Talk:Cumbrian Coast Line

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

History

[edit]

Is there really any point in having Cumbrian Coast Line (history) as a separate article? Why not merge it with this? -- Dr Greg  talk  18:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, why not? Unless someone comes along with a lot of information for both, go ahead. Britmax (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Not aware of any other lines with 2 pages and the History page is very thin. NRTurner (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No obvious compelling reason to have a separate page that I can see so I'd agree with a merge. Adambro (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have fleshed out the history of the Whitehaven companies, but even so I don't think there is enough there to justify giving them separate pages Rjccumbria (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Workington North

[edit]

The link to this station is to the article about the town. Suggest the link is removed until there's a page about the new station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the links on the left are to towns; for links to the stations, use the column on the right. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have marked the only External Link as dead because I can't find a suitable alternative target. If you can find a new target url, please feel free to delete the tag. Tiger99 (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 August 2025

[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved to alternate proposal: Cumbrian Coast Line. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbrian Coast line → Cumbrian coast line – No consensus on name by reliable sources (CCL: [1] [2]; CCl: [3] [4]; Ccl: [5]). It makes more sense to prefer cross-article consistency to any one of these by using sentence case. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 13:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. ASUKITE 15:37, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - see Northern Rail [6] [7], official tourism site [8], Rail Advent [9], Network Rail [10] and yes I'm aware that Network Rail also use it lowercase. Bottom line I don't think there's an overwhelming mandate to change it. 10mmsocket (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Looking at reliable sources I find a mixture of "Cumbrian Coast Line" and "Cumbrian Coast line", with essentially zero uses with "coast" in lowercase. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - agree with everything said by 10mmsocket (talk) -- Vicomte Guiy de Montfort L'Amaury 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move as I see "Coast" being mostly capitalised. I do see a case of moving it to Cumbrian Coast Line (capital "Line") seeing as it was moved away in 2016 not once, but twice by Dicklyon, who was just banned. This feels like another Great Western main line situation where it was surprisingly moved to its lowercase form via an RM, before being moved back to its original name in 2021. JuniperChill (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing it in either title case (Cumbrian Coast Line) or sentence case (Cumbrian coast line) is the way to go. The Cumbrian coast is not a proper noun because it is not the name of a place (like London or Essex or the Isle of Skye) but instead a description of a place, the coast of Cumbria (like the north of England or the top of Ben Nevis). Therefore it should either be the Cumbrian coast line (a line on the cumbrian coast) or the Cumbrian Coast Line (a single thing called the Cumbrian Coast Line). The Cumbrian Coast line is the worst of both worlds. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 13:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow what the sources use, not we think sources should be using. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources using all capitals: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. I think moving to Cumbrian Coast Line is the best solution as it is used by most sources. I probably should have done the RM as Cumbrian Coast line → Cumbrian Coast Line. JacobTheRox(talk |&nbsp contributions) 09:07, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me 10mmsocket (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to Cumbrian Coast Line instead

[edit]

Μy main reason for suggesting this as the target is WP:COMMONNAME; The majority of sources use "Cumbrian Coast Line". My second reason is that calling it Cumbrian Coast Line simply implies the line a proper noun, which brings it in line with some other lines such as the West Highland Line and the North Downs Line. I should have made the RM target this rather than "Cumbrian coast line", but "Cumbrian Coast line" is still a ridiculous name for the article as Cumbrian Coast is not a proper noun; either the entire line is a proper noun (Cumbrian Coast Line) or it isn't (Cumbrian coast line).

Sources using Cumbrian Coast Line making it the WP:COMMONNAME: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] Pings:

  • @10mmsocket: – most the sources you rightfully brought up opposing "Cumbrian coast line" call it the Cumbrian Coast Line
  • @Thryduulf:
  • @JuniperChill: – would you support this target then?

Apologies for the ping and retarget halfway through. Look forward to hearing back, JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 09:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.