Jump to content

Talk:Jammu–Poonch line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Jammu–Poonch railway)

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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The result of the move request was: opposed and withdrawn by proposer P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jammu-Poonch railwayJammu-Poonch Railway – Wikipedia naming convention is to use "X Railway", not "X railway". Triomio (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw the proposal since it is not a railway (company) but only a link or a line according to the first reference mentioned in the article. I updated the article accordingly. Triomio (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – the title is descriptive of the new line by its endpoints. The cited sources do not capitaized it, and I find no other source that does. Per MOS:CAPS, generic terms like railway are lower case in titles. Also, it needs an en dash between the end points, so I moved it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So for the hundreds or thousands of lines people shall guess the title when linking, because sometimes it is upper case as in Nilambur – Shoranur Railway Line and sometimes not? Isn't that massively disrupting the improvement of Wikipedia? Triomio (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would a preference for lowercase cause massive disruption to anything? At most, we'd want to add a redirect if there's a chance that folk would get lost. But the same would apply with any other convention. bobrayner (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will you volunteer to set up all redirects? upper and lower case, en dash, other dash, with spaces around or not. That gives 2*2*2 = 8 possibilities already. Add to that spelling differences, the variation to use "railway" and "railway line". My proposal cut the number of possible redirects by 50%. And yes, to have them all lower case would have the same effect. But Dicklyon is invoking some undisclosed source to determine the capitalization not for all of them, but for THIS "Jammu–Poonch railway". Triomio (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's more like a descriptive name, no need to capitalise the "railway". bobrayner (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (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.

Requested move 2

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move. Cúchullain t/c 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Jammu–Poonch railwayJammu–Poonch railway line – Not a railway but only a line or link as per the first reference mentioned in the article. Triomio (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you have on sources? Searches like this one compared to this one seem to suggest that it's much more common without "line" (though I haven't tried to analyze or correct for the biases of the search in this case). Dicklyon (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the hits for Railway refers to the Railway companies as well as railway lines. The search results "rail line" jammu and "railway line" jammu might give you a better picture.--DBigXray 23:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good one! But compare "jammu poonch railway line" and "jammu poonch railway track" and "jammu poonch railway". But with all the wiki mirrors, it's still hard to interpret. Dicklyon (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously search results of "jammu poonch railway" will include hits for "jammu poonch railway line" and "jammu poonch railway track". The reliable sources [1] [2] [3] name it as Railway line. so it must be used--DBigXray 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jammu–Poonch railway line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jammu–Poonch line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]