Talk:Leeds–Bradford lines
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Leeds-Bradford Line. |
Requested move
[edit]This article has been renamed from Leeds-Bradford composite line to Leeds-Bradford Lines as the result of a move request.
- The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was - unopposed move. Keith D (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Leeds-Bradford composite line → Leeds-Bradford Lines — Current name is nonsensical. There is no such thing as a "composite line" - and the existence of a "composite timetable" (by which I assume they mean an aggregate timetable) does not make it so. —90.203.45.168 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Survey
[edit]- Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with
*'''Support'''
or*'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with~~~~
. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
- Support The website[1] lists it as the Leeds - Bradford Line, the timetable[2] is titled Leeds Bradford Composite Timetable. I can't find any mention of a composite line. --Salix alba (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I struggled to find references to the "composite line" outside of WP influence. The website listed by Salix alba suggests good reason to move --Lox (t,c) 12:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Any additional comments:
- Note that this move request needs clarifying as here it is proposed with a capitalised Lines, while in the box above & the move request at WP:RM it is uncapitalised. Keith D (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should be a capital L. That would be my mistake. 90.203.45.168 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.