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 Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move all per overwhelming consensus. Be patient; it will take me some time to perform all the actual moves. Feel free to help. —
JFGtalk 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) —
JFGtalk22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - These are all Proper Noun Phrases and thus should be capitalised. Same old discussion in different venues. Suggest that it is well past time that we stopped prodding this particular
WP:DEADHORSE.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support – These isn't any evidence that these are 'proper noun phrases', or indeed, evidence that 'proper noun phrase' is a proper noun phrase (in reference to Mjroots' annoying capitalisation of said phrase). In accordance with
WP:NCCAPS, what's considered a proper name on Wikipedia is determined by surveys of reliable sources. Such surveys, provided above, show that these are not proper names. Furthermore, it is important to note that
WP:TITLEFORMAT, which is a policy, tells us that Wikipedia is written in sentence case, meaning that evidence of the use of capitalisation in timetables or headings is not relevant. What matters is usage in a sentence, and Dicklyon's survey shows that the present capitalisation is not in accordance with usage in reliable sources.
RGloucester —
☎19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
These are all Proper Noun Phrases and thus should be capitalised. – If you can present a credible case that even one of these is a proper name, or is treated as proper name in sources, I will withdraw this multi RM and treat each one more carefully and individually.
Same old discussion in different venues. – RM is the venue you insisted on; this issue is in addition being discussed on the
project talk page (the same page where you stated that you are ignoring that discussion).
Suggest that it is well past time that we stopped prodding this particular WP:DEADHORSE. – The gradual move toward reducing over-capitalization per
WP:NCCAPS is not a dead horse, just an ongoing gnoming process. In particular, before your rant here, nobody has opposed downcasing any "X branch line" as far as I can recall.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-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.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move all per overwhelming consensus. Be patient; it will take me some time to perform all the actual moves. Feel free to help. —
JFGtalk 22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) —
JFGtalk22:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - These are all Proper Noun Phrases and thus should be capitalised. Same old discussion in different venues. Suggest that it is well past time that we stopped prodding this particular
WP:DEADHORSE.
Mjroots (
talk)
15:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support – These isn't any evidence that these are 'proper noun phrases', or indeed, evidence that 'proper noun phrase' is a proper noun phrase (in reference to Mjroots' annoying capitalisation of said phrase). In accordance with
WP:NCCAPS, what's considered a proper name on Wikipedia is determined by surveys of reliable sources. Such surveys, provided above, show that these are not proper names. Furthermore, it is important to note that
WP:TITLEFORMAT, which is a policy, tells us that Wikipedia is written in sentence case, meaning that evidence of the use of capitalisation in timetables or headings is not relevant. What matters is usage in a sentence, and Dicklyon's survey shows that the present capitalisation is not in accordance with usage in reliable sources.
RGloucester —
☎19:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)reply
These are all Proper Noun Phrases and thus should be capitalised. – If you can present a credible case that even one of these is a proper name, or is treated as proper name in sources, I will withdraw this multi RM and treat each one more carefully and individually.
Same old discussion in different venues. – RM is the venue you insisted on; this issue is in addition being discussed on the
project talk page (the same page where you stated that you are ignoring that discussion).
Suggest that it is well past time that we stopped prodding this particular WP:DEADHORSE. – The gradual move toward reducing over-capitalization per
WP:NCCAPS is not a dead horse, just an ongoing gnoming process. In particular, before your rant here, nobody has opposed downcasing any "X branch line" as far as I can recall.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.