This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just reverted the changes to this article as this page doesn't seem to qualify as a dab page. A disambiguation page would mean that something is ambiguous, for instance a line called R5 in the US, and a line called R5 in the UK. That is not the case here. From what I understood, this article is concerning a former line that was split up. That doesn't make the line's name ambiguous. It was simply split up, and the article should simply reflect that. So someone in the know, please look at the modifications I made, and fix the article. -- Midas02 ( talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article has been templated for a possible split for 5 1/2 years. I'm removing the templates for the following reasons: 1 No one seems interested in doing it. 2 The article size is small enough that it's not very necessary. 3 Both parts of the line are named "R5" and it seems very reasonable to keep them in a single article under that title. 4 It appears that the split articles would have rather awkward titles, and I suspect readers may be better off simply finding them at this title.
If someone wants to revive the idea of a split, I have no objection. Alsee ( talk) 08:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've just reverted the changes to this article as this page doesn't seem to qualify as a dab page. A disambiguation page would mean that something is ambiguous, for instance a line called R5 in the US, and a line called R5 in the UK. That is not the case here. From what I understood, this article is concerning a former line that was split up. That doesn't make the line's name ambiguous. It was simply split up, and the article should simply reflect that. So someone in the know, please look at the modifications I made, and fix the article. -- Midas02 ( talk) 06:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The article has been templated for a possible split for 5 1/2 years. I'm removing the templates for the following reasons: 1 No one seems interested in doing it. 2 The article size is small enough that it's not very necessary. 3 Both parts of the line are named "R5" and it seems very reasonable to keep them in a single article under that title. 4 It appears that the split articles would have rather awkward titles, and I suspect readers may be better off simply finding them at this title.
If someone wants to revive the idea of a split, I have no objection. Alsee ( talk) 08:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)