Talk:Woodhead line

message: I have transcluded the Manchester Sheffield Wath router- to put the line in context- till a better one is drawn.ClemRutter (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Router

message: very recently this addition was made to the article.  By any chance can anyone provide a source?  I'd be very interested if this is indeed the case, but it is not something I have seen or heard anything about.  A note to this effect was left on the editor's own talk page  L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 21:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here: http://www.2mgroup.org.uk/. Interesting stuff, but sadly not proposed by anybody capable of building it, funding it, or taking the decisions to make it happen. --VinceBowdren (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have commented out the paragraph until the day we see a British Rail Class 373 topping 180mph over Dinting arches.ClemRutter (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heathrow HSL? 

message: Surely Woodhead Line with a capital 'L' is the official name of this line, rather than descriptive. A quick search would appear to confirm this. So I don't see how this move is justified. G-13114 (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. However this was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Archive_37#Recent article moves removing capitalisation of 'line'.  Having gone nowhere and been archived without consensus, this has now been taken as a reason to impose the usual WP bureaucratic hatred of capitalisation, no matter how the subject is generally handled. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Agreed. If it were a fishing line, it would be line, though probably by tomorrow a fishing-line and that evening a fishingline. So  what is the procedure to have this error reverted? Is there a procedure where we can request a reversion with grovelling apology? Just so we can draw a line under it. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: * The consultation has finished and there is still no consensus. So we check back on the capitalisation when the article moved from a stub to a start. It as been consistently uc so no move is in order. So the lower-cap title remains a redirect? 
* Hunting through numerous on line sources we find total confusion, and a lot of effort is needed in getting access to notable sources. The on-line souces uses lc and uc versions in the same article, and even within the same paragraph. I haven't yet found one on-line source that is not internally contradictive.
* The issue is important as we need to sort out a consistent approach for all the post Beeching cuts articles. The actually Beeching Report gives tabular lists of all the lines affected but never once does it use the word Line or line, which is always presumed. In text it uses 'route'. 
* The issue needs a far wider discussion, taking in the guys who have contributed to other affected lines. (sic)
* Clearer instructions need to be provided on the MOS paragraphs quoted.
The article is protected so we can all take a break now- and reflect, gather information and propose a solution that can be universally applied. Greetings to all. --ClemRutter (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that complicated.  Orsdall Chord is alway capitalized in sources; e.g. books and news.  Most lines are not.  MOS:CAPS is simple enough to apply. Dicklyon (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I don't see any consensus in favour of this being moved. Can someone explain why this move has occured? G-13114 (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have closed the request, and have found a consensus to move the article. See my closing statement. RGloucester  — ☎ 08:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That hasn't answered anything. How is five in favour and five against with one neutral constitute a consensus about anything? G-13114 (talk) 12:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You can always take it to the next level. I think the consensus was probably correct in that there were almost no sources, and, interestingly, no old n-grams for any case variation of 'Woodhead Line'. Consensus on Wikipedia doesn't consist of counting votes, although real consensus elsewhere means coming to a solution that everyone agrees on, but of the closer supposedly reading all of the discussion, looking at the links provided, and wrapping their heads around the whole ball of wax and "seeing" it, then making a decision. I've seen many closers come to a huge well-discussed and argued RM page, often about major and important articles, and close it, their comments included, in under a minute (those closers should, in my opinion, be barred from closing). RGloucester seems to have taken the time to understand this page and worked out a fair close. By the way, given the timing: Merry Christmas! Randy Kryn 14:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As Mr Kryn has said, consensus on Wikipedia is not determined by how many people are supporting a particular side, but on the support of their arguments in Wikipedia. policies and guidelines. You can read more about this at WP:CONSENSUS. Essentially, those opposed to the move did not engage with policy or guidelines at all, and for that reasons, were not able to make a case against Dicklyon's argument based in WP:NCCAPS. I can understand that, for those unfamiliar, Wikipedia 'consensus' can be a rather confusing animal, but the essential thing to remember is that one's opinion in discussions such as these should always be rooted in policy. If it isn't, it isn't likely to mean very much. RGloucester  — ☎ 15:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And the point of the argument summary was to make it clear to anyone who looked that there were no actual arguments in favor of caps; just unsupported claims, opinions, and feelings.  There is a broad consensus on wikipedia to follow guidelines including those in the MOS about reserving caps for proper names, and somewhat of an understanding of how the determination of proper name status should be based on evidence in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would add that sources also matter (and depending on the discussion can matter more), but RGloucester's close obviously took that into account even if this followup discussion has not.  BTW, I would like to observe that WP:ANI has basically been canvassed to come here and re-litigate this . That's not what ANI is for or what this talk page is for; such discussions belong at WP:MR.   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  You got an edit conflict more than two weeks after the last edit? You must have a very slow connection. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Need to modify that template to have an option to do/say something else. I just use it as a "this is someone new posting" marker when I'm posting at the same indent level as the last poster, since otherwise my post looks like a continuation of theirs. :-)  Or maybe I really, really, really badly needed coffee and was operating at 2% efficiency.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure and what we have learned