This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merging makes no sense, they are different lines, with different establishment dates. We don't merge two movie articles together just because they have the same name. "Passageway" makes little sense, it's not proper English (a passageway is not especially a rail line and is a misleading title), and it isn't being used as proper noun, so shouldn't be used at all. --
70.51.201.106 (
talk)
05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It would make sense to merge if one is seen as the replacement for the other, essentially in a "history" section. But if not, not. "Passageway" is surprising to me, but that's how it is. I couldn't find any RS using that term.
94.21.204.175 (
talk)
13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You are conflating two different topics together. We don't merge articles on two buildings when one is built on top of the location of a demolished building.
One World Trade Center is not merged with
World Trade Center (1973–2001). And from the state of the articles, it appears that the older rail line still exists, so isn't just history. if you can't find any RS using the term "Passageway", then we can't use that term --
70.51.201.106 (
talk)
01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to
rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion. See also:
WikiProject Trains to do list and the
Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Merging makes no sense, they are different lines, with different establishment dates. We don't merge two movie articles together just because they have the same name. "Passageway" makes little sense, it's not proper English (a passageway is not especially a rail line and is a misleading title), and it isn't being used as proper noun, so shouldn't be used at all. --
70.51.201.106 (
talk)
05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It would make sense to merge if one is seen as the replacement for the other, essentially in a "history" section. But if not, not. "Passageway" is surprising to me, but that's how it is. I couldn't find any RS using that term.
94.21.204.175 (
talk)
13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)reply
You are conflating two different topics together. We don't merge articles on two buildings when one is built on top of the location of a demolished building.
One World Trade Center is not merged with
World Trade Center (1973–2001). And from the state of the articles, it appears that the older rail line still exists, so isn't just history. if you can't find any RS using the term "Passageway", then we can't use that term --
70.51.201.106 (
talk)
01:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)reply
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.