Talk:Woodhead line

Router

I have transcluded the Manchester Sheffield Wath router- to put the line in context- till a better one is drawn.ClemRutter (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC) (Manchester emigré)

Heathrow HSL?

very recently this addition was made to the article. By any chance can anyone provide a source? I'd be very interested if this is indeed the case, but it is not something I have seen or heard anything about. A note to this effect was left on the editor's own talk page L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Here: http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/. Interesting stuff, but sadly not proposed by anybody capable of building it, funding it, or taking the decisions to make it happen. --VinceBowdren (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the paragraph until the day we see a British Rail Class 373 topping 180mph over Dinting arches.ClemRutter (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Page move

Surely Woodhead Line with a capital 'L' is the official name of this line, rather than descriptive. A quick search would appear to confirm this. So I don't see how this move is justified. G-13114 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. However this was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'. Having gone nowhere and been archived without consensus, this has now been taken as a reason to impose the usual WP bureaucratic hatred of capitalisation, no matter how the subject is generally handled. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were a fishing line, it would be line, though probably by tomorrow a fishing-line and that evening a fishingline. So what is the procedure to have this error reverted? Is there a procedure where we can request a reversion with grovelling apology? Just so we can draw a line under it. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed this section after I open the requested move below to move to back to lowercase after my "case norm" fix got reverted. G-13114, if you look at your web search, you'll see that a lot of those caps are from Wikipedia clones and other wikis, and some are in the name of a campaign. It's hard not be polluted by such things in web search, especially since Google tends to rank things higher when they look like proper names, and tends to choose headings, titles, and otherwise capitalized bit for snippets. A book search or news search is often a better way to see how reliable sources treat the term. See my links in the RM discussion and see if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 17 December 2016

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: moved. WP:NCCAPS is very clear on the matter of what a 'proper name' is. If reliable sources nearly always used 'Woodhead Line' with that capitalisation, then we'd use that. Given, however, that a large breadth of evidence has been provided that shows that the word 'line', when attached to 'Woodhead', is very frequently not capitalised in reliable sources, we cannot presume that 'line' is anything other than a descriptive appendage that should not take capitalisation on Wikipedia. Those opposed to the move made arguments without roots in Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and for this reason, they simply have not been able to make a case for retaining capitalisation that our policies and guidelines clearly say is unnecessary. For this reason, I find that there is a consensus to move this article to Woodhead line. If editors are in fundamental disagreement with our policies and guidelines on this matter, they should challenge them in the appropriate forum. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Woodhead Line → Woodhead line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS – not a proper name, as a glance at book and news sources will attest. Dicklyon (talk) 02:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support as nom – and I apologize for my recent move without discussion; I had forgotten that this was one I had moved before, and hadn't noticed that that move had been reverted; so a discussion is in order. I think it should be clear from books that this line name is not treated as a proper name, or at least not except by a few recent sources (the link shows no caps in twentieth-century books; very recent books are often taking their cue from Wikipedia, or simply cloning it, so check carefully). Similarly current news is mixed, with caps in such things as "the Re-open the Woodhead Line campaign" but majority lowercase otherwise. Certainly not near the usual threshold of "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 02:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• is there a railways project MOS? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Yes, and there was no consensus for these moves there either. See comment above. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Where might this project MOS be found? Dicklyon (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  There may be a wikiproject advice essay on the idea somewhere, but there is no MoS guideline on this. Per WP:CONLEVEL policy, wikiprojects cannot make up their own "the rules don't apply to us because we're special and different" anti-rules against site-wide policies and guidelines, like MOS:CAPS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Dunford Bridge; Trackbed of the former Woodhead Line

• Oppose While reeling from the total stupidity of the suggestion to change from the lines official name, lets try to explain where the confusion lies. I travelled on the Woodhead Line as a boy, and as a walker I have walked the former track bet and as a Wikipedian used the remnants od the line from Hadfield to attend Wikimeetups in Manchester. As walkers we tried to preserve the Woodhead line,(sic) so it can eventually be reopened, and opposed planning applications that would block and close the trackbed. So Trans-Pennine Woodhead rail tunnels not to reopen gives a clear which is why you can Google both. We have the nuance that the track bed, the Woodhead line route supported the Woodhead Line sevice. We have journos abbreviating Woodhead rail line to Woodhead line this also distorts Google. Can you either walk the route, or read the references to understand the distinction, and stop this edit-warring on this article. This article is now protected until March. ClemRutter (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  I looked at the references as you suggest, but so far just the ones that accessible online from the links given. ALL of them use LOWERCASE. Which other refs should I seek out and read to see what you're talking about? I don't think walking the line is going to inform the discussion, really, but I'd love to do it. Dicklyon (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose One would think that on the third time of trying to rename this, DickLyon would have got the point by now.
  Some lines are known by their name. This name is treated as a proper noun phrase and so is capitalised. This is one of such. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Your claim "This name is treated as a proper noun phrase and so is capitalised" is contradicted by sources. Where are you getting this? Dicklyon (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  What part of my post above did you not understand? Could you post a list of other railway articles you have 'corrected' so we can sort them out too. ClemRutter (talk) 17:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  I don't understand the claim that either walking the line or reading the references lends any support to the proper name interpretation. Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Some of us have lived with this as a live news story for 52 years, and are very familiar with the back story. Come do a site visit, so you can assess the situation- talk to us about it, tell us exactly why you think that the word line Woodhead Line is not part of the proper noun, look at the notes I have provided above- don't just Google the page name but examine each article, and look at the context: there are three things that you need to look for, is it a journalistic typo (of which there are many) , the title of the line or bring used in the context of the line to Woodhead. Do try and visit some lovely countryside. (visitors arrived more later)--ClemRutter (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Can you recommend a few sources, via URLs? I'm still not sure what you're seeing that makes you interpret this as a proper name; or even as an "official name", whatever that means. Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - All these page moves need to be reverted. The fightback starts here. Lamberhurst (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:CAPS and innumerable previous RMs on overcapitalisation in mass transit topics. The desire to capitalise this is based on signage, which is typically in Sentence Case Like This (when not ALL CAPS) regardless what the subject of the sign is. Wikipedia is written in encyclopedia style not limners' and advertisers' style. Capitalising "Woodhead Line" is no different from writing "Ford Mustang Sports Car" or "Boeing 747 Aircraft"; it's not proper English. The reliable sources clearly use variable style. When in doubt about capitalisation (i.e., when sources are not overwhelmingly consistent in capitalising) MOS:CAPS defaults to lower case, as does the Chicago Manual of Style and other major style guides on which it is based. See also WP:SSF and WP:COMMONSTYLE for more detailed explanations why WP does not use excessive capitalisation schemes and other style quirks that can be found in specialist or regional publications, and why whether one style or another is a bit more common in sources is not relevant. While there is a clearly a WP rule to down-case when sources aren't consistent, there is no countervailing one to follow either the style favored by aficionados or the most common one in other kinds of publishing (this is an encyclopedia, with its own house style like every other major multi-author publication, and it is based on the styles favored in academic publishing). So that's essentially three policy rationales in favor of lower case versus zero against.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Or "Great Western Railway". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Company names, such as Great Western Railway, are always treated as proper names; let us know if Woodhead Line was a company; it appears not, from what the article says. Dicklyon (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Thank @SMcCandlish: For taking an interest, there is no disagreement here about wikipedia policy, solely what we are talking about: the legal entity and geographic entity the is the Woodhead Line. MOS:GEOUNITS (Institutions) gives categories of permitted use for Institutions and Geographical entities. The Woodhead Line is a clear geographical identity- it has a starting point, and finishing point, it is 41.5 miles long and has a defined width. The Panama Canal is 48 miles long. The Panama Canal is follows the MOS:GEOUNITS ruling and capitalises the second noun. Equally both are institutions (or legal entities in language I use), so for two reasons Line must be capitalised in this case. It was the Woodhead Line when it closed to traffic, and if some have their way it will be the Woodhead Line when it is restored.ClemRutter (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  No source that I've seen capitalized it before it was closed. Do you have something to share? Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Right. There's also no evidence of any such legal entity constituting the line itself (this article is not an article on the pressure group with an overlapping name; they've simply been mentioned). A legal entity means a person, company, corporation, legal partnership, or other entity with legal standing to act on its own behalf. ClemRutter seems to be confusing legal entity and property. No one disputes that the Woodhead line (in the sense of the tracks and the train service that ran on them, through land owned by others unless the strip of land for the trackway was also legally the real property of the track owner – how that is handled varies from place to place) has been the property of various parties over the years. My cat Ramsey is legally my property, but that doesn't make him Ramsey the Cat versus Ramsey the cat. At some point, most style matters are arbitrary or reach a point of arbitrariness. There's a general consensus among English writers that essentially permanent public works given evocative, honorary, numeric, or otherwise not-simply-descriptive names are treated as proper nouns (Golden Gate Bridge, Holland Tunnel, Grand Central Station, Interstate 80). Those that have purely descriptive ones are not (Fruitvale station, the station in Fruitvale; Whoville–Lilliput tunnel, an unnamed tunnel between Whoville and Lilliput; etc.). In theory, WP could adopt a a similarly fairly arbitrary convention to treat all public works as proper names no matter what, but this would conflict with re-world usage and with most style guides that our own is based on. There doesn't seem to be any rationale for doing so other than "train fans would like it that way".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  Good evening. You have a lot of experiences in these matters, and the topic does appear to be causing some confusion. We may have hit a case of British English v US English. Can we focus on MOS:GEOUNITS and stick to real examples, can you explain Panama Canal or even New York City?

  You criticised me for using the term legal entity which to me is perfectly clear- the wlink goes to a redirect to legal personality which is far from clear and nowhere near what I was referring to. The Woodhead Line was the railway that was closed, it followed the Woodhead route over Woodhead, disappearing into the Woodhead Tunnel. Many moons earlier that railway had been built by the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire Railway after multiple reorganisations, rationalisations and nationalisation, the bit we are talking about was called the Woodhead Line. There are so many reasons why alternative forms can be used as I have explained elsewhere- I am surprised that Google has found so many. Look at Yahoo Woodhead Line for another story. I don't think it is helpful to use fantasy examples in your reasoning- and would find it helpful if you referred to UK examples so we can dismiss the distraction of differing language codes. Personally, I don't do railways, (I don't possess the reference books) I cannot recollect editing this article but do know the area, and did a lot on the Longdendale chain of reservoirs Woodhead Reservoir etc. You say "At some point, most style matters are arbitrary.." that's fine, but we are sure of the real world usage, and don't have to rely on a third-party search engines to do opinion polls to create a theory.

  When this exercise is over and we end up with 'no consensus', or another result- there is work to be done on that MOS page, to give clear examples of UK railway lines and why. It is wrong that respected editor should have to spend time on unnecessary disputes such as this. Also there are other references in related pages that need to be changed to ensure the spelling is consistent. ClemRutter (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

  It's pretty easy to explain Panama Canal and New York City by looking at sources; take books: [1], and [2]. Try that with various lines and see what you find. Dicklyon (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  @Dicklyon: Thanks for the fascination tool-I ran a quick test, typing in Glossop Line and Woodhead Line but it gave a zero response meassage each time. Is there something else I should be doing? It worked for the Kiel Canal, Manchester Ship Canal which are little closer to home. The results you get for all are what we all expect. The question remains- MOS:GEOUNITS defines the MOS policy, and the examples given follow that policy. What is different, policy wise about spelling the title of the Woodhead Line and the Glossop Line from the spelling of the Kiel Canal or the Panama Canal? ClemRutter (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  Those bigrams are not frequent in books to show up in the stats. You can see what follows Glossop more commonly this way. And similarly for Woodhead. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  These bigrams continue to fascinate me, but I can't say they are helpful here. I see you have changed quite a few UK railway articles so I ask myself why. Is is possibly true that in the states you don't have official name for sections of a railway track. In Uk English these are called Xxxx Line, and they became of critical interest during the period of the Beeching cuts that devastated out rail network. For years the closure of individual lines was discussed by everyone, over the dinner table. (and here the word line means sections of track between two junctions). The UK rail system is remarkably complex and we do need individual names for sections of track. The Beeching cuts article shows the name of many lines, and their proper names. It really is not productive to start hunting for the name of one line- the whole issue needs to be addressed together there is no difference between a line that contains a settlement name and one that doesn't. When we have got an agreed form of words we need to add additional examples to MOS:GEOUNITS to close this trap. --ClemRutter (talk) 16:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

  Sure we have named lines; some even capitalized, if that's how sources treat them. Do you have sources to show that the Woodhead line is treated as a proper name? It's pretty clear that most sources do not, until the last decade or so (long after the demise of the line), and that many of those recent caps are copied from the Wikipedia title. Dicklyon (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose In this content, the word 'line' is a noun because the word is part of the name/title. Therefore the title of this article should be Woodhead Line. (Rillington (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC))

  The German language capitalizes nouns; English does not. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Maybe so but in this context the word 'line' is part of the title and should start with a capital letter.(Rillington (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

• Oppose I think there's enough evidence to suggest that the capitalised 'Woodhead Line' forms a recognised official name rather than a descriptor. See this BBC report or Re-open the Woodhead Line campaign for example. G-13114 (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  "Re-open the Woodhead Line" is capitalized because it is the proper name of an organization; not relevant. That BBC article is quite odd, as most sources treat "Woodhead Tunnel" as a proper name, as we do, and not "Woodhead line"; the BBC turns these around; I wonder why; but it's in a distinct minority, so we have no need to follow it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Irrespective of the example given, as you say, Woodhead Line is part of the official name, or title, of the line and should therefore be in capitals.(Rillington (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC))

• Support per nom. The BBC may use caps, but plenty of other reliable sources don't: [3] [4] [5]. Calidum 21:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

  Comment: Reference [1]- Telegraph (paper-reliable source), sub-editor missed this one, but no, read the sentence again, and this does not refer to the Woodhead Line, but the Woodhead route (line) between Manchester and Sheffield. Reference [2]. Sheffield Star- a local tabloid that should be notable. It had 3 references to Woodhead, the first is inserted by the sub-editor, the second is correct, the third refers to the ' Woodhead line and route and line to Skipton'- which is hardly the same. Reference 3.- doesn't mention the 'Woodhead Line', or 'Woodhead line'- the two references are to the Woodhead rail line which is correct. It is essential to read the articles before accepting the Google result. The fact remains that consensus is useful when the official name is not known, but consensus should not be used subvert MOS:GEOUNITS-policy. The official name is known. ClemRutter (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  Interesting to note that the Manchester Evening News article contains several factual errors, such as stating that the second tunnel opened in 1852 (it opened in 1853) and stating that the line closed in 1980 (it closed in 1981) so I'm not sure that can be regarded as a reliable source. G-13114 (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

  What are you saying? Still no refs to a pre-21st century source that includes "Woodhead Line"? Checking 19th-century books, I find not even "Woodhead line", but "line through the Woodhead tunnel" and things like that. Later I find "came to be known as the Woodhead line"; doesn't sound very official or anything. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support—per Callidan and SMcCandlish. The evidence has been presented that usage contains significant proportion of lowercase; that is enough to invoke MOSCAPS. There really is no argument. Those who cling to the title case they find in signage and book, chapter, and article headings should think more deeply about modern style, and in particular WP's house style. Tony (talk) 02:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Apart from the pressure group (which should have the capital "L"), a quick non-scientific Google search gives as many hits for "Woodhead route" as "Woodhead line", with or without the capital. (In fact, the second non-Wikipedia result I get for "Woodhead line" (here) actually calls it the "Woodhead route", although other people will get different results). Tevildo (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
• OpposeNeutral for now per ClemRutter and others above. Have been following this RM, and because of it have done edit runs on many pages. Is the confusion here that, as ClemRutter says, this is a portion and not the entire route? This line seems to be an iconic item for model railway hobbyists, and for that reason and others, renaming it on Wikipedia may lessen the accuracy of the site and thus impact, if only slightly, Wikipedia's reputation as a trusted source. Randy Kryn 13:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If there's anything to that theory, why hasn't anyone shown sources that support it in some way? Where is this "accuracy" you imagine that suggests capitalizing Line? Not in sources that I can find. And if there is a proper-named portion, that's not what the article is about; it's about "a railway line linking Sheffield, Penistone and Manchester in the north of England."Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Will see what ClemRutter and other train enthusiasts reply with. Why are there no n-grams for either name? Are there sources for this in hobbyist magazines, conventions, products, etc.? Randy Kryn 11:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't do train articles- I do do Longdendale. The only trains I am enthusiastic about are the HS1, and occasionally the Glossop Line which take me to a Wetherspoons for a Wikimeetup! Do come and join us. I do get irritated about editors spending 10 years on an article and reaching consensus all that time, being told that the policy they have being following in this case, MOS:GEOUNITS, does not apply but with out a reason being given. It wastes so much time following up all these beautiful forensic programme, which if they gave a result would illustrate the vast number of alternative usages of two adjacent word. But when we have an incident of non-consensus, we should depersonalise, put emotions aside and try and understand the truth, and reject previous assumptions and listen carefully to all arguments.

As I see it this part of the Manchester, Sheffield and Lincolnshire railway; it is the section from Dinting Junction to a junction near Sheffield. It was only called the Woodhead Line for a brief period describing a section of the track. It became the official name for the section of the track when closure was in the offing. It was a proper noun, it was spelled the same way that the Suez Canal was. MOS:GEOUNITS. (It was used in the same way as the Mid-Cheshire Line was. This has recently been mis-named,← though the route template remains correct.) Obviously all the alternaive contexts are picked up in the forensics, The hobby community like this line- as it has some interesting characteristics, 1 in 201 gradient allowing steam engines to run at 60mph through a tight tunnel is impressive to them. Most of the time when this line appears in Hansard- it was referred to as the Woodhead Route, Woodhead route and Woodhead Tunnels, we have to decide what is the appropriate title to give the article- so we are looking for a title, not its usage in any other context. Tricky. If you look at the Commons:Category:Trains_on_the_Woodhead_Line individual images have descriptions describing the history, they are interesting referenced essays. Like many others I have been using the Woodhead Line spelling since school days- and if later a child had written Woodhead line, I would have thought twice about the context, and if I was certain she/he was attempting to use a proper-noun then I would have corrected him/her. Wikipedia explains proper nouns in MOS:GEOUNITS. ClemRutter (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your long explanations on this page, and for your work on Wikipedia. Do you think that a better name for the page would be 'Woodhead route' with 'Woodhead Line' (uppercased) as both an alternate title and given its own section? I was surprised the n-grams showed no results for either upper or lower-cased. The tunnel sounds interesting, and maybe it could be reopened for walking tours, as some do with caves. Randy Kryn 16:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object if people prefer "route", since it seems to be more common, but I think "line" is the usual convention for such articles. In any case, it will be a descriptive title, not a proper name, since sources don't support the idea that there's a proper name for this line/route. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Summary of arguments

In favor of capitalized "Line"

• ClemRutter: "the Woodhead line route supported the Woodhead Line sevice". No reply to request for support in sources. Says MOS:GEOUNITS is the relevant style guideline, and cites Panama Canal as a possible precedent.
• Andy Dingley: "Some lines are known by their name. This name is treated as a proper noun phrase and so is capitalised." No reply to request for support in sources.
• Lamberhurst: "The fightback starts here."
• Rillington: "the word 'line' is a noun because the word is part of the name/title. Therefore the title of this article should be Woodhead Line." as if this is German.
• G-13114: "there's enough evidence to suggest that the capitalised 'Woodhead Line' forms a recognised official name rather than a descriptor." citing one BBC article.

In favor of moving to lowercase "line"

• Dicklyon: provided links to book and news searches showing large quantities of lowercase; including all 20th century sources; and pointed out that "Woodhead line" does not appear in any 19th century sources (during the first 55 years of operation). And that caps appear only long after the line was shut down.
• SMcCandlish: "per MOS:CAPS and innumerable previous RMs on overcapitalisation in mass transit topics" and "... essentially three policy rationales in favor of lower case versus zero against".
• Calidum: "per nom. The BBC may use caps, but plenty of other reliable sources don't."
• Tony1: "evidence has been presented that usage contains significant proportion of lowercase; that is enough to invoke MOSCAPS."
• Tevildo: "a quick non-scientific Google search gives as many hits for "Woodhead route" as "Woodhead line", with or without the capital" [the point being that it's descriptive and there is no standard or official name]

Neutral

• Randy Kryn: Lots of ideas, no hard opinion; suggests "route" may be more acceptable than "line".

Summary by me. Dicklyon (talk) 18:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems pretty fair- You could add that I use MOS:GEOUNITS as the relevant MOS section, and quote Suez Canal as a possible precedent. It is true that I have found no convincing arguments on-line and do not possess the printed sources. The push to apply MOSCAPS as if MOS:GEOUNITS hadn't be written is interesting and we must resume this discussion in the new year, with a wider audience to ensure consistency in the titles and content of, all the lines, branch lines, routes and railways affected by the Beeching cuts, and then cross-wiki consistency. Yet again however we are finding we are doing a better job that many sources- and I am thinking especially of broadsheets, broadcast media and the Parliamentary record, Hansard! ClemRutter (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and I just added your MOS:GEOUNITS and Panama Canal to the summary. Panama Canal is not really relevant to the question, however, as it's very clearly consistently capitalized in sources such as books and news, unlike the Woodhead line. Dicklyon (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2016 (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.

Procedure and what we have learned

• The consultation has finished and there is still no consensus. So we check back on the capitalisation when the article moved from a stub to a start. It as been consistently uc so no move is in order. So the lower-cap title remains a redirect?
• Hunting through numerous on line sources we find total confusion, and a lot of effort is needed in getting access to notable sources. The on-line souces uses lc and uc versions in the same article, and even within the same paragraph. I haven't yet found one on-line source that is not internally contradictive.
• The issue is important as we need to sort out a consistent approach for all the post Beeching cuts articles. The actually Beeching Report gives tabular lists of all the lines affected but never once does it use the word Line or line, which is always presumed. In text it uses 'route'.
• The issue needs a far wider discussion, taking in the guys who have contributed to other affected lines. (sic)
• Clearer instructions need to be provided on the MOS paragraphs quoted.

The article is protected so we can all take a break now- and reflect, gather information and propose a solution that can be universally applied. Greetings to all. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The most modern line that we cover is the Ordsall Chord- which is backed up by references and documentation. Using current spelling, Ordsall Chord uses the uc solution that we display on the Woodhead route- and it occurs a lot in the news because it is about to be built- Woodhead went down in 1973? so apart from the Friends of the Woodhead Line, there is nothing to say currently.--ClemRutter (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not that complicated. Orsdall Chord is alway capitalized in sources; e.g. books and news. Most lines are not. MOS:CAPS is simple enough to apply. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, I don't see any consensus in favour of this being moved. Can someone explain why this move has occured? G-13114 (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the request, and have found a consensus to move the article. See my closing statement. RGloucester — ☎ 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

That hasn't answered anything. How is five in favour and five against with one neutral constitute a consensus about anything? G-13114 (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

You can always take it to the next level. I think the consensus was probably correct in that there were almost no sources, and, interestingly, no old n-grams for any case variation of 'Woodhead Line'. Consensus on Wikipedia doesn't consist of counting votes, although real consensus elsewhere means coming to a solution that everyone agrees on, but of the closer supposedly reading all of the discussion, looking at the links provided, and wrapping their heads around the whole ball of wax and "seeing" it, then making a decision. I've seen many closers come to a huge well-discussed and argued RM page, often about major and important articles, and close it, their comments included, in under a minute (those closers should, in my opinion, be barred from closing). RGloucester seems to have taken the time to understand this page and worked out a fair close. By the way, given the timing: Merry Christmas! Randy Kryn 14:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

As Mr Kryn has said, consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by how many people are supporting a particular side, but on the support of their arguments in Wikipedia. policies and guidelines. You can read more about this at WP:CONSENSUS. Essentially, those opposed to the move did not engage with policy or guidelines at all, and for that reasons, were not able to make a case against Dicklyon's argument based in WP:NCCAPS. I can understand that, for those unfamiliar, Wikipedia 'consensus' can be a rather confusing animal, but the essential thing to remember is that one's opinion in discussions such as these should always be rooted in policy. If it isn't, it isn't likely to mean very much. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

And the point of the argument summary was to make it clear to anyone who looked that there were no actual arguments in favor of caps; just unsupported claims, opinions, and feelings. There is a broad consensus on wikipedia to follow guidelines including those in the MOS about reserving caps for proper names, and somewhat of an understanding of how the determination of proper name status should be based on evidence in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would add that sources also matter (and depending on the discussion can matter more), but RGloucester's close obviously took that into account even if this followup discussion has not. BTW, I would like to observe that WP:ANI has basically been canvassed to come here and re-litigate this [6]. That's not what ANI is for or what this talk page is for; such discussions belong at WP:MR.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: You got an edit conflict more than two weeks after the last edit? You must have a very slow connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Need to modify that template to have an option to do/say something else. I just use it as a "this is someone new posting" marker when I'm posting at the same indent level as the last poster, since otherwise my post looks like a continuation of theirs. :-) Or maybe I really, really, really badly needed coffee and was operating at 2% efficiency.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)