Talk:Inland Line
Add topicLatest comment: 14 years ago by Sladen in topic Requested move
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Inland Line → Inland Railway – Consistency with the rest of the article. Additionally, on its website Inlandsbanan itself translates its name into English as "the inland railway". Picapica (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Inland Railway is an article, and it's about a different subject. Overwriting and deleting the other subject is a bad idea. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: There is absolutely no proposal to overwrite or delete the existing Inland Railway article, and I am sure that no adminstrator would do that! But to make that quite clear, I will withdraw my original proposal and replace it with a move to Inland Railway (Sweden): -- Picapica (talk) 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
I hate to point this out, but the official English name of the railway line is 'Inland Line', according to the Swedish Transport Administration (see page 3), who owns the line. This also created an internal consistency with all other Swedish railway line namings on Wikipedia. The web site referred to above is merely the site of a company which runs trains on the line. Arsenikk (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, and it introduced a needless "(Sweden)" disambiguation suffix where previously none was required. Based on the reading of outcome of the above (there was no consensus for the move) and the downsides of having moved it and the advantages of the shorter, more concise name it can probably be restored to its previous name without concern. —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)