'Midland Mainline' refer to the railway line than the company. Even the BBC (a reliable source) uses Midland mainline sometimes. But anyways, if anyone prefers (train operating company) as the dab, thats fine with me.

JuniperChill (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Additionally, please see WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT JuniperChill (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support Midland Mainline (train operating company). The line is the clear primary topic; the fact it has three words rather than two is irrelevant as most people wouldn't know the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, it should be the usual "(train operating company)" disambiguator if one is needed. No stance otherwise. DankJae 19:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to gauge consensus between non-disambiguated and "Midland Mainline (train operating company)" Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (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.

@SafariScribe: how was there a consensus here? There are two opposes stating that there is no reason to move this page. I also oppose it. Please reconsider. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru, the oppose were against the company ambiguator and support from the train operating company" ambiguator. Should I reopen it. It seems you may have something to add. I am already doing that. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks SafariScribe. I don't think the opposes were in support of the move at all - the first says "I'm weakly unconvinced of the benefit" and the second says "I don't believe it needs dab". That means that the opposed any move of the page. They only noted that if it were to be moved anyway, they'd prefer train operating company as the disambiguator. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I now get it. Thanks too and will just have to leave it as "opposed" ie. "Not moved". What do you think? Si

i ce this at also the consen.sus Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by i ce this at also the consen.sus but Sceptre was right to say there was no consensus a week ago, and with no comments since I'm struggling to understand where the consensus to move suddenly came from? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, that was WP reply error. It suppose to be "since that is also the consensus." You should see the corrected error. It's now "not moved". I measured the consensus seeing support of the parentheses "train operating company" and forgot it was weakly supported. I was just corrected by Amakuru. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I saw that Amakuru actually renamed it to the proposed title last year. I also count 2 supports (including the nom, me) plus a weak support from Thryduulf and neutral for DankJae with everyone opposing (company). I was also in the process of changing some of the links, including the main Midland Main Line page. JuniperChill (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@JuniperChill my !vote is a weak oppose, not a support. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I must have thought you said 'weakly convinced of the benefit' and didn't see you said unconvinced instead. JuniperChill (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

im a little late to the party, but this seems more like a 'no consensus' result rather than 'not moved' since the arguments for supporting/opposing are about the same. This is because the TOC is long gone and the Midland Mainline now commonly referrs to the railway line. This means anyone can open an RM request after a reasonable period (at least a few months) has passed. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 9 August 2024

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. (non-admin closure) Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (train operating company) – The last time I requested this, I got the disambiguator tag wrong ('company' rather than 'train operating company'). Since its been a few months, and I am moving this to a different name this time, it should be acceptable (as in, not disruptive) to revisit it again.

But anyway, similar to my previous rationale, the Midland Mainline TOC is long gone, and almost everyone searching for this is looking for the mainline, so I propose moving Midland Mainline to Midland Mainline (train operating company) then redirecting Midland Mainline to Midland Main Line. Even Google comes up with Midland Mainline first. I do get WP:SMALLDETAILS but I don't think it applies here since the primary topic is probably the mainline over the TOC. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Companies, and WikiProject UK Railways have been notified of this discussion. JuniperChill (talk) 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing has changed since May. Thryduulf (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not making a !vote one way or another at this time, but both opposes from May appear to be about the choice of parenthetical term. Given that is not a factor with this request, could you elaborate on the reason to oppose here?--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

  If you read both opposes they are actually "this doesn't need disambiguation but if did then it should use a different format." In other words the natural disambigaiton between Midland Main Line and Midland Mainline is sufficient. Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

• Worth noting -- although these is a different between Mainline and Main Line, reliable sources (such as the BBC and Time Out), along with official and primary sources like government websites, regularly appear to use the version without a space to refer to the train line. Furthermore, these results about the train line appear to come up far more often than about the former company.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support, recent sources (post-2007) do miss the space for the line too,[1][2][3][4][5] and "Main Line" vs "Mainline" are commonly used interchangeably. So appears the line is more primary today, having continued use, as the TOC stopped operating more than a decade ago, and named after the line. DankJae 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support - it seems more natural to have that as an alternative spelling for the railway line and a lot of places use the no-space word when referring to the line rather than the former company. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
• Support Given the train line appears to be regularly discussed in reliable sources without the space (arguably showing up even more often than sources about the former company), the small differences do not appear to provide suitable disambiguation between the subjects.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Thryduulf's reasoning. Symondsyat (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
• Comment, its been a month since the last comment, and surprised this hasn't closed yet. JuniperChill (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2024 (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.