Talk:Midland Mainline

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

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).

Derbyshire C‑class Mid‑importance

Mid

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

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Midland Mainline.

On 10 May 2024, it was proposed that this article be

Midland Mainline (train operating company). The result of the discussion

was not moved.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was NO CONSENSUS to move page to suggested title. It's not clear that the current titles are ambiguous or in need of changing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Mainline (train operating company) — Distinguish from actual Midland Main Line. I hope this is not too ambiguous Simply south 19:34, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Survey - Oppose votes

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Based on the articles, there is no conflict. The company is Midland Mainline and the line itself is Midland Main Line. At least this is the way they are named and described in the intros of the articles. Vegaswikian 03:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In a way, i was following the convention of Thameslink and [[Thameslink (train operating company). Simply south 09:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not a convention. For a dab, you should use the shortest phrase that makes sense. In that case, I think it should have been Thameslink (company). However the convention says to use the full name instead of a dab. So it probably should have been something like Thameslink PLC. In any case this article should not follow a bad precedent. Vegaswikian 22:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is Midland Main Line Limited? Is that the correct name of the company or the line. If it is the company name, then moving the article to Midland Main Line Limited might be a good move. Vegaswikian 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

xx25 to Sheffield

Having recently travelled on this service, it seems to now be operated by a Class 222 rather than the Class 43 stated. Cordless Larry 22:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the services are operated by a Class 222 and some by Class 43. Its a mix. Year1989 11:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif

fair use

.
Please go to
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Midland Mainline logo.gif

fair use
.
Please go to
Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline
is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
talk) 06:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

assess

Refs .... 5 ... should have every para with a ref. But still "C" well done Victuallers (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Rio

The whole point of the name is because Rio Ferdinand had moved from Leeds United to Manchester United, this being the same reallocation of the trains, from a Leeds to London service to a Manchester to London service, either have the full point in there, or make no refference to it, don't have half a story and then delete the full explanation when it's written.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 23:23, 23 May 2011

It's an item which some people may well be sceptical about, so must be
verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Where's the refference for the following: This service was known as Project Rio, named after the footballer Rio Ferdinand who had made a record transfer to Manchester United Football Club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.2 (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. That is why I've slapped a {{unreferenced|section}} at the top of the section. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Midland Mainline. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211125313/http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise to http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/franchises/emfranchise

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 May 2024

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: Not moved. While the oppose was for the "company" parenthesis, the oppose supports a consensus for "train operating company" ambiguator if there was a need. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Midland Mainline → Midland Mainline (company) – I feel as though that the Midland Mainline company is defunct for a long while, I think that it should redirect to Midland Main Line. Various sources use 'mainline' rather than 'main line'. Mainline= BBC railadvent railforums UK west bridgeford wire another BBC the business desk google scholars 338 results vs 500 results for midland main line I know that
WP:SMALLDETAILS apply, but almost all mention of Midland Mainline refer to the railway than the (former/defunct) railway company. Plus my google search (even though im in UK, using the google.co.uk URL) comes with 'midland mainline' first. Do note that google no longer provides how many search results at least for me. JuniperChill (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose "(company)" - if this needs disambiguation it should use the standard "(train operating company)" (c.f. Thameslink (train operating company), Valley Lines (train operating company)) but I'm weakly unconvinced of the benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't believe it needs dab but if it does it should follow the normal format as per Thryduulf (talk · contribs)'s point. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
have a look at
WP:SMALLDETAILS
. it says that: a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling:
Cold war redirects to Cold War, with the broad concept discussed at Cold war (term)

Gray Poupon redirects to Grey Poupon; an album of that name is at Gray Poupon (album)

It's normally a hit or miss but almost all sources within the last several years saying 'Midland Mainline' refer to the railway line than the company. Even the BBC (a reliable source) uses Midland mainline sometimes. But anyways, if anyone prefers (train operating company) as the dab, thats fine with me.

JuniperChill (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please see
WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT JuniperChill (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Support
Midland Mainline (train operating company). The line is the clear primary topic; the fact it has three words rather than two is irrelevant as most people wouldn't know the difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment, it should be the usual "(train operating company)" disambiguator if one is needed. No stance otherwise. Dank Jae 19:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Relisting to gauge consensus between non-disambiguated and "Midland Mainline (train operating company)" Sceptre (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2024 (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.

@SafariScribe: how was there a consensus here? There are two opposes stating that there is no reason to move this page. I also oppose it. Please reconsider. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, the oppose were against the company ambiguator and support from the train operating company" ambiguator. Should I reopen it. It seems you may have something to add. I am already doing that. Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SafariScribe. I don't think the opposes were in support of the move at all - the first says "I'm weakly unconvinced of the benefit" and the second says "I don't believe it needs dab". That means that the opposed any move of the page. They only noted that if it were to be moved anyway, they'd prefer train operating company as the disambiguator. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I now get it. Thanks too and will just have to leave it as "opposed" ie. "Not moved". What do you think? Si

i ce this at also the consen.sus Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by i ce this at also the consen.sus but Sceptre was right to say there was no consensus a week ago, and with no comments since I'm struggling to understand where the consensus to move suddenly came from? Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf, that was WP reply error. It suppose to be "since that is also the consensus." You should see the corrected error. It's now "not moved". I measured the consensus seeing support of the parentheses "train operating company" and forgot it was weakly supported. I was just corrected by Amakuru. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that Amakuru actually renamed it to the proposed title last year. I also count 2 supports (including the nom, me) plus a weak support from Thryduulf and neutral for DankJae with everyone opposing (company). I was also in the process of changing some of the links, including the main Midland Main Line page. JuniperChill (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JuniperChill my !vote is a weak oppose, not a support. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf I must have thought you said 'weakly convinced of the benefit' and didn't see you said unconvinced instead. JuniperChill (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
im a little late to the party, but this seems more like a 'no consensus' result rather than 'not moved' since the arguments for supporting/opposing are about the same. This is because the TOC is long gone and the Midland Mainline now commonly referrs to the railway line. This means anyone can open an RM request after a reasonable period (at least a few months) has passed. JuniperChill (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Midland_Mainline&oldid=1225638152"