Talk:Marton–New Plymouth line
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Amakuru in topic Requested move 11 February 2017
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 11 February 2017 edit
- 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. Consensus that it is not treated as a proper name by reliable sources. — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Marton–New Plymouth Line → Marton–New Plymouth line – Case fix per WP:NCCAPS, WP:TITLEFORMAT, MOS:CAPS; source do not cap line in this. Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Search of edited sources
- Survey
- Support as nom – Dicklyon (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose. This article is within the scope of the WikiProject NZR, which has a Manual of Style supporting the current name. Irrespective of the aforementioned citations, I can't support this proposal if it would create an inconsistency with this MOS. — Matthew25187 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem. "Lines should be referred to by their most common name" does not say to always capitalize, nor suggest that we should go against policies like WP:TITLEFORMAT or WP:NCCAPS, does it? Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
- I should also note that this line has been gazetted by the New Zealand Government as Marton-New Plymouth Line, making this its official, legal name. It would seem that the proper name exception of WP:NCCAPS applies here. — Matthew25187 (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what gazetted means, but it does not appear that this official proper name has caught on much, so maybe sticking with "Lines should be referred to by their most common name" is still the right thing to do? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- The New Zealand Gazette is an official publication of the New Zealand Government that is similar in nature to the Federal Register. Amongst other things, final rulings of government agencies are published here. The aforementioned gazette notice from the New Zealand Geographic Board establishes place names to be used in official publications and are also generally adopted by other non-government related entities (e.g. cartographers). If you do a search on the New Zealand Gazetteer of Official Geographic Names, you'll find some background on this name, including a note that it is currently the official name for this feature.
- I'm not sure what gazetted means, but it does not appear that this official proper name has caught on much, so maybe sticking with "Lines should be referred to by their most common name" is still the right thing to do? Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
- I should also note that this line has been gazetted by the New Zealand Government as Marton-New Plymouth Line, making this its official, legal name. It would seem that the proper name exception of WP:NCCAPS applies here. — Matthew25187 (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- The examples cited in WP:COMMONNAME in support of the commonly used name approach range from common names that are shortened versions of official names to official names that are demonstrably different from the commonly used names for the same subject. That is not at issue here: the proposed change is only one of case, and as I've noted the relevant Wikipedia policy has an exception for "proper" (official?) names. Anyone searching for this subject on the Wikipedia web site should see the article appear in the auto-search drop-down list below the search field regardless of case entered, and Wikipedia automatically redirects to the appropriate article if the only difference between the search term and article title is a matter of case. Given this, renaming the article as suggested is not going to make it easier to find. I still don't see a compelling case for not using the official name for this subject. — Matthew25187 (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
- Support per WP:NCCAPS and WP:CONLEVEL, which explicitly states that WikiProjects cannot overrule global consensus. If there really is a sub-MOS for NZR, then I suggest it be deleted. Laurdecl talk 06:04, 14 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.