Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Requested move 9 August 2023

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. It was highlighted that WikiProject Trains' style guide prefers the usage of "and", whereas MOS:& prefers the usage of the ampersand. No consensus emerged as to which style should prevail. As was noted in the discussion, a more widely scoped discussion on whether to use "and" or "&" for titling railway station articles may help this question to be resolved more decisively. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad → Decatur and Eastern Illinois Railroad – Longstanding consensus has been to use "and" in place of ampersands in article titles for railroads. I attempted to boldy move the article title and was reverted without any explanation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Long-standing consensus to use "and" for article titles in these cases. Mackensen (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I'm not aware of this "longstanding consensus", which is presumably a local consensus described somewhere, but it sounds contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. WP:& says to "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T." The self-published logo and all of the cited sources use the "&". This should be handled together with Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral comment - I don’t actually have a preference regarding the outcome of the RM, but it sounds like we have conflicting guidance between MOS:& and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Article name. I think that conflict needs to be resolved before we can decide whether to move or not. I would therefore suggest this RM be put on hold, pending a wider consensus on which guidance should apply. Blueboar (talk)

Thank you for the pointer. I found some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Erroneous use of "and". It looks like the conflict has existed for more than 15 years. See also Talk:Northampton & Lamport Railway (another article with "&"). In general, there shouldn't be project-specific style guidance that conflicts with Wikipedia-level style guidance (at least in the absence of some explanation of why the higher-level guidance does not apply). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, MOS:& states: retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. In this case & is used in the trademark as demonstrated by the crest in the infobox. Useuntarge (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Ampersands are generally only retained in very limited circumstances. This is not one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.