Jump to content

Talk:Trent Valley line

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Trent Valley Line)
Former good articleTrent Valley line was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 18, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 27, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Untitled

[edit]

I was not aware until today that a four line stub article had been written for the Trent Valley Line. The Trent Valley line is a section of the West Coast Main Line (and has been for over 150 years) with almost all the trough traffic between Rugby and Stafford and by common consent the line through Birmingham with little through traffic is the heavily used West Midlands branch. I do not see any need for a Trent Valley article. That part of the through route is in any case at present far far better covered in the West Coast Main Line article. What do others think? NoelWalley 13:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the discovery was triggered by the labels'n'links I added. However (to make that clear), my interest in the article is only as a fit subject for cleanup; I have no opinion on whether or not to merge it into WCML. --Alvestrand 14:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the amount of engineering work occurring on the line at present, I think it is deserving of its own article. I think the subject was covered in detail in a recent edition of Railway Mag - if I can get hold of a copy I'll knock up some information about it. Also, it would be useful to break down the WCML into sections, and leave the WCML article as an overview, to prevent it getting too large. I think that a lot of these Line articles suffer from being too detailed about the route, places served, etc, and not enough on history. I'll try to remedy this. — Tivedshambo (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above, all UK main lines are just a collection of local lines bolted together by different rial companies over a hundred years ago to make one service. Pickle 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly-complex map

[edit]

When I put the new schematic in the article (the red map), I intended it to be showing only existing stations and/or junctions. I feel that the map is way too complicated right now and it's hard to read. Do we really need the closed lines and all the rivers? It seems superfluous to me. Geoking66 01:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRAIL is fairly new, imported (i think) from the German Wikipedia. We haven't developed any standards for the template yet (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways/TRAIL). The only guideline we've so far agreed upon is that the very big mainlines (eg WCML, ECML, etc) would be left simplified (as the template is used on all station pages), with scope to add the complex template latter (this is only about 2 weeks old!). Some of the imported German stuff (eg Linke Rheinstrecke) has copious detail. IMHO perhaps some of the rivers and canals I put into this template is going over the top, as the Trent valley is littered with them, but on the other hand user may find this useful information. I think old railway lines and good sidings are very useful, for example the Scottish contingent have been very active in detailing their closed/defunct lines and it allows an excellent opportunity for them to be linked in. It is also somewhat limited by the icon available, as you can't junction off a HSTR. Thus i could live with losing some of the rivers/canals but i feel the closed lines/freight branches are vital. Pickle 10:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

[edit]
I've only two real points a) lack of inline citation (not all editors go for them, but the two cited aren't directly linked in) and b) lack of historical focus ie past lines and branches (several well done "line" articles cover this well Pickle 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Nomination

[edit]

Good evening (GMT time); I have reviewed this article on 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC) in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

  1. Well-written: Pass
  2. Factually accurate: Pass
  3. Broad: Pass
  4. Neutrally written: Pass
  5. Stable: Pass
  6. Well-referenced: Pass
  7. Images: Excellent the detailed map at the top right of the article is extremely complex and gives an in-depth overview of the route.

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. Congratulations to the lead editors, and keep up the excellent work!

Kindest regards,
anthonycfc [talk] 03:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've only two real points a) lack of inline citation (not all editors go for them, but the two cited aren't directly linked in) and b) lack of historical focus ie past lines and branches (several well done "line" articles cover this well Pickle 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GA/R Good Article Review requested.

[edit]

I am formally beginning a Good Article Review to see about removing this article from the GA list. It does not appear to meet the Good Article criteria found at WP:WIAGA for the following reasons:

  • Lead does not adequately summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). Also makes inappropriate use of a bullet list. The lead needs to be expanded so the entire article is summarized, and the list needs to be converted to prose.
  • The article is inadequately referecned. For an article of this length, one would expect use of inline citations per WP:CITE in either footnote or parenthetical style. Without any way to fact check the various claims this article makes, it is inadequately referenced.
  • The article is not adequately broad. The text of the article simply covers the history and a current improvement project. There is no treatment given to any other facet of this rail line.

Please make any comments at WP:GA/R as you see fit. If the article can be improved to bring it up to standard, please do so ASAP, otherwise, pending a discussion at WP:GA/R, it may be delisted from the GA list. If you have any questions, please drop a line at my talk page.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted GA

[edit]
The Good Article status of this article has been delisted per review by a vote of 7-0. The discussion can be viewed in archive here. Once necessary changes have been made, this article can be renominated for review.
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shugborough Tunnel "too expensive to widen"?

[edit]

This statement sounds dubious to me:

A 3km (two-mile) section north-west of Colwich Junction will remain double track, as this goes through the 710 metre long Shugborough Tunnel, which would be too expensive to widen.

The "too expensive to widen" reasoning seems to be based on an assumption. Can anybody provide a citation for it? I think the truth of the matter is that four-tracking the double track section between Colwich and Stafford isn't justified because the traffic doesn't warrant it. South of Colwich, the line has to additionally cater for services via Stoke-on-Trent, and north of Stafford, services via Birmingham must be catered for. Between those two junctions, far fewer trains are running. –Signalhead < T > 20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the answer is "both". I've reworded it without giving explanations, allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 21:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 February 2017

[edit]
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. There is a consensus in support, and a convincing case made that these lines are not treated as proper names in sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


– Decap Line per common lowercase in edited sources (news and books); this group are all around 70% or more lowercase in sources, nowhere near the "consistently capitalized in sources" criterion that we use to decide proper name status. Further, sources are do capitalize Valley in these about 80% of the time or more, so we leave that capitalized, indicating that the valley names are proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

[edit]

Other than the Trent, these are not common enough in books to show up in the n-grams search. Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
The generic web search mostly shows titles and headings, and sources that copy from Wikipedia's capped version. The works titles (DVDs and books) don't provide any evidence of whether those sources treat these as proper names. Did you look at the edited sources I linked? Dicklyon (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No actually most aren't related to Wikipedia if you look. I see you dismissing any evidence that doesn't fit you view out of hand again. The government appears to regard the capitalised form as correct if this parliamentary question by the rail minister is anything to go by. G-13114 (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rail minister? Who would take a politician's language style seriously? And you write "minister"; but I'm sure any press release would vanity-cap "Minister", which is one of the factors influencing capping by interested parties. Advertising, including job ads and posters, press releases, etc ... these use a variety of English that excludes much typography and uses caps in a different way from serious, professional English. WP uses the latter. Tony (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, which sites are you seeing that use "Trent Valley Line" but don't copy Wikipedia's ""The Trent Valley Line was opened in 1847 to give a more direct route from London..."? I see one PDF, granted. I don't think the YouTube hits count. Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to have looked very hard. The third one for starters. I even did a search on Google for 'trent valley line' and it also clearly shows a significant majority capitalised, so I don't know how you're getting completely different search results to me. G-13114 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily get the same result list you're seeing; can you link which one you mean by "the third one", as the one I'm seeing as third is a WP copy? Same issue in Google search, but I do find two there: [1] and [2]; but nothing that would suggest "consistently capitalized in sources" like MOS:CAPS suggests. Here's a better Google web search, with wikipedia filtered out and about 2/3 of hits in sentence context using lowercase: [3]. Dicklyon (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've all completely ignored the statement by the rail minister I posted. Does that not indicate that the government sees the capitalised form as the correct one? G-13114 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear from that source whether they think the proper name is the "Walsall to Rugeley Trent Valley Line" or "Walsall-Rugeley Railway Line", or they just like to capitalize things they're talking about. No matter, we don't pay particular extra attention to official names and styles. What's correct in their style may not be in ours. Dicklyon (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give us a couple of links at least to the sources you're relying on as evidence of proper name status for these? Are they anywhere near enough to satisfy the idea of "consistently capitalized in sources", or are you proposing "in regular use" as an alternative to what MOS:CAPS says? Dicklyon (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Optimist on the run: got any sources on that? What I'm seeing looks like not even close to being considered proper names. Dicklyon (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Several, but I really don't have time to waste on this at the present. I'll try to dig some out tonight, but as proposer it should be your job to prove the Trent Valley Line is not the proper name (in which case what is?) Optimist on the run (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have done so above (shown that Trent Valley line is the common descriptive name, that is); I repeat the evidence for you:
  • Trent Valley Line – news – books – n-grams – robustly lowercase in n-gram of recent books. 70–80% lowercase; uniformly lowercase in news
  • Conwy Valley Line – news – books – about 70% lowercase in new; 50% in books; most caps are from a single source: the many annual editions of Let's Go Western Europe
Updating with book search for 21st century only makes it more clear, since most of the Trent Valley Line caps were from 1845 and Conwy Valley Line caps were from a series of Let's Go Europe books from the 1990s:
  • Conwy Valley Line – I see only 2 of 13 capped. One remains from Let's Go Europe, and there's another cute book that taken alone would be a good source for treating Conwy Valley Line as a proper name, but is way outnumbered by the very common treatment of this line and others with lowercase line.
  • Trent Valley Line – I see only 2 of 12 capped; your search hits may vary. One of those, from "The fastest-growing local history, general history, transport and specialist interest history publisher in the UK. Amberley Publishing" capss all the X Lines, so is not selective enough to be informative on the question. The other has "Trent Valley Line" in a caption, but "Trent Valley line" lowercase multiple times in the text. So if you're counting carefully, that's zero recent books supporting capitalization here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For even further depth, you might consider looking for 'Conway Valley line'. To most English speakers, until recently, the relevant place was 'Conway'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding to above comments. Yes, I could produce a list of books (e.g. Birmingham & West Midlands Railway Atlas by Joe Brown, Rugby to Stafford, the Trent Valley Line by Vic Mitchell and Keith Smith, The Conwy Valley Line by W G Rear, etc., but I think the problem here is a disagreement about what constitutes a proper name, and what is a descriptive name. To ny way of thinking, a descriptive name would be something like Rugby to Stafford via Nuneaton line, or Llandudno Junction to Blaenau Ffestiniog line. Descriptive titles can be used where a proper name is used not available. However in the case of the TVL and CVL, proper names exist, and are in common use (as can be seen in the number of cites that Dicklyon provides), and therefore should be used, and therefore with capitals by the rules of English (even if other sources don't follow the rules).
Subsequent edit - I've just realised I've typed the exact oppisite of what I meant above. Now clarified. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing has struck me - I see from Dicklyon's user page that he is from the US. I'm just wondering if this is an WP:ENGVAR issue - are the British more inclined to capitalise titles than Americans? Just something to consider. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's unlikely that many of those sources we're looking are at American. But the real difference is Wikipedia style: Wikipedia is much less inclined to capitalize titles, since that's our policy; see also WP:TITLEFORMAT for why. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I quite agree with Optimist, most book titles use the capitalised form for railway lines. So it seems pretty logical to me that article titles on wikipedia should use the same format as most books dedicated to the subject. G-13114 (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we all agree that most book titles use title case. But Wikipedia uses sentence case, per WP:TITLEFORMAT. Why is that not sinking in? Your "logical" approach is illogical, in light of our editorial style guidelines, conventions, and policies. Dicklyon (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Optimist on the run:, are you convinced yet, by the source analysis and the WP:TITLEFORMAT policy and MOS:CAPS, that we should go with lowercase like other WP article titles and most modern books and news sources do on ALL of these? Dicklyon (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support – Our house style as memorialized in WP:NCCAPS instructs us not to capitalize such words in titles. The citations in the nom support this style as well. {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
    As stated above, NCCAPS do not apply to proper names. Optimist on the run (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in an article title, unless the title is a proper name. pretty explicitly applies. The question is just whether it's a proper name; the preponderance of lowercase in sources suggests not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    By your own argument then, it should be Trent valley line. However I maintain that the title is a proper name, and therefore should have capitals, by the exact same argument. Optimist on the run (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No, "Trent valley line" with lowercase valley is rare in sources; too rare to show up in the n-grams. "Trent Valley" is clearly treated as a proper name, and the line not. Dicklyon (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per G-13114. I'm seeing the same in web results. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at the section below where I detailed what the web results show? Are you saying you found some reliable sources in there that cap Line? Dicklyon (talk) 01:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Born2cycle: so come back, look, and change your !vote, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME based on ngrams [4]. --В²C ☎ 06:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support usage in sources appears mixed and not uniformly in favour of all caps - so follow MOS and use lower case "line". I wonder if the usage of all caps is a reflection of the modern trend to use acronyms. If an acronym is widely used, its a logical tendency to construct the full-term with all caps. It seems have typical to refer to the Kings Cross-Edinburgh route as the "East Coast main line" until the 90s. "ECML" and "East Coast Main Line" then took over, with both variants increasing together. (ngram). The same trend can be seen with the WCML. I doubt that relationship is a coincidence. If so, widespread use of an acronym would be a strong indicator that the capitalised version is preferred. The reverse statement - no acronym in common use, so prefer lower case - is weaker but may also be true.--Nilfanion (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My impression, here and on several other similar RMs I have looked over, is that the titles, especially with the use of "line" are a jargon of railfans. This may not be obvious due to railfans being a large group with a propensity to write, which impacts usage statistics. I think the titles all need "railway line" included, for clarity for readers familiar but not expert with trains railway lines. I think the current titles are too easily misread as something else, along the lines of the many line articles found in Category:World War II defensive lines. On the proposals as put, I agree that "<Place> Line" is not a proper name and should not be capitalised, but I think they should all change to "<Place> railway line". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's a support on the lowercasing, but an alternate proposal, too? Interesting idea to add railway; but I just did the opposite, removing railway, from a bunch of Northern Ireland railway lines, for conciseness, consistency, commonness, and ease of linking. Every place they were linked, they were piped to take railway out, so the titles were not serving the usual purpose of being what we would link in text. Dicklyon (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I do usually agree, by the way, that a little extra precision and recognizability can be a good thing. But I think you'll find a lot of pushback from both the rail insiders and the minimalists (like B2C). Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's a Support for lowercasing. "Trent Valley Line" is not a proper name. None of them are. And its a but for what its worth, "Trent Valley line" is a poor descriptive title, "Trent Valley railway line" is what any non-railway-expert would call it. I won't call it a "proposal", but am wondering if others agree, and if there have been past discussions on it. It is like books on cats, and how they drop every instance of the word "cat" they can, otherwise it would be repeated on nearly every line. But titles are not excerpts of text, and the old reason of avoiding piped links of titles in other article's text is an editor-convenience at the expense of readers. Concision at the expense of dropping the most important information from the title ("railway") is not concision but jargon, or in-house abbreviation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure "Trent Valley Line" is not a proper name? This BBC article (linked in the article) treats it as one. In general, if an article topic has a name used by reliable sources (like the BBC), especially one with a general (as opposed to specialized) audience, that's what we should use for the title. We typically use descriptive titles only for topics that don't have names (the "List of ..." articles are all of this type). But these lines are named entities in the real world referenced as such by reliable sources. My current position is that google books ngrams suggests most of the reliable sources refer to this subject with the line in lower case, but the usage in this BBC article really gives me pause. --В²C ☎ 17:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As this search shows, the BBC usually does NOT treat it as a proper name. One source is not much of problem -- it's why we talk about "consistently capitalized in sources". Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheddar Valley Line

[edit]

I think that the Cheddar Valley Line should be discussed separately. This name appears to derive from from the original plans for a 'Cheddar Valley and Yatton Railway' but modern sources generally refer to it as the Strawberry Line and this name is given to the cycle path which now uses much of the route. Geof Sheppard (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's being discussed here, as separately as you like. Call out your concerns or exception in a comment. Dicklyon (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see the point. Seems like Strawberry Line would be a good name for the bike trail (if it had a separate article), but how does that affect this discussion about line case? Dicklyon (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence

[edit]

I typed in "trent valley line" into three different search engines, and counted out of the number of capitalised and non-capitalised lines out of the first 50 results, excluding wikipedia. Here are the results:

So that's a consistent 60-70% in favour of the capital 'Line'. G-13114 (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not new; already refuted above, where I point out that most web search hits are either Wikipedia-cloned content (certainly all those where the hit snippet includes "the Trent Valley Line was built and opened in 1847 to give") or titles, or headings in title case (web search tends to rank titles and capped items higher, so you get a lot of those), or foreign-language pages (which probably are wikipedia translations). Very few of those hits are in sentences. I have asked above, a week ago, if you can find more than a few that can be taken as evidence of treatment as proper name. I find very few. Dicklyon (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's simply not true, there are only a handful of WP mirrors on those searches. If I have time I'll do a detailed breakdown if you like. Either way, this demonstrates that the capitalised form is far more prevalent in usage than your evidence claims, and is probably in the majority. G-13114 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure it's not showing what you say. Let's look. I'll do Bing; you pick one of the others; summarize which hits are titles, which ones show using in sentence context, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's easier than that, I think. I just scanned through the first 52 bing hits (I had an hour or so working on it before noticing that I hadn't committed the edit above, so it looks like I only took a few minutes) and I find that the hits are generally wikis, forums, WP clones, DVD titles, Train Simulator add-on package titles or YouTubes movies thereof, or pages that have it both capped and not, or pages that nowhere mention the line at all (e.g. the Trent Valley angling, hang gliding, glazing, surgery, sailing, distributors, and Honda sites). I could list them all out, but maybe the other way is easier: can you find even one reliable source in these first four Bing pages (52 hits) that consistently uses Trent Valley Line capped thus? Even one? I can't. That's why I focus on books and news. Dicklyon (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@G-13114: your turn. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'll go ahead and add notes on the first 52 Bing hits I got (your hits may vary, as there are a few dups, as the ranking can change each time you query):

Bing, first four pages, 10 + 3*14 = 52 hits. Dicklyon (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Trent Valley Line - WOW.com www.wow.com/wiki/Trent_Valley_line

a wiki

2. Trent Valley Line - Wikipedia

WP

3. LMS Route: Trent Valley Line - Warwickshire Railways

WP (whole sentences copied from Wikipedia)

4. Train Simulator: WCML Trent Valley Route Add-On on Steam

simulator title + sentences from Wikipedia

5. Along the Trent Valley Line.

trainorders forum; title + odd text that says it's the "generic name" even though they cap it.

6. Talk:Trent Valley Line - Wikipedia

WP

7. [PDF]West Coast Main Line - Trent Valley - Thomson Interactive

title + text that mixes upper and lower case Trent Valley line

8. Trent Valley Line - a second bite - trainorders.com

trainorders forum (like 5)

9. Trent Valley Railway: Lineside Views - Warwickshire Railways

mixed case (mostly caps) Trent Valley line on the page; text about Cathiron is copied from WP.

10. Thomson Interactive - WCML Trent Valley

like 7, but not PDF; mixed case in text

11. Trent Valley Railway: Lineside Views - Warwickshire Railways

same as 9 again? mixed case (mostly caps) in text (of photo captions), and WP copy.

12. Learn and talk about Trent Valley Line, 1847 ...

case from WP: "check out Trent Valley Line on Wikipedia..."

13. [VIDEO]The Trent Valley Line | Rugby - Stafford | Class 350 - YouTube

YouTube video, amateur content about the simulator by that name.

14. Trent Valley Line - The Full Wiki

WP copy

15. [VIDEO]In Detail - WCML Trent Valley shown in Train Simulator 2015

YouTube of the simulator by that name

16. Thomson Interactive - WCML Trent Valley

simulator title: "WCML Trent Valley is an add-on for Train Simulator"

17. Train Simulator | WCML Trent Valley Route Add-On

another about the Train Simulator title

18. Rugeley Trent Valley railway station - Wikipedia

WP

19. Trains to Rugeley Trent Valley - Trainline

No "Trent Valley Line" of either case on the target page

20. Nuneaton and the Trent Valley Line - CeX (UK): - Buy, Sell ...

DVD title only

21. Train Simulator 2017 - Free Scenario Packs

No "Trent Valley line" on the target page

22. Lichfield Trent Valley Station - Rail Around Birmingham

only one appearance, with lowercase line.

23. 22/05/12 Trent Valley Line - CDS Railway Photographs

only one appearance, in a title-case heading; personal photo gallery

24. National Rail Enquiries - Station facilities for Lichfield ...

No "Trent Valley" at all on the target page

25. Category:Trent Valley Line - Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia

26. Nuneaton and the Trent Valley Line - CeX (UK): - Buy, Sell ...

DVD title

27. Lichfield Trent Valley ( LTV ) - nationalrail.co.uk

Trent Valley station; no line on page

28. Railway recollections : Sutton, Birmingham, Lichfield ...

Worldcat title, with lowercase line "Railway recollections : Sutton, Birmingham, Lichfield & the Trent Valley line"

29. Trent Valley Holsteins and Jerseys | Facebook

Facebook. Holsteins; no line.

30. Evil Slab, Brindley Heath CP, United Kingdom to Trent ...

GAIA GPS title only

31. National Rail Enquiries - Named railway lines

no "Trent Valley Line" on page

32. Trent Valley Honda - Honda Dealer In Peterborough | 1(800 ...

Car dealer; no "Trent Valley Line" on page

33. Train Simulator 2017 - Free Scenario Packs

DP Simulator ad/download page; no "Trent Valley Line" on page

34. Nuneaton And Trent Valley Line DVD | Zavvi.com

DVD title

35. London Midland Trains - Lichfield Trent Valley

no "Trent Valley line" on page

36. Trent Valley Gliding Club - Kirton in Lindsey

gliding club; no line

37. Trent Valley View | Trent Valley View | Jennifer Bradley

property owners site; no line

38. Trent Valley (Hancock County, Tennessee): Genealogy Helper

different place; no line

39. Trent Valley Line | World eBook Library - eBooks | Read ...

WP clone

40. Train Simulator Free Scenario Packs - dpsimulation.org.uk

DP Simulator add/download site

41. Trent Valley Archers | Facebook

archers; no line

42. Trent Valley Angling (TVA) - Home

angling; no line

43. British Railways layout plans of the 1950's. vol. 11, LNW ...

worldcat title w lowercase line: "British Railways layout plans of the 1950's. vol. 11, LNW lines in the West Midlands excluding Trent Valley line."

44. Trent Valley Line Railway Bridge No 3a — Gazetteer ...

canalplan.eu/gazetteer/428a has the target term only as part of the larger proper name "Trent Valley Line Railway Bridge No 3a"

45. Trent Valley Sailing Club

sailing; no line

46. trent valley | Tag Heuer Live Timing

access forbidden

47. Trent Valley Distributors

distributors; no line

48. Welcome to Trent Valley Surgery

surgery; no line

49. Online Double Glazing Quote | Trent Valley, Derby & Nottingham

glazing; no line

50. Trent Valley line | Go-HS2

wordpress (blog?) about HS2; "Trent Valley line", lowercase line only

51. Trent Valley Gliding Club - Kirton in Lindsey

gliding; no line

52. Trent Valley Quiz League - Broadband Internet, Cheap line ...

quiz league; no line

The main difference on Google seems to be that all the hits actually do contain the quoted query phrase, and there are books hits included, such as from Railway Magazine and Railway Times; there are 6 hits from books.google.com, 5 of which are lowercase line. Most of the web hits are similar to those from Bing Dicklyon (talk) 23:19, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trent_Valley_line&oldid=1210973758"