Talk:Cambrian Line

Line Map

I've added a few details to the map, ie roads, rivers etc and will continue. Please message me if you have a problem with this as for a rural line the major road crossings, I feel are quite important. --Fuelboy 20:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What about Black Rock station?

My 1974-vintage First Series 1:50,000 Ordnance Survey map of Dolgellau marks a BLACK ROCK STA a couple of miles east of Criccieth. This is not mentioned in the line diagram on this page; what was this station? 86.143.54.43 17:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, never mind - it was Black Rock railway station. For some reason the page didn't come up the first time I tried that; maybe I'd mistyped the name. 86.143.54.43 17:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Line Upgrade

The section Cambrian Line#Line upgrade could do with some refs. There's definitely something in The Railway Magazine for June 2011, but I've lent my copy out for a few days. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the replacement of Pont Briwet is unlikely to be complete before autumn 2014, so I have updated the ETA the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.152.218 (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambrian Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325133205/http://www.signalling-train-control.com/upload/pages/Day11130_Peter_Leppard.pdf to http://www.signalling-train-control.com/upload/pages/Day11130_Peter_Leppard.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107054004/http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/timetable-08/Arriva%20Dec%2008%20-%20May%202009%20Draft%20Timetable%20Major%20Changes%20Poster%20-%20Dec%202008_3.pdf to http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/timetable-08/Arriva%20Dec%2008%20-%20May%202009%20Draft%20Timetable%20Major%20Changes%20Poster%20-%20Dec%202008_3.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070129103242/http://sarpa.info:80/articles.html to http://sarpa.info/articles.html#newsletter1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as a procedural action. All queried RM/TR requests should be reverted because they clearly weren't uncontroversial, that is the whole point of the process. Then once it's reverted the user who wanted it moved in the first place can start a full RM if they want. Obviously there is no prejudice against a new RM here. Jenks24 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Cambrian line → Cambrian Line – Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Optimist on the run: Queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
• I believe the move of Cambrian Line to Cambrian line should be reverted, for the following reasons:

1. The move request was made out of process, as there was no suggestion made on the article's talk page that a move was being discussed. User:Dicklyon has stated in another case that he believes it was unnecessary, as any page watchers would be "rail fans" who would be watching WT:UKT. I do not believe this is the case - the article is also part of WP:WikiProject Wales (where it is of higher importance than WP:WikiProject UK Railways), and therefore there may be users who are interested in Wales but not railways watching the article.
2. Although Dicklyon states that the move was discussed at WT:UKT#Clearly just descriptive – downcase line, the section reads to me a list of lines he believes should be moved, not a discussion.
3. A quick check of Google indicates that the top results have caps (either as Cambrian Line or Cambrain Coast Line): ([1], [2], [3]).

(Copied from User talk:Anthony Appleyard‎). -- Optimist on the run (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Requested move 4 March 2017

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

Not moved. There is a clear absences of consensus for a move. The current title is not inherently wrong, per the usage readily found in a Google Books search, including references in government documents (e.g., Parliament, House of Commons, Welsh Affairs Committee, Cross-border provision of public services for Wales (2010), p. 103: "Your report raised a number of concerns, shared by RMT, with regard to performance on the Cambrian Line"); therefore, a clear consensus should be required to affect the stylistic change sought. No such consensus is apparent in a discussion which has basically led to a stalemate after a full month. bd2412 T 11:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Cambrian Line → Cambrian line – Not a proper name; previous move that was thought to be uncontroversial was reverted by the procedural RM above, so let's discuss whether sources support treatment of this as a proper name or not. Dicklyon (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Evidence in sources

• Books – only 6 of first 20 capped Line.
• News – more than 2:1 for lowercase line.
• Refs: you have to go as far as ref 10 to find one that capitalizes Line in either Cambrian line or Cambrian Coast line (ref 19 has lowercase line for that)

Survey

• Support as nom – since sources don't come close to consistently capping it, we don't treat it as a proper name, per MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT. Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose, again, for reasons as above. Please drop the wp:stick.Optimist on the run (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  "Same reasons as above" mostly relies on "a quick check of Google". But a more careful search shows that few reliable sources capitalize it in sentence context. In particular, of the 3 sample pages you link ([4], [5], [6]), one is promotional for the "Cambrian Lines" and makes no suggestion that "Cambrian Line" is a proper name (since it never uses that term). One uses the name "Cambrian Coast railway" (and capped Cambrian Coast Railway Line in title, not in text), and one is a page for the music label, noting "Music is made of memories and Cambrian Line is all about fusing those early memories of Jazz, Dub and Disco inspired melodies and instrumentation with groove and space." No evidence at all that Cambrian Line is treated as a proper name. And where it is, in a few other pages, it's mostly the site promoting it; we should go by what secondary sources call it, and not promote it to proper name status just because its promoters do. Dicklyon (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Re the alleged "stick", this RM discussion is the third leg of a WP:BRD; I boldly moved it (after my proposal to do so, on the project page, was unopposed for a week); you had it reverted; now we discuss. Is that OK? Dicklyon (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Opposition to proposal before typo corrections
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Snow close as misformed (and support a TBAN) Rename it to itself? Are you just trying to waste other peoples' time? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC) I don't think that it the case since reading the rational makes it clear that they wanted Line moved to line.--64.229.167.158 (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Right; sorry. Fixed to indicate lowercase line in new title. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC) Oppose "Cambrian oline" is meaningless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC) OK, yes, I deserve a firm trouting for the typo in part of my typo fix. Re-fixed -- I hope. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC) @Andy Dingley and Redrose64: I'm hatting your opposition to the typo; please feel free to enter another !vote on downcasing Line. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support corrected version. Tony (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Despite already having my opposition "hatted" by the nominator. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  I thought you might want a chance to address the actual proposal, rather than the rename to itself. So, no reason, just oppose? Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's getting to that stage. I think "Oppose because of Dicklyon" (ie a TBAN) is a serious possibility as a solution to all this mess.

It is impossible to deal rationally, per Stephenson's Law (of Internet Argument). You will do anything to push changes through, simply because you have a compulsion to change things. When other editors waste their own time refuting your claims, you simply start up again in another location, hoping to get the change through eventually by the same strategy as a spawning jellyfish and its myriad polyps. And for extra time-wasting value, you don't even request comprehensible moves, you litter them with typos. Yet if other editors had agreed to "rename article to itself under the same spelling", I bet you would have then adopted that as a Trumpesque show of massive support for you, and quietly fixed your typo before proceeding.

Cambrian Line has been discussed extensively and previously elsewhere. But now you just started it all over again. Time for a TBAN, for the sanity of the rest of us. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If it has been discussed before, that would be good for us to review. If someone has refuted my claim that this is usually Cambrian line, with lowercase line, in sources, please show where. I'm not finding it; just unsupported assertions of "proper name" and the flaky attempts at capped examples from Optimist on the run that I discuss above. Not sure what's making you want to attack me about this attempt to follow our normal guidelines and reserve caps for proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If you still cannot see how disruptive your repeated efforts are seen as by other editors, then it really is time for that TBAN. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, please stop your incessant badgering of anyone who has a different opinion to you. It is really getting very tiresome. We have repeatedly stated that line titles such as this are proper names, and yet you choose to ignore us and describe anything that doesn't suit your purpose as flaky, or similar. I don't think a TBAN is required - yet - but if you cannot accept that other editors have differing opinions you may find you are heading towards one. Optimist on the run (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Who's badgering whom? My impression was that on the project page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Uncertain – discuss individually)we agreed that this one needed to be discussed (after previously having no opposition to just moving it, which we did and then reverted), and now Andy is claiming it has been discussed already? And he's referring to some "repeated efforts" of mine; what is that referring to? The fact that I agreed to discuss? Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I find that Andy did express a reason before, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Cambrian Line, where he said:

Capitalise to Cambrian Line (also Cambrian Coast Line and Heart of Wales Line) as proper noun phrases, per sources. Also this is not one of the form "Far Twittering to Oysterperch line", a simple geographical descriptor, it is a name invented specifically to name the line, not merely to describe a route - and such will tend to be proper noun phrases, thus capitalised, just as the simple descriptors will tend to be uncapitalised. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

And that's why we are here to discuss. If there's evidence that Cambrian Line "will tend to be proper noun phrases, thus capitalised" in sources, some links to such sources would be appropriate. Optimist's attempt to show such sources (see above) was a fail. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - It is the title of a historic route. Network Rail who own and maintain the infrastucture refer to it as Cambrian Line and so do those of us who use it. See [7] Network Rail - Wales Route  Willsmith3  _(Talk) 23:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for finding one doc that caps it – that's more than the other opposers could do. But the "official" or "promotional" name by those who promote the line is not representative of how reliable secondary sources refer to this line, which is as "the Cambrian line". Dicklyon (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:CAPS, WP:NCCAPS, and the various recent RfCs and mass-RMs concluding in the same direction. The single source that can be found capitalising this is also capitalising everything else in it that's a noun that pertains to the services they offer. This is just more "Capitalisation For Emphasis and Marketing", and it's against our guidelines. Show me a trademark registration, and I'll change my position on this. I don't even see any ™ or ® ever being used with this phrase, so it is extremely dubious this is a trademark. "Railfans like to capitalise this" isn't a rationale; specialists writing for other specialists, of all sorts on any subject, have A Strong Tendency To Capitalise Anything Mutually Special To Them, and it is not an encyclopedic writing style for a general audience; see WP:SSF for details.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. No, it's not just Capitalisation For Emphasis and Marketing, it's capitalisation for clarity. This is a specific line by that name, not just any line associated with the Cambrian Mountains or Cambrian Coast, and that's exactly what the capital letter marks in English grammar. Wikipedia's aversion to using capital letters in this way goes back to Larry Sanger's first draft of WP:AT, where he clearly labelled it as merely his personal preference, and has been perpetuated by primary-school grammar notions of proper nouns and proper names ever since, and it's about time we sought a consensus to fix it. This is a good start. Andrewa (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Andrewa. --В²C ☎ 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  Nah (in response to Andrewa and to B2C's "me too"). WP:ILIKEIT is never a good enough reason for IAR. WP's avoidance of unnecessary capitalisation is known as "down style", and it's long been the norm in academic and general publishing (since at least the 1980s). The principle of avoiding over-capitalisation whenever possible is a rule MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS got from The Chicago Manual of Style, Garner's Modern English Usage, and other mainstream style guides, not from Larry Sanger. The over-capping style is a marketing and (to a minor extent) journalism style. WP is an encyclopedia – an academic work for the mainstream – not marketing or journalism. Adding a capital letter to "line" does not "clarify" anything, but only adds potentially confusing implications. The most obvious is that "Cambrian Line" is a trademark (which would be a proper name). We have no evidence it is, despite a request for such evidence. Thus, there's a WP:OR problem in treating it that way. The over-capping is not an objective improvement to the encyclopedia, so IAR does not apply. The "primary-school grammar notion" at play here is that this is a grammar question at all, which it is not. Finally, no, campaigning tendentiously against MoS and the naming conventions one RM after another no matter how many times it doesn't go your way is not an appropriate way to see if consensus will change; it's just forum shopping. Try an RfC at WT:MOSCAPS; guidelines change by the WP:PROPOSAL process, not by one-against-many (or two-against, in this case) stubbornness.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:Andrewa/Great Western Main Line#Cambrian Line for discussion of this, and feel free to join in there (or in #Discussion below if you prefer). Andrewa (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support – based on our house style, downcasing line is the proper MOS. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Agree with those facts, Checkingfax, but not with the conclusion. That particular aspect of the house style obviously no longer enjoys the consensus support it once did. But don't worry. Just as soon as a significant number of these RMs are resolved in favour of capitalisation, we can revisit MOSCAPS, and then the affected articles will all become MOS compliant. But this is something that cannot be rushed, we do not want another no consensus fiasco, we have had too many of those. Meantime, apart from this interpretation of MOSCAPS, is there any practical (or even theoretical) reason that the capital is bad? Andrewa (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You mean like Cross-City Line? That was capped because "a regular user of the line for the last 20+ years" said he likes it that way, and his buds agreed. That's an outlier, not a trend. The overwhelming majority of this kind of RM has supported sticking to guidelines. Is there a reason to change now, and start using caps for things other than proper names, unlike the consensus of the last decade or more? Dicklyon (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Good questions. Yes there is, IMO. Whether it's an outlier or a trend is unfortunately too soon to call. But it's not a matter of using caps for things other than proper names (my wikilink). Rather, it's accepting that the concept of a proper name is not particularly helpful here. We could argue about whether or not Cambrian Line is a proper name, and we'd have some linguists on either side (although in this case I suspect most would say it is) and some sources similarly both ways as we have seen. But what we should be asking is, what style gives a title that is most recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent? The capital makes it more recognizable, just as concise and natural, more precise, but fails consistency... but that only because we have a long history of pointless decapitalisation. Andrewa (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

        If I understand you correctly, Andrewa, you're saying that "Cambrian Line" as a title is more recognizable and more precise than "Cambrian line" as a title. This is pretty much the opposite of what the commonname style pushers usually argue, which is that styling the way that's most common in sources makes a title more recognizable. I don't buy either line of reasoning, or the idea that these title criteria have much to say about title styling. We have a house style for such things; that's what our MOS is for. Dicklyon (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

        • I see no such trend starting. The overwhelming majority of cases, even among railroad lines, have shown a consensus to respect MOS:CAPS and WP:TITLEFORMAT, using lowercase line except on those few where sources usually cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
          • Then perhaps I am being hopeful. But if I am correct that the only valid arguments being put for decapitalisation (consistency and the existing MOS) both amount to "we've always done it this way", and if there are valid arguments based on WP:AT and reader experience that indicate that it's not the best way to do it, then it's a good thing to change the way we do things, surely? Two big "ifs". RMs such as this are a valid place to build consensus on both.
          • The shift from "decap when in doubt" to looking at reliable sources is not a step in the right direction. These other sources use their own styles for their own reasons. We should have a house style and respect it.
          • It's certainly not something to take on lightly. You are not the only one who has invested a great deal of time and effort into enforcing the MOS (and I'm another, just BTW, see wp:correct for my take on this). Andrewa (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

We do have a house style, and yes we should respect it. It's documented in the guideline pages of the MOS. W.r.t. caps, our style is to avoid them where they are not necessary. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. And that's over the top. We should not avoid them where they are useful in making the title more recognizable, concise, natural, precise, and consistent, and currently we do exactly that. But that will eventually mean a change to the MOS. That change is the only good solution. Andrewa (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. According to Dicklyon's evidence above, the sources mostly don't capitalise this. Hence there is no reason why we should capitalise it. I think consensus is evolving regarding the precise wording at MOS:CAPS. In particular, the requirement that words and phrases be "consistently capitalized in sources" to be treated as a proper name does not seem to be supported any more, as we saw at Talk:Syrian Civil War for example; as I saw it there, editors were satisfied with a *simple majority* of sources rather than the near 100% implied by "consistently capitalized". However, the Cambrian line does not fall into such a category. If anything, the sources consistently down-case it, based on the evidence. So the move should go ahead. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

I note that all of the support is based on strictly, and I would say legalistically, applying the rules. I don't think there's any doubt that the traditional interpretation of the rules would decap.

But in terms of reader experience, the capital does a little good and absolutely no harm. So wp:IAR clearly applies (in the negative sense that this proposed move would do a little bit of harm). Andrewa (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

And conversely, all the opposition is based on ignoring the guideline that WP reserves caps for where they are necessary. The harm of over-capitalization is that caps have no consistent meaning when we do that. And the majority of sources that don't cap it are no less clear for that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the opposition is based on assessing that guideline, or at least that interpretation of it, as being contrary to the best interests of readers. Nobody is ignoring it.

Whether or not this is over-capitalization begs the question.

But I'd like to investigate the claim that caps have no consistent meaning when we do that. English (and any other living language) is a lot more complex than the prescriptive Latin and Greek grammars on which 19th century English grammar was based. Wikipedia cannot turn back the linguistic clock, and we should not try to.

This is a perfect example of meaningful and easily understood capitalisation. It is within the bounds of English grammar. It improves the clarity of the title, at no cost whatsoever. If it is not clear that Wikipedia's current style guidelines allow it, then we should obey WP:IAR for now, and modify the guideline to make it clear that it is not only allowed but recommended. Andrewa (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

But there is a cost. And just how does it improve "clarity"? Tony (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What cost, exactly?

It improves clarity by better describing the topic, as pointed out above. Andrewa (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

see West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line, Brighton Main Line,Great Western Main Line; seems normal usage to me. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Some capitalise, some don't. Capitalisation is perfectly correct grammatically, and in this and many other cases makes the topic of the article clearer. Andrewa (talk) 10:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization of Line is not a grammatical correctness issue, but rather a signal of whether the name is being treated as a proper name or not, or in some styles whether it's "important enough" to be capped for some other reason. In WP, we reserve caps for proper names, not for importance, and the frequent downcasing in sources shows that this is not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree that it is not a grammatical correctness issue. But you can't have it both ways. Agree that In WP, we reserve caps for proper names (my wikilink). And that is unhelpful and, dare I say it, old-fashioned. We're resorting to prescriptive grammar to make it a grammatical correctness issue, which it is not. Andrewa (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Not all that prescriptive, as we use sources to help us decide what's treated as a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proper name is not a particularly helpful term here. I guess you mean, if it's capitalised in a majority of sources, then it's a proper name, and so we should capitalise too, and not otherwise. No. We should follow our own house style regardless of the way sources treat a particular name. Different specialised areas {such as birds) have particular traditions. We should certainly try to understand the reasons that they have made such decisions when forming our own style guide, but we don't need to follow these traditions, while sources generally will. Andrewa (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not based on a majority of sources. I have always been clearly against letting outsiders "vote" on our style. Our caps style is to consider something to be a proper name only when it is "consistently" or "almost always" capped in sources. But the railroad line guys aren't happy to go that far, so we're starting with the ones that don't even come close to being questionable, with caps being in an actual minority. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected! Our current guidelines do say to capitalise only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources... so if sources are divided, we decap regardless of the majority. I thought I was very familiar with those guidelines, but there have been so many RMs recently that were argued according to what the majority of sources did that I obviously became confused. Thanks for setting me straight, it's even worse than I thought.

Or better. You're kind of late to notice, but back in 2002 (yes, 15 years ago), the concept of "almost always capitalized" [in sources] was introduced more as an exception (to a strict proper name policy) than a restriction: [8]. This survived until 2009 as "Do not capitalize the second and subsequent words in a title, unless the title is almost always capitalized in English (for example, as in proper names and book titles). Thus, capitalize the second word in John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not in Video game." Then the "almost always capitalized" phrase was hijacked and repurposed in the great TITLE upheaval of 2009. But the reasons and the rationale live on. It has never been any other way – or not since the modern wiki software replaced camel casing at least. Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for those links. Yes, it has a long and troublesome history. IMO most of that is because of misplaced confidence in primary-school grammar notions of proper nouns etc., as you know. This has inevitably led to conflict with others who recognise valid reasons for capitalisation, but have not expressed them as well as they might, possibly because they had little knowledge of linguistics themselves. And perhaps it's time to fix it. Andrewa (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

But the railroad line guys are right in this case. The capitalisation of railroad line names improves these article titles. Andrewa (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I should have replied to the majority of sources that don't cap it are no less clear for that. Can you give an example? Just one will do. Andrewa (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The first lowercased news hit I see, at [9], does not look to me like capping it would make it any more clear. It says "They were the end of regular British Railways steam working, with the closure of the Coleham locomotive sheds to steam locomotives; the end of the London Paddington to Birkenhead through train service; and the end of steam along the Cambrian line – especially the last Cambrian Coast Express." Not that it's all that clear, but caps would not make it more so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for that excellent example. Now, if that read the end of steam along the Cambrian Line – especially the last Cambrian Coast Express, we would know that the line was called the Cambrian Line... as it is. That information is explicit, and conveyed at no cost whatsoever. As it is, we don't know whether Cambrian line is the name of the line or whether it's a descriptive phrase. We have to guess. For the Shropshire audience for which that was written, it's reasonable to make them guess.

But Wikipedia is written for a general audience, and there's no reason to make them guess, other than that it's become our tradition to do so... and it's a rather strongly held tradition. Andrewa (talk) 06:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that when something is called something, by some phrase, then we can indicate that by capitalizing the words of that phrase. Yes, some styles do that, especially within their specialty areas. Like some birders do, capping the common names of birds. But it is expliclitly our house style to not use caps for that purpose, but rather to reserve them for proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 01:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

That's a very poor paraphrase of what I have said, but you get the general idea I think. You disagree?

The guideline is wrong in this instance. This will eventually be tested as a general principle, and a good way to lay the groundwork for this is to test it against our more fundamental principles in particular cases, such as this one. Andrewa (talk) 11:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"The guideline is wrong" seems to be you arguing against your usual position. Hard to understand what would make you want to go that way. Dicklyon (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. The guidelines are normally right on the money. Just not this time. And it affects an enormous number of articles. Fortunately there's no great hurry to fix the articles. But until we fix the guideline, we'll never have peace on this. It will keep coming up, because many specialist areas have valid reasons for capitalising, but there are none for decapping where it adds clarity. Andrewa (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been OK with reserving caps for proper names since I started in 2005, and apparently it's been the law of the land since 2002 or earlier. So why do you now say it's not right, and how does that relate to the Cambrian line? Dicklyon (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you and many others are OK with reserving caps for proper names and it's been the "law" since at least 2001 [10].

I have nothing more to say so I can only give my summary, below. I hope it is useful. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I should have said it could affect an enormous number of articles. Even if this RM decides to retain the capital letter (as I hope), and even if we agree (as we seem to) that this is contrary to the normal interpretation of MOS:CAPS, that doesn't automatically mean that the principles apply to any other article. But I think there are implications for many other article names, and you seem to agree. Andrewa (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

My summary

Dicklyon asks above why do you now say it's not right, and how does that relate to the Cambrian line?

Cambrian Line is more precise and more recognisable than Cambrian line.

Cambrian Line has no disadvantages other than the two "we've always done it this way" arguments... firstly the existing MOS and related guidelines, and secondly consistency with the many other articles that have followed these guidelines and avoided capitals when they were otherwise acceptable or even preferable.

In particular, there is no grammatical reason to avoid Cambrian Line. The notion that it is not a proper noun because it is not consistently capitalised in sources has no validity. These sources follow their own traditions, circumstances and style guides, which are not necessarily what Wikipedia should follow.

These same arguments are applicable to many other article names. This mismatch between the current MOS and reader experience (which is of course best served by titles that are precise and recognisable, as recognised by WP:AT) has been the source of much conflict, sometimes bitter. The only long-term solution is to fix the MOS. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

(But there is no great urgency to fix these articles one way or another. We should concentrate on a few cases, and get a clear consensus on these. We should avoid any great number of moves until the MOS is sorted out. Andrewa (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC))

Yes, if you can "fix" the MOS, reversing 15 years of Wikipedia's style of avoiding unnecessary capitalization, then we can cap Line here. Lacking that, let just follow the guidelines and downcase it. Recognizability and precision will not suffer, as you can easily verify by looking at the many sources about this line that don't cap it as you'd prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

As you indicate, changing such a long-standing guideline will not be easy. I must note again that your repeated claim that such capitalisation is unnecessary begs the question.

In view of this, and as I have said, it's necessary to consider some specific cases in the light of our deeper principles. Why should this not be one of them? And if the deeper principles indicate that the guideline is wrong in this case, then we should not decap, and must then look at whether it is worth updating the rule, and if so how.

Disagree that recogizability and precision will not suffer. We did look at the example you gave, above, and I think I demonstrated the very opposite. They do not suffer much, but they do suffer.

But this is getting a bit repetitive. I think I have answered your questions. Andrewa (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cambrian Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151118174638/http://www.acorp.uk.com/Assets/ACoRP%20summary%20map%20v4.pdf to http://www.acorp.uk.com/Assets/ACoRP%20summary%20map%20v4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929042530/http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5009&NewsAreaID=2 to http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=5009&NewsAreaID=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rgsonline.co.uk/Rule_Book/Rule%20Book%20Amendments/GERT8000-AM%20ERTMS%20Iss%201.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sarpa.info/articles.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cambrian Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140118075916/http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/bridge-fiasco-could-close-porthmadog-line-until-2015 to http://www.railwaymagazine.co.uk/news/bridge-fiasco-could-close-porthmadog-line-until-2015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)