Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line

message: Quick question, surely this might be known as the more succinct "west midlands loop" or something ??? Pickle 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would imply that its main purpose is as an alternative to the WCML. However, I feel it is a line in its own right, with a variety of local services. The engineering line reference (official usage used by Network Rail) is RBS - standing for Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford, therefore I thought this was an appropriate title. It also conforms to other articles. — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK makes sense ;) Pickle 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, the new footbridge at Wolverhampton station has a sign (obviously denoting the number of bridge or something) that says RBS. Worley-d 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening heading 

message: I don't have time to do them at the moment, but I'd suggest the following tweaks to the map:
*I don't think the A5 or A38 should go on - if we set a precident for A roads there'll be so many bridges there won't be room for anything else. Just show motorways.
*The Cross-City line should diverge above-left of New Street towards Redditch.
*The Coventry-Leamington Spa line should diverge below left of Coventry.
*There are three tunnels on the line - one either side of New Street, plus Beechwood tunnel between Berkswell and Tile Hill.
*The Birmingham-Kidderminster line goes over the top at Smethwick Galton Bridge.
 – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that only big A roads (ie not quite motorways) should be included (unless notable otherwise), there is also another road bridge icon which doesn't imply a huge motorway. Pickle 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map alterations

message: I'm concerned about the name of this article: does anyone actually call it the "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line"?  Isn't generally thought of as part of the West Coast Main Line?  Apart from the line diagram, couldn't the content be merged with the WCML article?  That article is crying for improvement as it stands, with all its lists and tables of insignificant information.  --RFBailey (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that it's better to have localised branches and loops of the WCML (such as Northampton Loop Line as separate articles, with West Coast Main Line providing an overview of the whole route. I agree both articles need improving, but merging them together would just lead to one even longer straggly article. The article title has been discussed above - if you can come up with a better alternative, I'd be happy to go along with it. Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham Line would follow the pattern set by Birmingham to Worcester via Kidderminster Line, etc. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is, it's still a name we've made up.  Is someone going to search for "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line" or "Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham line"?  --RFBailey (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not directly, but there are other ways of reaching articles. There are plenty of Links to the article. I've just created Birmingham Loop Line as a redirect as it's a possible search. I don't know if you think any other name would be better. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  RFBailey: This line is officially (by Network Rail) called the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line. Surely we are approaching wikipedia in making it as official as possible? Worley-d (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: Please, I am getting fed up with all of this now. Please can all who are interested in this please post why you think this article should or should not be renamed to Birmingham Loop Line Nathan A RF (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The RM closed just before I saw it, but to me it's the "Birmingham Loop".  I've never seen the R-B-S term outside Wikipedia.  The ghits for R-B-S all seem to be copies of Wikipedia or automatically generated from the Google map.  For example, this book boasts "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!".  (Cover picture: lineside posts at Rugby?) Certes (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As there appears to be no consensus either way. I would say that there could be a case for a Bold move to BLL. G-13114 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: May be this is a case of disruption as there has just been a move discussion that was closed a few days ago, please give it a few months for possible change of consensus. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There was a move request, there was no consensus for the move. Please stop flogging a dead horse. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There are four threads above concerning the article name, two of which are move discussions, so a WP:BOLD move would definitely be seen as disruptive, certainly revertable, and possibly blockable. As it is I'm considering move-protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection might be considered a bold response to someone suggesting on the talk page "that there could be a case" for a move. Certes (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Redrose64 Just because the move may be bold, it does not mean it is wrong. If you feel this article should be move protected, then please state why Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line is "correct" and Birmingham Loop Line or related names are "incorrect" Nathan A RF (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As there isn't any consensus either way on what it should be called, then either name can be valid. There isn't a consensus against moving it any more than there is keeping it where it is. So I don't understand the over-the-top reaction to the suggestion. G-13114 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Under Wikipedia conventions, if a discussion concludes with "no consensus" that doesn't mean it's a "draw" and no decision has been made. "No consensus" means the proposal has failed and will not go ahead at this time. You may not like it, but those are the rules. It's wasting everyone's time to continue discussing a proposal that failed less than a week ago. Sorry. Come back and try again in a year's time if you find some new evidence not already discussed here, but in the mean time, accept you have lost on this occasion and please find something more productive to do with your time. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  Pages are not protected to favour one version over another (although it's a well-known fact that The Wrong Version™ is always protected). Pages are protected to prevent disruption to Wikipedia; and one of the permitted reasons for move-protecting a page is "Pages subject to a page-name dispute." This is one such case; comments like "there could be a case for a Bold move to BLL" indicate that the dispute has not gone away. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

text:  You still haven't answered my question, which was why do you think that this article shouldn't be renamed to Birmingham Loop Line? Nathan A RF (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, five years ago. It's still on this page, unarchived. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be renamed 

message: Between Ettingshall Road and Coseley, the station of Deepfields (opened 1852 - closed 1902) needs to be added for completeness sake. This information is included on page 6 of the location list of the Stour Valley Line which tallies with all the stations shown on this line template included in this article.
Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this it was called Deepfields & Coseley and was replaced by the current Coseley railway station in 1902, 400m down the track. G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition to line diagram (not the map)