Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/Archive 38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 → Archive 45

Decapitalizing Line

I've been advised to open an RM if any moves I'm considering are potentially controversial, so I thought I'd start by asking here which of these people would like to see an RM discussion on. I think most are uncontroversial, but someone may disagree. I've linked a wee bit of evidence in support of lowercase line for each:

Hopefully it's evident from better sources (books) that none of these are treated as proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember that the b in Marlow Branch Line should also be lower case. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Right. I think that's the only two-word downcase in this list. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the obviously descriptive Birmingham to Worcester via Kidderminster line. But I'd like to also suggest using the en dash instead of "to" for these, like we agreed on a batch a few months ago, if there are no objections. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Now I've done a few more: Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line, Staines to Windsor Line, and Redhill to Tonbridge Line, I hope nobody minds, but if they do I hope they'll say so sooner rather than later, and will feel free to revert if they have a better idea of how these should be done. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Cross City line is capitalised in the book sources I've seen. I wouldn't touch Rugby Birmingham-Stafford, as that has been the subject of much controversy in the past. Also I don't see what's wrong with the 'to'. G-13114 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Cross-City Line is pretty thoroughly mixed in books. We can take it to an RM discussion to try to decide what is best, but capping all words doesn't seem to be supported by sources. As for the "to" versus en dash, that was the subject of a big discussion at Talk:Chester–Manchester_line#Requested_move_2_November_2016; I'd consider it decided; would you? You argued there that "this creates inconsistencies across all the other line articles"; would you favor leaving it consistent, or working toward consistency? And on the BLS/BLL line, I'm not going to get into that question, just want to downcase line since it's pretty clear that nobody is arguing that it's a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
The only book I know of which has been written specifically about the Cross City Line is this one and it uses capitals. G-13114 (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, that's about as specialist as possible. I think we should mostly be looking for how it's treated in more general publications, don't you? Lowercase line definitely dominates in news articles, for example, which are generally directed at the public, not at rail fans. Dicklyon (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
That's just moving the goalposts to suit yourself. That is probably the most authoritative source on the topic. G-13114 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: - Where are the discussions at WP:RM? I can't find any of them, yet you've already moved some articles, presumably on strength of consensus gained at RM? Your moving of articles without discussion or consensus has recently been the topic of discussion at WP:ANI, where you were given very good advice when the discussion was closed. Yet you are apparantly ignoring that advice andstill moving articles without discussion or consensus. Mjroots (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So far the discussion is here only. I'm happy to take to RM discussion any that you think warrant it. Just say which ones. I was "cautioned to abide by the strictures of WP:RM, and to initiate a discussion to seek consensus for any page move to which an objection may be raised", so that's what I'm doing. For example, if G-13114 says he thinks it would be better not to downcase line in Cross City Line, we can take that to RM. Any others? And depending on his answer about the "to", we can discuss that at RM, or just drop it for now. Nobody has said that any of the few I've moved so far ought to be questioned, but I've asked for such feedback from anyone who cares, which I presume is not likely to be anyone other than those who watch this page; let me know if you disagree. Dicklyon (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
If you are seeking feedback you need to actually wait for people to give it to you before proceeding. Not everybody interested will have seen this message yet, and not everybody who has will have had time to look in sources and things to give an informed opinion. I think most of books I've read about the history of the Cheddar area capitalised Cheddar Valley Line, but I'm not going to get a chance to actually look until possibly the weekend. So slow down, there is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 01:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem. Google book search shows mostly "Cheddar Valley line" and a few "Cheddar valley line", but I'll wait for you to check your books, too. Dicklyon (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You appear to have missed the point. This is not about waiting for me to be able to check my offline sources, it's about leaving reasonably sufficient time for everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: another point - if you intend to use the above discussion as an RM (and there is no indication that it is, only that you intend to raise one), then you need to post notification on the affected article talk pages. Not everyone with an interest in those articles watches this page. Optimist on the run (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, this is not an RM. I'm just trying to assess whether it's safe to assume that no reasonable person would be expected to object, in which case we and all those others can be spared the overhead of RM discussions. If you think there's a chance that a reasonable person would object to some of these, please do say so. Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I would certainly consider your move of Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line controversial, given the failed attempts to move it before (see talk page). I'm not going to revert, but at the very least there should have been notification on the talk page beforehand. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised you think so, since the caps issue had not been brought up there at all. But feel free to revert and we can do an RM to fix it instead. Dicklyon (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I've reverted the undiscussed move of the Redhill to Tonbrigde Line article. Mjroots (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; can you say whether your concern is more about the caps or the dash, or just that you want to see it discussed? Dicklyon (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Before moving any page, you should check its talk page for move discussions, and if there are any at all, you should treat any potential future move as controversial. Above, you say "I'm surprised you think so" - Really? There are several move discussions on Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line, the existence of any one of which indicates that for that particular page, the matter is controversial, whether they were about the word "Line" or not. This is not the first time that you have done this: your talk page has several messages on the matter going back some months, and there is also the recently-closed discussion at ANI where BD2412 (talk · contribs) included in the closing comment "Dicklyon is therefore strongly cautioned to abide by the strictures of WP:RM, and to initiate a discussion to seek consensus for any page move to which an objection may be raised, irrespective of whether it is believed that the proposed move conforms with the MOS or other policies."
So, if I notice you moving pages again, where there has been discussion that does not explicitly sanction your move, a block may ensue even if you are not also taken to WP:ANI again.
I have moved it back to Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line, and indef move-protected the page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
What would be the point of the move protection? Are you afraid that my invitation to revert any that you find controversial was not sincere? And stop with the threats please, I'm doing my best to comply with the cautionary advice I got without overburdening you all with RM discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The point of move protection is to prevent somebody trampling roughshod over past consensus. If (and only if) there is consensus to move, an admin can move the page. The point of requiring a WP:RM prior to that is to gauge consensus. Neither of these are intended to cause the present page name to be permanently unalterable. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
In any case, Mjroots, I went ahead and started on RM on that case and others like it at Talk:Redhill_to_Tonbridge_Line#Requested_move_26_January_2017. Dicklyon (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous and needs to be stopped as it is getting disruptive. Another undiscussed page move Esk Valley Line -> Esk Valley line Keith D (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
If you think it's wrong, please revert it. But from looking at sources, it's hard to imagine that anyone would oppose it. What disruption are you seeing? Dicklyon (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: The problem is that you seem to be severely lacking in imagination regarding this issue. You've been proved wrong about exactly this issue (whether someone would object to a move without discussion first) at least three times in the past 12 hours alone. If that doesn't make you stop and think that maybe some people might (not "will", but "might") raise an objection to you doing it again then I think it is time that you started a formal requested moves discussion before moving any page for any reason until you can demonstrate a track record of assessing the potential response to a proposed move correctly. That is if someone hasn't prohibited you from making page moves (or simply blocked you for failing to adhere to your last unblock conditions) first. I certainly couldn't justify opposing either of those actions. Thryduulf (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I am imagining that maybe someone will object to a downcasing, or to something, but instead all I get is these hypotheticals about how maybe it's controversial. Has anyone actually objected to the titles I moved to? Please show me if so. It looks to me like the only objection is that it's me doing the moves, and that's getting obnoxious. Again, has anyone actually objected to any title that I moved to? I don't think so; or if they object, why won't they say so? I don't mind being reverted and going to RM if that's what people want, but it looks more likely that what they're wanting is just to hassle me. Did Redrose64 have an objection to downcasing at Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line? He didn't say so. Did Mjroots have any issue with the move of Redhill to Tonbridge Line other than it was me and he considered it undiscussed? Why won't he say? Does Keith D think it's wrong to downcase line in Esk Valley Line? He didn't say so. What about you? Do you see any moves that you would find objectionable, or just hassling me because you can? Would you like me to revert my move at Esk Valley Line and take it to RM? Just say so, and I will. Dicklyon (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Is there any reason why you can't simply ask first, wait a couple of days to see if anyone objects, and then make the page move? Useddenim (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
No reason at all; except I get itchy. Note that I have waited a few days on most, and will wait a few days more, but I thought that lacking objection it would be OK to go away with a few of the clearly safe ones, and that if I was wrong someone would tell me; so far, nobody has said I was wrong, or that they have any objections to the new titles I moved to. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
A couple of days - or even a "few days" - isn't good enough, this to me implies that you would move the page after somewhat less than a week. A WP:RM, like other formal discussions (WP:XFD etc.) typically lasts at least seven days; this is because some people only edit once a week, as their schedules permit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Not strictly in-scope here, but this issue has spilled over across the Atlantic: New Haven–Springfield Line. By convention US articles capitalize Line, Branch, Subdivision, or District, regardless of what the sources say. There's no consensus to change that. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be good if we could adopt that convention for the UK, and then we could put an end to all this nonsense. Just a thought. G-13114 (talk) 13:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Everyone please be aware that a mass move discussion has been initiated at THE WRONG VENUE. I've put my objection in, but am wondering whether or not the discussion there should be closed as being in the wrong venue. I feel that the proposals would be best discussed individually at WP:RM. Mjroots (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
How is that the wrong venue, and why would you want to do them one at a time? Isn't this what the multi-RM is for? Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of any local consensus to get around WP:NCCAPS on American rail articles. Where can I find that, and shouldn't we fix it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you can find it, but it cannot be altered on this page as this is the project for UK railways. Asking about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains is likely to be the best first step as long as you ask neutrally and don't presuppose that it needs "fixing". Naming conventions almost always exist for a good reason and you should do your best to educate yourself about why they are the way they are before proposing to change them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Mackensen brought it up, but tells me it's not a documented convention. So I'll have to do some more digging to understand what's going on there. Dicklyon (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

UK railway lines - naming proposal

To try and bring this discussion back on track (no pun intended), I'd like to make the following proposal for articles about railway lines in the UK:

  • Lines with a purely geographic description, that is not generally referred to as such off wiki: lower case, but with the addition of railway, e.g. Slough to Windsor & Eton railway line
  • Lines with a recognised title, used off wiki: Upper case Line, e.g. Tarka Line, Cross City Line (but see London Underground exception below)
  • London Underground lines: use existing naming convention of lower case line, which I believe reflects the TFL manual of style, e.g. Jubilee line
  • Discussion to take place on individual article talk pages to determine whether a title is geographic or not.

Any thoughts? Optimist on the run (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

So just ignore WP:NCCAPS and capitalize Cross City Line even though it's clear that sources mostly don't treat it as a proper name? Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Have you actually read the first sentence of NCCAPS? It states quite clearly that title should be lower case "unless the title is a proper name". So for example we have Great Western Railway not Great western railway. There is a good argument to assume that Cross City Line is a proper name and therefore should be in Capitals. However this is not the place to discuss specific examples; I have started this discussion to attempt to determine a naming convention that meets NCCAPS and can then be used for all related articles. Optimist on the run (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, names of companies like Great Western Railway are proper names, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. But City Cross Line is not, as you can plainly see in sources; assuming that it is a proper name is not justified by the evidence. MOS:CAPS explains, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Do we really need a "convention" beyond that for deciding what's a proper name? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with a lot of that, however I would say that in the case of 'X Line' there are usually mixed results from external sources, with some capitalising and some not, if there are reliable external sources which give the capitalised form, then we should default to the capitalised form. If it appears that way in sources outside of wikipedia, then it is perfectly acceptable as a name here. This would give a consistent format, be less puzzling to readers and editors, and put an end to the potential for constant arguments over whether or not such and such line should be capitalised or not. Also i'm not sure about the 'railway line' part of your proposal I'm not sure that's necessary. G-13114 (talk) 13:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Largely concur with that. As regards "Proper names, and nobody is suggesting otherwise"; in 1860, they weren't so sure. The history and topography of the counties of Cumberland and Westmoreland, comprising their ancient and modern history, a general view of their physical character, trade, commerce, manufactures, agricultural condition, statistics. Pontefract: W Whellan. 1860. Retrieved 27 January 2017., although it occasionally talks of the Maryport and Carlisle Railway, normally goes with lower-case r as in 'the parish is intersected by the Maryport and Carlisle railway'. Consequently, had Wikipedia been active in 1860, there seems to me every chance that there would have been calls for 'railway' to be de-capitalised, the evidence of contemporary newspapers and company notices being discounted on the basis of whatever the Victorian precursor of Google book search was:

assuming that it is a proper name is not justified by the evidence. MOS:CAPS explains, "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." Do we really need a "convention" beyond that for deciding what's a proper name? I don't think so.

Yet today Maryport and Carlisle Railway is a proper name, it's an upper-case R and 'nobody is suggesting otherwise'. So yes, it does look to me as though we need a convention, and the suggestion made immediately above looks a reasonable one.Rjccumbria (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As you are demonstrating there is inconsistency outside WP so there is never going to be consistency inside WP either. If an article is created with either lower or uppercase and that version can be supported by reliable sources then, like WP:ENGVAR don't edit/move war over it, retain the way it was started and stick to that. Nthep (talk) 14:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think we first need to decide whether we want consistency or whether we want to reflect the sources. If we choose the latter, then I would go with capitalisation by default as that way we are not incorrectly titling proper nouns as common nouns, capitalising common nouns is far less of an issue. London Underground would stay as "line" as it's clear that is the correct usage ("line" is being used as a descriptive disamiguator only) and they form a coherent set. If we choose to follow the sources then we need to understand that (a) there will be inconsistency, and (b) at least some names that are descriptive are also proper nouns, e.g. West London Line. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind, that it's not necessarily an either/or choice, since most of these lines have sources which use both capitalised and non-capitalised forms. I would say that if it has sources outside WP which use the capitalised form then it is perfectly acceptable to use that on WP, and doing so would essentially solve the current and future disputes. G-13114 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I refer you back to my previous comment, uppercase is fine as long as a) it's supported by reliable sources and b) the article was created with an uppercase title. If there are also reliable sources that use lowercase and the article was created with a lowercase title then retain the status quo and don't edit/move war over the title. Nthep (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The problem with what G-13114 says is that Wikipedia guidelines say to do the exact opposite: if we have sources that use both the capitalised and non-capitalised forms, we default to lowercase, because MOS:CAPS says "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalisation", and WP:NCCAPS says "one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence". In other words, our guidelines put the burden of proof on those favouring the capitalisation, not the other way around. I have no comment on whether that is appropriate, but if you find that it is undesirable, what you ought do is propose a change to the guidelines, not carve out a strange exception for railway-related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
That's all very well in theory, the problem is the practicality of it: In many cases it's not clear cut as to whether a line name is to be treated as a noun or not, there are many borderline cases. And the ambiguity of it will inevitably lead to arguments and reversions etc. We csn't adopt the lowercase 'line' as the universal standard, because there are many articles which legitimately use the capitalised form, so the only way to have a consistent standard and avoid arguments is to adopt the capitalised form as standard, so long as there are external sources supporting it. G-13114 (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
It is pretty clear cut, if one reads the guidelines. MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia". WP:NCCAPS: "For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even in the middle of a sentence". Essentially, unless the name of some subject nearly always occurs capitalised in reliable sources, even in the middle of a sentence (i.e. excluding headers, title case, &c.), the guidelines say to use lowercase. Again, there is no reason to treat railway lines any different from any other subject on Wikipedia. If you think the guidelines are wrong, propose a change to the guidelines, and that can be discussed. Until then, this discussion is a pointless exercise, because no one has given a valid reason for why the longstanding Wikipedia consensus on the matter of capitalisation, as found in the guidelines, should be overwritten in the specific topic area of railway lines. Surely, if the issue you suggest is valid, it would also apply to other subjects, not just railway lines. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
The reason repeatedly given is consistency. Everyone agrees that proper nouns should be capitalised. There are some railway line names that are definitely proper nouns. Therefore some railway line names will be capitalised. If we want all railway line articles to be consistently named they will therefore have to be capitalised. You can disagree with the desire to be consistent if you wish, but if so you need to provide a reason why this is desirable to counter the arguments presented by those in favour of it. Simply repeating ad nauseum the same statements about what the manual of style guideline states is not such a reason. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't really understand that at all. 'There are some railway line names that are definitely proper nouns', but it is also quite clear that there are also many railway line names that are definitely not proper nouns. The consistency that the guidelines (and indeed the WP:AT policy) call for is the consistency found in reliable sources. If a name is consistently capitalised in RS, we do so. If it isn't, we don't. The type of consistency you suggest, i.e. one where every instance of the word 'line' in a railway line name is capitalised, does not exist in reliable sources, and so Wikipedia cannot be expected to produce such a consistency out of thin air. Furthermore, in this apparent striving for a 'consistency' in railway line articles, the above proposal would simply create an inconsistency between how railway articles are treated and how every other subject area is treated (i.e. capitalisation is based on usage in RS). That does not make sense. If what you say is truly an issue, then it clearly needs to be dealt with at the level of the guidelines themselves, because it would not only apply to railway lines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

G- says "In many cases it's not clear cut as to whether a line name is to be treated as a noun or not, there are many borderline cases." Yes, and those are the cases we need to talk about and make decisions on. It's a triage process: easy caps for obvious proper names, easy lowercase for obvious descriptive names, and spend some effort researching, talking about, and deciding on the borderline ones. Same as in every other part of Wikipedia; nothing special about rail lines. Dicklyon (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that what you seem to describe as "obvious descriptive names" are actually proper names in many cases, so we need to examine the sources for each one individually to see if that is the case. This cannot be done en-mass. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree they each need to be looked at carefully. But I hope that doesn't mean a full-blown RM discussion on each one. By the way, did you look into Cheddar Valley Line? Dicklyon (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a great principle, Dicklyon, how about following it? The problem is that you seemingly accept nothing as evidence that a name is treated as a proper noun phrase. Lines like the Cross-City Line, Waverley Route or the Heart of Wales Line aren't geographically descriptive (You realise "Waverley" refers to a set of novels, not a place?) they're marketing terms invented to label the route, more than describing where it goes. As such, and as per their sources, they are proper names and warrant capitalisation.
You also seem to take the line that, despite it being a large internet that will somewhere contain every possible variant spelling, the existence of any uncapitalised source means that something is definitely not a proper name, rather than its sourced use as a proper name (which I think we'd agree need to be more more than just Title Case typesetting) indicates that it is a proper name, thus capitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I fear the problem is that (if you ignore any clauses about 'if in doubt use common sense') the Wikipedia capitalisation policy, on a strict construction of its current wording, actually calls for that. So guidebooks talking of the 'Cumbrian Coast line' passing 'the Sellafield nuclear power station' (although not reliable as to what goes on at Sellafield) on matters of style trump (bigly) the appearance of 'Cumbrian Coast Line' in a sentence case context in timetables for the line; if anyone chooses to press the point an 1860 gazetteer's references to the 'Maryport and Carlisle railway' are enough to invalidate the custom and practice of capitalising as "Maryport and Carlisle Railway"; and so on. It is something of a concession that some capitalisations including 'Line' have been retained, because more frequent in books than the same phrase with 'line'. That concession doesn't seem to me to be explicit in Wikipolicy. Or am I missing something? Rjccumbria (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I try to mostly ignore "the large internet" and focus on book and news sources (things that are more likely to have had the attention of a professional editor), and from recent decades, whenever possible. Dicklyon (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Andy, please show me where you mean that I have not accepted evidence about Cross-City Line, Waverley Route, or the Heart of Wales Line. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what evidence you had for the Heart of Wales Line, but you were happy enough to rename it anyway! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't recall either, but nobody objected, as far as I can find. Did someone present evidence that I ignored or rejected, there or anywhere, like you were saying? Dicklyon (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Re Heart of Wales line specifically, books show over half lowercase; I think that's a pretty good case that it's nowhere close to meeting the suggestions of MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
"... please show me where you mean that I have not accepted evidence about Cross-City Line ..." Here for one. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see what that one book says, but he didn't even give us a quote from it. I do still think as I said there that it's "about as specialist as possible", being a whole book about the topic, and that the treatment in more general sources is more what we're looking for. I'm not rejecting any evidence there, just trying to weight it appropriately. Anything else? Dicklyon (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That one's also about half lowercase in books, more if you count more fully lowercased as Cross-city line and cross-city line. In what context would it be capitalized? I haven't seen anyone present evidence about that, other than the one guy who said he has a book about it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
That exactly what is annoying lots of people, when you are presented with clear evidence, you just move the goalposts and dismiss it out of hand. When the only book which has been written specifically about the CC Line by a known railway historian, has it in capitalisation. I'm sure most people would except that as pretty good evidence to support the capitalisation of the article name. G-13114 (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Most people seem more happy with MOS:CAPS, which says the criterion is "consistently capitalized in sources". Some editors do prefer to turn over styling decisions to specialist/official sources, but if we did that we'd capitalize a whole lot more stuff in WP, rather than reserving caps for proper names as has a strong consensus. Please review WP:SSF. By the way, you still haven't actually presented any evidence, such as quoting a sentence from the book that caps Cross-City Line; not that I don't believe you, but you haven't presented the evidence, just claimed you have a book. The cover image on Amazon doesn't tell us a thing. Dicklyon (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Valley lines

At my user subpage User:Dicklyon/valley I've started to collect article links with search links and summary comments on all the articles I could find titled "XXX Valley Line" (or line). If anyone wants to help look at sources and add comments about what they say, that could inform a next step, whether it be leave it, move it, open individual RM discussions, multi-RM discussion, or whatever. I have no particular agenda here other than moving toward compliance with WP:NCCAPS, and would welcome any help or constructive inputs. No rush. Happy to move it from my user page if someone sees a better place for it. Constructive edits on my user subpage are welcome. By the way, I have a lot of lines listed under UK, and haven't looked at them all carefully enough to be sure I haven't made a mistake there; any correction or advice is welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

How disingenuous of you: an hour-and-a-quarter before you posted the above, you went and decapitalised Valley Line (disambiguation). I'm tempted to simply WP:Rollback it out of hand, absent some sort of consensus on this… Useddenim (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Disingenuous in what way? Are you suggesting I downcased some proper names there, or that I was doing something improper there? I did not downcase any entry to an article name with capitalized Line, did I? I don't think so. Dicklyon (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Improper? yes. The disambiguation page is named Valley Line (with an upper-case — or should that be “upper case”? – L), which is how all the entries were listed. Now the England section is a 50-50 mish-mash of upper- and lower-case names. So regardless of the merits of any individual name, stylistically it looks like shit. Useddenim (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, avoiding "looks like shit" is not really a part of how we use caps on Wikipedia. We only cap proper names. The disambig page will look better when we finish downcasing the ones that are not proper names, but there will still be a few cap Lines there. I was holding off downcasing more until the RM discussion closes. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Let's see, now:
i.e. Over a period of six weeks you unilaterally and without discussion or Talk page notification, moved—or had moved, as alleged ‘Uncontroversial technical requests’—half of the English Valley Lines. And you still claim with faux innocence, “I did nothing wrong”? Useddenim (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, indeed, you're rather late to this party. The history of my moves, discussed and otherwise, has since been extensively discussed. In those discussions, none of these were challenged; I offered to revert any that were. Do you see any that you would disagree with? Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't make it any more or less wrong; it's just to illustrate how you're advancing your own agenda as surreptitiously as possible, just as further down you say there's move discussions in progress at WP:RM, but don't take the time to list the lines in question. Useddenim (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Network Rail's named lines

I found THIS LIST of named railway lines by Network Rail. As the lines listed here are clearly official names, and treated as such by the company which own them. Can we agree to automatically exclude any lines listed here from decapitalisation? G-13114 (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with those lines being capitalised if that is how the owner uses them but conversely would you accept decapitalisation of Marshlink Line to Marshlink line based on this source (other sources may exist) because NR do not use the word line let alone a capitalised Line in their document? Nthep (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
This list has previousy been referenced at:
It is internally inconsistent; the problems that I pointed out in May 2015 are still there. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - this looks like a good definitive list of named lines in the UK. Perhaps there's a case for moving (e.g.) Marshlink Line to Marshlink based on this, but that can be a separate discussion. Optimist on the run (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – two points on this approach: (1) We don't normally defer to "official" sources when deciding such things, either for names or style; (2) the National Rail site shown doesn't even have any indication of whether they would cap these names in a sentence; caps in tables, headings, and maps don't tell us a thing. Let's see how sources use these in sentences; better sources, such as books and news that have likely had the benefit of a professional editor, are best to look at for this. Take a few from the list, and see how other professional editors treat them. The first one, Airedale Line, for example, appears to be 100% Airedale line (lowercase line) in both books and news; maybe someone caps it, but I haven't found that. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Dicklyon remember this conversation? I gave you some reliable sources there and I still maintain a Google book search is not the way forward when half of them are travel books of which one misspelt Haworth as Howarth. The sources were (admittedly) 70% in your favour of lowercase line, but to claim there are no sources capitalizing Airedale line is misleading when I demonstrated that there are some reliable ones out there (IE The Railway Magazine). (I stated 50% in the original conversation but I have uprated it, in your favour, after a review to be fair and balanced). I am assuming you have forgotten rather than being obtuse - to be fair, it was some time ago. The joy of all things (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Right, not every book and magazine shows up in Google book search, and you pointed out that you have a few that cap it, and I don't deny that. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any, that timetable titles and headings are not relevant, and that 100% in news and books is a very strong indicator that most editors don't treat this as a proper name. So what is the basis of your "support" for this over-capitalization proposal? Dicklyon (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd say I would support most of it, but it is hard to declare part support. I certainly believe that lines like Airedale and Esk Valley are proper names and not descriptors. Leeds to Bradford line I have no issue with being lowercase as it describes the line between two places (and no, I don't care if it uses a dash or to in it). As to what RC Gloucester mentions below, I believe there is a case to petition changing the policy. I would assume that it is a Herculean task and would have ramifications far beyond this conversation and this project; which is why I haven't started it.
I am a serving member of the Royal Air Force and it grates me that MOS:NCCAPS does not allow the second title in our rank names to be capitalised as we normally do in any form of communication (i.e. Squadron leader). The proposal here was forwarded, I have given my opinion and I don't expect to be on the winning side. I maintain that some lines will need a capital L, but I also expect you to behave with courtesy and put forward proposals legitimately and not to randomly rename pages before we can check our sources in books and magazines. You say it yourself above; I get itchy. Patience is needed when some lines (Birmingham loop being one) is still a hot topic.
I have acquiesced on Airedale line and let you have your way because the sources back you up. It is called playing fair. My opinion is given above, it differs from yours and yes, it does not have the weight of as many sources as yours does. But I am trying to be measured and need time to check these things out. MOS:NCCAPS is flawed in my opinion (lonesome as it may be) but that does not mean that I am wrong; neither does it mean NCCAPS is wrong. Just because four million people say something is right does not mean it to be so.
I fully agree that this is policy; I just don't want this to be rushed. It just I always remember Airedale line being capitalised in the press and magazines. It just isn't as much now and I realise that is the current drive.
The London Underground lines are de-capitalised here because that is how TfL are styling them. I was told that because TfL are doing that, then so must we. All surface lines that are run by Network Rail are not treated in the same way; Why not? Why is it one rule for one and another rule for another. I have left the LU thing alone as everyone agreed; fair enough. But there is doubt here and that needs to be assessed. You even have doubt on the ones you are proposing to change in America. If the consensus is change, then we change. But be magnanimous in victory. The joy of all things (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
And yes, I do understand that TfL operate the underground lines wholly on their own and Network Rail just maintain their lines. But NR decide on the stylizing of the naming of the lines. Unfortunately they have little consistency now. They used to be very consistent. And yes I realise people will go "Ah-Ha; we must default to lowercase". That's only through NR' s ability to mess things up. They can't even decide what to call a Rail operating centre. The joy of all things (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Re: "I have acquiesced on Airedale line and let you have your way because the sources back you up. It is called playing fair." – This is not an editor-versus-editor horsetrading game, where you get to "win" one because you gave one away earlier; it's a WP:CONSISTENCY policy matter. "I am a [specialist] and it grates me that MOS:NCCAPS does not allow [some special style that specialists like to use with others in the same specialisation]": See WP:SSF for an explanation why that reasoning doesn't work here. Short version: WP is written for everyone, not just people in your specialisation. If all specialists in every speciality could capitalise everything they wanted to, nearly everything on WP would be over-capitalised and the encyclopedia would be verge on unreadable. We've been through this hundreds of times already, with people trying to capitalize every word in a song title (even "the" and "a" in the middle of it) to mimic album covers, others capitalising every job title and academic subject, another faction trying to capitalise everything a government has an "official" term for, still others trying to capitalise all the common names of species ("I saw a Mountain Lion at the zoo"), etc., etc., etc. We have rules against this habit for good reasons.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, winning is, I admit, very bad language and I should have phrased that one better. I was hoping to demonstrate that when Dicklyon is right, I will try not to be (too much of) an idiot about it (which I obviously missed). I just feel he is not giving us enough time to check some things out on some of the more critical pages. Both arguments from you and he are very persuasive and backed up by policy and I agree with your comment (a lot lower down the page) that it is time to put it to bed, although your railfans slur was slightly generalising; I don't even own a spotter's book! Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you no longer stand behind your support !vote, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Ooohh; that seems very crow-ish. Nope; I haven't changed my Support because as I said above (part support), I still wish the main lines ECML, MML and GWML etc to remain with caps. You have said all the way through you wouldn't push for that because of the constant use of caps in sources and I acknowledge your honesty in that. I am saying (and I did say this before) that the majority are fine by me to change, but you need to pay heed to the contentious articles (Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line (or whatever we are calling it this week)) and to give us some time on the others. I thought the talk we had on the Airedale line page was well thought out and you demonstrated that quite well and I admitted that I was wrong. I have lived there (Airedale) most of my life and I genuinely cannot recall it ever being lowercase until comparatively recently (give or take 15-20 years). A thorough search proved me wrong; however, there are some, the Bittern Line for example where your name change was reverted. That is not a dig, it's an example of the haste of which I wish to be removed from the process. After the revert back to 'Line', you yourself restored some of the caps back, for which I commend you in not being bitter about it. If I oppose the motion, I agree to East Coast Main line rather than East Coast Main Line. Perhaps from now on I should abstain? The joy of all things (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I self reverted at Wherry Lines and apologized for that and for Bittern Line when I was shown that they were pretty consistently capitalized in sources. This threshold is also met by the Main Lines. But the proposal you're supporting here is about a list where most are NOT of this sort. It's a lame proposal, not deserving of your support, right? Dicklyon (talk) 00:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Describing it as 'Lame' is a bit mean. No, I Part Support it - IE one we have not discussed; Far North Line. This is mostly capitalised on a cursory search. Happy to be proved wrong but I have seen this capitalised consistently in most areas because of the locally driven support for the line to remain viable and open to traffic. The list contains some lines which, I think, should remain in caps, but I realise the policy is against it. So I abstain as I feel you are pushing me into a corner (largely of my own making) and the view isn't looking good ( and I am starting to drop words as I am getting very tired (sleep time, not a slur on you boring me or anything). Also the language you are using is getting weirdly combative. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 00:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I have no problem with capping Far North Line if that's what sources do; or any others. What's lame is the proposal to use this arbitrary list, most of which are clearly NOT treated as proper names in sources. Sleep on it. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dicklyon SMcCandlish Redrose64 I have struck through support and I admit I was wrong as regards the policy. SMcCandlish was right about many things and I tip my hat to him/her (don't know as I haven't checked). Your search on Heart of Wales Line goes straight to page 2. If you do a search of Google books with HoWL, then the results are about 60/40 in favour of caps across several pages and not just the one you picked. I'm not saying that it must be capped, just that your Google books results are a little skewed and I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. Rjccumbria's statement below encapsulates mostly what I feel and he/she has said all that I feel to be true. SMcCandlish is right, the policy does call for these things to be observed and they are right to point out that I should not be whining about the RAF terms (as they say, it is meant to be a read for everyone encyclopedia). I remember a conversation with someone where it was wryly observed that the MOS is actually a guideline, not a policy and I took that too much to heart.
RedRose64 makes an equally good point about it being inconsistent, and he/she is generally on the money when it comes to these things. Taking into account RedRose64's opinion, SMcCandlish's well placed arguments and policy driven effectiveness and Rjccumbri's eloquent statement, I withdraw my Support vote and agree with the resolution below to ask an admin to close this so we can all move on. I apologise profusely to everyone.The joy of all things (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It is very hard for me to believe that this dead horse is being beaten further. Per the WP:TITLEFORMAT section of the WP:AT policy, and per the WP:NCCAPS guideline, Wikipedia uses sentence case for article titles. The list provided above is a table, and hence does not provide evidence of sentence case usage. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not defer to one so-called 'official' source for determining whether something is a proper name (see WP:UCN), we evaluate common usage in reliable secondary sources. I'll say for one more time that if the editors above believe that these policies and guidelines are either wrong or inappropriate, initiate action to change them. If such a proposal has merit, and I have no opinion on whether it does or doesn't, then the community may well endorse it. Until then, British railway articles are not excepted from general Wikipedia policies and guidelines. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Thanks to G-13114 for finding this. This is exactly what has been needed. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
    You're funny. Dicklyon (talk) 22:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OFFICIALNAME. Wikiprojects don't get to make up their own "we're magically special" rule against site-wide norms, especially after WP:RMs have been closing without them getting the special pleading they desire. See WP:FORUMSHOP. Official lists of things are often in a capitalised style. This is not encyclopedic style, and I think everyone here understands that. We're all also well aware that the usage in source is inconsistent; the over-capitalisation is not some kind of special technical standard, it's just one of conflicting styles that railfans like in particular because it "Big-Notes Things They Find Important", but which mainstream reliable sources for a general audience avoid. WP doesn't use that over-capitalising style. It's time to stop digging this trench.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Your line of argument is incoherent and illogical. You would accept I presume that say West Coast Main Line should be capitalised, as this is clearly the official recognised name. So this is what this discussion is about, whether these should be recognised as official names or not, ergo, getting the same treatment as West Coast Main Line. G-13114 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I think official has little to do with it. For West Coast Main Line, books show a super-majority caps since at east shortly before Wikipedia started; that's good enough, in my book. Are there others in the list like that? Yes, but probably fewer than half; we need to look, as many editors keep pointing out, not be driven by someone's list, official or not. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Official does have something to do with it, it's the company which owns the lines who decide what the correct name for them is. If other sources use a different form, then those sources are technically incorrect and should be discounted. If say a majority of sources for something contained a spelling error, by your logic, we should adopt the form with the spelling error over the correct name. G-13114 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't work that way. See WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAME, plus MOS:TM.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose—At least one wikiproject (I'm pretty sure it was this one) decided years ago that "station" will not be capped in the names of specific stations. Why is there this bee in bonnets about capping "line" in the same context? Tony (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I oppose with some reluctance given the behaviour and manners of some of those I find myself lining up with.
For the record, I can see at least two reasons why full capitalisation would be argued for, and neither of them require the use of pejorative arguments abour self-important specialist cliques out of touch with the real world. Firstly, there is the powerful analogy of the accepted capitalisation of 'Railway': if a century ago you travelled to Barrow-in-Furness on the Furness Railway, it is by no means intuitively obvious that these days you would not take the Furness Line. Secondly, and especially if you are not a railfan, your awareness of your local rail lines will be largely down to its own publicity, that of local (and central) government, and that of groups who think a line of some importance, rather than to chatty guidebooks. Consequently your views on capitalisation will be firm and reasonably well-founded as far as real life goes, but based on sources Wikipolicy can he held to disallow as evidence on capitalisation. (If someone from a fair few time-zones away then tells you that they have "proved" that your local line was "never" capitalised in the way you are accustomed to, it is unlikely to persuade you that for thirty years you have been under a misapprehension, more likely to provoke dark thoughts abour self-important specialist cliques out of touch with the real world.)
The minimalist argument for de-capping (once all the snottiness and snittiness and bad behaviour and 'I can't believe anybody would fail to agree with me' have been stripped out) is that, whatever may go on in the outside world (and whatever the best solution would be if we were starting from scratch), this is Wikipedia; it has its own rules and style on the matter and contributions to it should be aligned to the Wikipedia house style: as with many organisations there is a right way, a wrong way, and the (insert organisation of choice) way. I think it has to be accepted that rightly or wrongly Wikipolicy is for more de-capping that some of us are happy with. That being so, further resistance is futile: not sure I welcome our new saurian overlords, though.Rjccumbria (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Surely wikipedia is supposed to be a mirror of what's out in the real world, rather than inventing it's own way naming things, that is arguably WP:OR. G-13114 (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Absolutely; the title policy at WP:AT makes that clear. As part of that, though, we have our own guidelines about what to do when usage in the real world is mixed. When caps are mixed (which is frequently the case across many subject areas), we consider caps to be unnecessary, and default to lowercase per MOS:CAPS. We can argue about the threshold and the evidence, but that's the principal, and most cases are not hard or contentious once the principal is accepted. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Time to close this discussion?

This discussion has gone on for two weeks over a week now, and we are still nowhere near reaching any form of consensus. As I'm involved, I don't want to close it myself, but I believe the following two points have been established:-

  1. Some lines should have capitals in the title, and some should be lower case. There is no consensus at present for establishing a method of determining which should apply. Therefore each line should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  2. The renaming of any railway line article will almost certainly be contentious, and therefore should not be carried out without an RM.

Would people agree with this? If so, perhaps an uninvolved admin could close this discussion. Optimist on the run (talk) 12:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should try to form some kind of proper criteria first. A week isn't a long time really. G-13114 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see anything here that needs admin help or an official close; the proposal to cap per that list is clearly not tenable, as the previous proposal to cap all lines was. Let's just work together on deciding which titles to downcase, per well-established guidelines. If the feeling is that these have to be done via week-long separate RM discussions, we can do that, but I'd prefer to have help rather than hindrance, and have railfans chip in to get it right without all that overhead and unnecessary argument. I've started with an RM here and there, and expect to do one soon on a short-list of XXX Valley Line article that look like very easy cases. Dicklyon (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Weighting of sources

Surely some sources should be given more weight than others in determining what a correct name for some something is. One bone of contention I have here is that random newspaper cutting and throwaway comments in random books, are being treated with the same weight as sources, as the organisations directly involved in the operation, ownership, or promotion of various lines. Surely the if the opinion of a rail company, promotion group, government minister etc, is that X Line is capitalised, then that opinion has far more weight in the matter of what they should be called on Wikipedia. I'm really not satisfied with the way this matter is being approached at the moment. In fact I think it is utterly absurd! G-13114 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's the exact opposite of how sources are usually weighted, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and primary sources are treated with a heavy skepticism by Wikipedia policy. The present operator of a railway line may capitalise the word 'line' for emphasis, or to convey importance, neither of which are acceptable uses of capitalisation in a reference work. We rely on secondary sources for interpretation and analysis, and entrust them to determine whether a term is a proper name or isn't, as opposed to taking primary source propaganda/marketing/jargon as gospel. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
That's simply not true. Nor would it be appropriate.
The primary function of Wikipedia is, of course, the documentation of the Batman canon (also Pwnies). That's why we can't have a category on Richard Trevithick but of course we have one on The Joker, populated by a range of articles from the totally unsourced to those rooted firmly in primary sourced fictional works. And nothing is ever going to change that.
The goal of Wikipedia that everything should be fully supported per WP:V and WP:RS is a fine ideal, but let's not kid ourselves - it isn't going to happen. I'd also be interested to hear a defence of why "fanboy sourcing" is acceptable for some articles, but others (that aren't US comics) get deleted on that basis...
Nor is it even appropriate to apply the academic sourcing standards drafted around secondary sourcing equally to all fields of knowledge. The slavish removal of self-published or primary sources (which isn't even according to policy) is a damaging mistake in some fields, when primary sources from some subject-authoritative sources is appropriate. Politics and government statistics is just one - an ONS vs. Fox News edit war is farcical, but that's what Pepe in Boise is just loving this week. This topic is another. If we buy into Network Rail's concept of "the Waverley Route", then we implicitly buy into their naming for it too. Searching for a source that is both "secondary" and "agrees with my existing stylistic prejudice" is just procrustean sophistry. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Should that not be 'Procrustean sophistry' ? The wiki-article on Procrustes capitalises 'Procrustean' throughout....
One of my concerns with @Dicklyon:'s apparent methodology is that the less a marketing description is adopted by third parties, the less merit it has a a WP article title, but the more likely (it seems to me) that methodology is to support it being fully capitalised. So we take West Coast Main Line to be fully capitalised; for Tyne (V/v)alley (L/l)ine, where the title is sensible enough to be widely adopted outside the marketing department, it is unlikely that full caps will win the day; for the same line re-branded as 'Hadrian's Wall Country Line' (as has now been done) one would hope the only secondary sources to use the phrase will be those which essentially cut-and-paste the operator's press releases, in which case full caps could easily be prevalent. So full-caps could indicate either that the title is an absolutely standard term of the trade, or that it's a spurious marketing-driven name (in which case I personally would prefer to see a staightforward geographical 'Newcastle-Carlisle (railway) line'-type title)Rjccumbria (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
We do cap trademarks (per MOS:TM), but not an "absolutely standard term of the trade" unless it is treated as a proper name in sources. I'm not sure what different strategy you are proposing. Dicklyon (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, if one steps back from viewing this merely as a style/compliance issue, my view would be that there are problems inherent in using marketing brands as article titles (some are meaningless; even the geographically descriptive ones can be false friends). A bold solution would be to use straightforward 'Newcastle-Carlisle (railway) line'-type titles as far as possible, with redirects from marketing brands (in all plausible capitalisations), and the lede containing sentences on the lines of 'As of Feb 2017 the line is known as the "Hadrian's Wall Country Line" for marketing purposes; it was formerly marketed as the "Tyne Valley Line"' so for example the Tyne Valley line article would become Newcastle-Carlisle railway line with its lede reading:

The Newcastle-Carlisle railway line , built in the 1830s by the Newcastle and Carlisle Railway, is a 60-mile (97 km) railway line in northern England. It links the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in Tyne and Wear with Carlisle in Cumbria. Formal opening took place on 18 June 1838. The line follows the course of the River Tyne through Northumberland. Five stations and two viaducts on the route are listed structures. As of Feb 2017 the line is known for marketing purposes as the "Hadrian's Wall Country Line" ; it was formerly marketed as the "Tyne Valley Line"

The requirement for case-by-case consideration and the potential for trench-by-trench fighting should be considerably reduced. Whether that approach would be less controversial than case-by-case capitalisation tweaks, I can't say but it's hard to see how it could be much worse. In real life I have frequently found a bold redraft easier to get through than a minor tweak to style or grammar (because nobody has to admit a defective grasp of style or grammar and of course the thought that the other side didn't get exactly what they wanted either is generally a great comfort). However, this is Wikipedia....Rjccumbria (talk) 15:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm supportive of moving forward any way the project wants. Generally, we have not seen anything like "trench warfare" on individual RM discussions; they have generally not been opposed much if at all, since the cases are clear. But they do waste of lot of editor attention for a trivial reason, so I agree that if you guys find a good alternative that will be better all around. Dicklyon (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Re: "Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and primary sources are treated with a heavy skepticism by Wikipedia policy. The present operator of a railway line may capitalise the word 'line' for emphasis, or to convey importance, neither of which are acceptable uses of capitalisation in a reference work. We rely on secondary sources for interpretation and analysis, and entrust them to determine whether a term is a proper name or isn't, as opposed to taking primary source propaganda/marketing/jargon as gospel." That's clearly correct in every aspect. Furthermore, when it comes to "style" matters, we do what general-audience sources do, not just what specialized ones do, because this is a general-audience work, not RailfanPedia or TrainspotterPedia.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • In response to Mr Dingley, I'd say that he seems to be speaking in terms of practicalities, whereas I was speaking in terms of principles. If such tripe is to be found somewhere, be assured that I shall either remove it or propose its destruction, in line with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the founding principles of this project. None of that has any relevance, however. Consensus on Wikipedia is rooted in our policies and guidelines. In as much as our policies and guidelines say what they say, and in as much as no good reason has been provided for why British railway articles should be specifically excepted from them, these policies and guidelines will determine our approach to these articles. If you do not like WP:SPS, or WP:NCCAPS, or WP:PRIMARY, or whatever, then propose a change to those policies. This simply isn't the venue for project-wide philosophical debate. Finally, as a matter of course, I'm quite sure that Network Rail has no concept of the 'Waverley Route', given that the two entities have had no contemporaneous existence. I'm as sad as anyone else about the horrid name 'Borders Railway' for the revived piece of line, but that's how it is. 'Borders Railway' is a good example of the type of name for a railway line that takes capitalisation, by the way. RGloucester — ☎ 01:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    Why, because it's 80% caps in books and 90% caps in news? OK, right, it's a good example; that's consistent enough, not something an MOS supporter would ever argue against. Actually, that's the case with most XXX Railway, quite unlike most XXX line (because the Railways are companies? sometimes?). Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
"That's the exact opposite of how sources are usually weighted, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and primary sources are treated with a heavy skepticism by Wikipedia policy. The present operator of a railway line may capitalise the word 'line' for emphasis, or to convey importance,".............. We accept that the name a company chooses for itself say for example Sinclair Research is its correct name, we also accept that the name that a company give their products, say ZX Spectrum are the correct forms of the name. So it hardly seems like a wildly radical proposal, that the bodies who are concerned with owning and operating various lines, should be the ones who decide the correct form of their name, since they are in effect their 'products'. The motives they might have for using a particular form of a name are irrelevant. If another source gives a different form, then that source should be regarded as incorrect. G-13114 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
That's not true. We use a company's common name, as found in reliable secondary sources. See WP:NCCORP. The common and official names of companies often differ. The examples you provded are merely examples where the common name aligns with what the company uses, but that is not always the case. In the case of trademarks (i.e. products), please see MOS:CAMELCASE, which says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one". It gives "Time" (the magazine) as an example, rather than the official "TIME". Wikipedia never blindly follows what is official; it always relies on secondary sources to determine what is and isn't appropriate in terms of article naming. By the way, the 'motives' behind using a particular name are indeed relevant. Wikipedia must be neutral. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

DFT community rail lines documents

Talking of the above, I've found these documents from the Department for Transport for community railway lines. Each and every one of them consistently uses capitalisation in the title and the text. Is this not further evidence of the official (and thus correct) usage as names:

Does this not provide clear evidence that these line with the capitalised L are the recognised names? G-13114 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It provides evidence that the capitalised version is the house style used by that part of the British government. This is of no consequence, as the Briish government are not the governing authority for Wikipedia's Manual of Style. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
You're kind of missing the point; this is strong evidence that these are recognised officially as proper names. I would say the UK government is a pretty authoritative source when it comes to this. G-13114 (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Right; we're also not going to adopt their style of using a mix of spaced hyphen and spaced en dash in things like Tonbridge – Strood, Tonbridge - Strood. Per MOS, we would use Tonbridge–Strood. Dicklyon (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the doc for the Avocet line, I find "Avocet Line Community Rail Forum" and "Avocet Line Rail User Group", but no reference to the line as "Avocet Line" capped; similarly with the Bishop line and Bittern line. Buxton line appears lowercased in the doc. I didn't get past B, but there's slim evidence that this list is in any way useful. Dicklyon (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Move discussions in progress

There are now quite a few single-article move discussions in progress, and one small group discussion, about railway line names. If you don't want the new names to be determined mostly by me and SMcCandlish, please offer your opinions. The easiest way to find them all is to search for Dicklyon at WP:RM (or does the project have some place an automatic way to find project-related RM discussions?). Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

To keep things centralised, you should also list the lines here as you nominate them. Useddenim (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, copying from Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Current_discussions, newest first as there, though I don't think this manual approach is reliable or sustainable. Who knows how to set up the automatic listing of project-related moves? Dicklyon (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
[ obsolete list removed ] – Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
(i) Put Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts on your watchlist; (ii) Make sure the articles' talk pages all have {{WikiProject Trains}} (this should have |UK=yes too, but its omission won't affect Article alerts}; (iii) wait until about 09:15-09:30 (UK time) and see what's new at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Just check Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#RM to see the latest. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
?? I thought I said that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I just thought it would be more clear if made simple, rather than part of step iii as in your complicated note. Dicklyon (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_38&oldid=1088883899"