Talk:Picton–Battersby line

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

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 WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

This article lacks references.

Yorkshire Low‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Picton–Battersby line is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Picton–Battersby line/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.

Requires addition of inline references using one of the {{Cite}} templates - if all from single reference then add page numbers for each item
Requires photographs - of possible

Keith D 12:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 02:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

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: page moved to Picton–Battersby line. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picton to Battersby Line → Picton to Battersby line – Downcase per WP:NCCAPS; sources mostly do not cap it. Optionally, say if you prefer to use symmetric dashed version (Picton–Battersby line) rather than "to" between place names. Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence in sources

news
books

Please examine the searches, see if there is a common name, whether the dashed version is preferred, and whether caps are preferred.It is my impression that there is no proper name here and that the dashed, hyphened, or "and" symmetric form is more common (and more logical and more consistent with other such lines). Dicklyon (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - let me be the first to agree. I do not have a strong opinion on the actual layout, but if pushed, would prefer the dash. The joy of all things (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCCAPS, MOS:CAPS. When usage is broadly mixed in sources, we use lower case; the general-audience sources prefer lower-case anyway. Prefer Picton–Battersby line per WP:CONCISE (that also avoids any future dispute with someone who wants to hyphenate even more than MoS does and use "Picton-to-Battersby line"). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 21:32, 1 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.