Talk:Harrogate–Church Fenton line

Trains: in UK 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.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

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. The editor who added the request suggests the following:

add a geographic map

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Harrogate–Church Fenton line is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 3 February 2017

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: moved to Harrogate–Church Fenton line. Jenks24 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrogate to Church Fenton Line → Harrogate to Church Fenton line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use the symmetric dashed version (Harrogate–Church Fenton line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in sources

news – current title is rare but does appear in one 2015 news article
books – Harrogate and Church Fenton line, Harrogate–Church Fenton line, and one "to" but no capped Line.

Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred. It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed form is more common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Support as nom, preferring the dashed version Harrogate–Church Fenton line but OK with either. Dicklyon (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support lower-case "line" per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. When sources are not consistent we use lower case (and the general-audience sources favor lower case for this, anyway). Neutral on the dash in this case; I seem to recall unresolved dispute about whether the en dash should be hyphenated when one of the things it separates is multi-word (i.e., perhaps it should be "Harrogate – Church Fenton line", which should be made a redirect regardless). I find "Harrogate–Church Fenton line" hard to parse; it seems to imply a "Fenton line" between Harrogate and Church. Otherwise I consistently support moving these "Foo to Bar line" articles to "Foo–Bar line" per WP:CONCISE. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You meant "en dash should be spaced", not "en dash should be hyphenated". It's a good point, and potential reason to go with "and" or "to". I'm OK with any. Would you propose Harrogate and Church Fenton Line as an alternative, as in some sources? Dicklyon (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support for reasons given. No strong opinion either way, but would prefer a dash. The joy of all things (talk) 07:22, 3 February 2017 (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.