Talk:Mud Run disaster

	Trains Portal
DYK	August 1, 2018

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Requested move 26 March 2015[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 per request Mike Cline (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Run Disaster → Mud Run disaster – No such proper name is found in sources, which call it "the disaster on the Lehigh Valley railroad", "the recent accident on the Lehigh Valley Railroad at Mud Run", and such in sentences. Headlines (usually title case) call it "Disaster at Mud Run", "Mud Run, PA Train Wreck, Oct 1888", "The Mud Run Disaster", "Disaster at Mud Run", and such. On the rare occasion that this term is used in a sentence, disaster is lowercase as in this book and this book and this book and a few more from over a hundred years ago. I find no evidence that anyone regards it as having become a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom, to conform with the guidelines of MOS:CAPS. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Dicklyon. Sounds like whoever created the article was a little creative in naming it. Please, no original research. Tony (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds like a fine informal/descriptive name of the topic in keeping with cited guidelines, given nobody has found a commonly used actual/formal one. DMacks (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2015 (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.