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 India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
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.
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 â 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
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 "JammuâPoonch railway".
Triomio (
talk)
20:02, 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.
When I moved to the dash, the hyphen redirect was made automatically. If you think other variants would be useful, go ahead and make them.
Dicklyon (
talk)
14:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move 2
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.
Oppose â while adding "line" is not uncommon in sources, adding "track" is even more common. But neither is needed, as the definitions of railway include lines or tracks. Keep it concise.
Dicklyon (
talk)
20:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support (or rather use "rail line") This is just a section of the lines, not a railway company on its own, unlike the rail companies in the US which I guess have seperate company for different sections. The Sources in India refer these as "railway lines" or "rail lines".--DBigXray15:39, 28 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
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--DBigXray11:53, 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.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
JammuâPoonch 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.
I have just modified one external link on
JammuâPoonch 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.