Talk:Jammu–Poonch line

Requested move

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. 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The result of the move request was: opposed and withdrawn by proposer P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Jammu-Poonch railway → Jammu-Poonch Railway – Wikipedia naming convention is to use "X Railway", not "X railway". Triomio (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I withdraw the proposal since it is not a railway (company) but only a link or a line according to the first reference mentioned in the article. I updated the article accordingly. Triomio (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – the title is descriptive of the new line by its endpoints. The cited sources do not capitaized it, and I find no other source that does. Per MOS:CAPS, generic terms like railway are lower case in titles. Also, it needs an en dash between the end points, so I moved it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • So for the hundreds or thousands of lines people shall guess the title when linking, because sometimes it is upper case as in Nilambur – Shoranur Railway Line and sometimes not? Isn't that massively disrupting the improvement of Wikipedia? Triomio (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Why would a preference for lowercase cause massive disruption to anything? At most, we'd want to add a redirect if there's a chance that folk would get lost. But the same would apply with any other convention. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Will you volunteer to set up all redirects? upper and lower case, en dash, other dash, with spaces around or not. That gives 2*2*2 = 8 possibilities already. Add to that spelling differences, the variation to use "railway" and "railway line". My proposal cut the number of possible redirects by 50%. And yes, to have them all lower case would have the same effect. But Dicklyon is invoking some undisclosed source to determine the capitalization not for all of them, but for THIS "Jammu–Poonch railway". Triomio (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Redirects are made automatically when an article is moved. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's more like a descriptive name, no need to capitalise the "railway". bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • "United Kingdom" and "Indian Railways" are descriptive too. Still they are capitalized. Whether there is a "need" depends on the definition of such a need. Triomio (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I meant descriptive as opposed to proper name; those are proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2012 (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.

• • • • • • So you will move articles to all 8 naming variants to create the redirects? Triomio (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
            • When I moved to the dash, the hyphen redirect was made automatically. If you think other variants would be useful, go ahead and make them. Dicklyon (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

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

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Jammu–Poonch railway → Jammu–Poonch railway line – Not a railway but only a line or link as per the first reference mentioned in the article. Triomio (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – while adding "line" is not uncommon in sources, adding "track" is even more common. But neither is needed, as the definitions of railway include lines or tracks. Keep it concise. Dicklyon (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - what is needed depends on what one wants. To name railway lines "railway" can lead to ambiguity. Triomio (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Dicklyon. Capitalised "Railway" implies a self-contained railway; non-capitalised implies a line. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - And why then is there

    Jasidih Dumka Rampurhat Rail Line

    Nilambur – Shoranur Railway Line

    Sheoraphuli-Tarakeswar Branch Line

    Western Line (Mumbai Suburban Railway)

    Howrah-Bardhaman Main Line

    Howrah-New Jalpaiguri Line

    Barauni-Katihar section

    Howrah-Bardhaman Chord

    New Jalpaiguri-Alipurduar-Samuktala Road Line ......... Triomio (talk) 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

    • Because WP is a wiki that anyone can edit, and these haven't been improved to conform with the WP:MOS yet. Dicklyon (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • OK, I pretty much fixed the list above to conform to the MOS. A few cases fixes are pending in RMs. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Some inconsistencies removed others introduced. Topic at the MoS page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Manual of style#Line naming convention. Triomio (talk) 13:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (or rather use "rail line") This is just a section of the lines, not a railway company on its own, unlike the rail companies in the US which I guess have seperate company for different sections. The Sources in India refer these as "railway lines" or "rail lines".--DBigXray 15:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you have on sources? Searches like this one compared to this one seem to suggest that it's much more common without "line" (though I haven't tried to analyze or correct for the biases of the search in this case). Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

No, the hits for Railway refers to the Railway companies as well as railway lines. The search results "rail line" jammu and "railway line" jammu might give you a better picture.--DBigXray 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good one! But compare "jammu poonch railway line" and "jammu poonch railway track" and "jammu poonch railway". But with all the wiki mirrors, it's still hard to interpret. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously search results of "jammu poonch railway" will include hits for "jammu poonch railway line" and "jammu poonch railway track". The reliable sources [1] [2] [3] name it as Railway line. so it must be used--DBigXray 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for Railway line. Feels like that is more apt word.--naveenpf (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think it should be railway line. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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 2 external links on Jammu–Poonch railway 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://164.100.47.5/newdebate/225/22032012/18.00pmTo19.00pm.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402130639/http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/ to http://www.indianrailways.gov.in/

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) 19:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jammu–Poonch 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/20130728231202/http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Mar/23/jammu-poonch-rail-link-to-be-taken-up-as-national-project-goi-79.asp to http://www.greaterkashmir.com/news/2012/Mar/23/jammu-poonch-rail-link-to-be-taken-up-as-national-project-goi-79.asp

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) 15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)