Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad

Trains 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.

It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.

Requested move 9 August 2023 edit

Latest comment: 8 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

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: no consensus. It was highlighted that WikiProject Trains' style guide prefers the usage of "and", whereas MOS:& prefers the usage of the ampersand. No consensus emerged as to which style should prevail. As was noted in the discussion, a more widely scoped discussion on whether to use "and" or "&" for titling railway station articles may help this question to be resolved more decisively. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad → Decatur and Eastern Illinois Railroad – Longstanding consensus has been to use "and" in place of ampersands in article titles for railroads. I attempted to boldy move the article title and was reverted without any explanation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Support. Long-standing consensus to use "and" for article titles in these cases. Mackensen (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I'm not aware of this "longstanding consensus", which is presumably a local consensus described somewhere, but it sounds contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. WP:& says to "retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T." The self-published logo and all of the cited sources use the "&". This should be handled together with Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Neutral comment - I don’t actually have a preference regarding the outcome of the RM, but it sounds like we have conflicting guidance between MOS:& and Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Article name. I think that conflict needs to be resolved before we can decide whether to move or not. I would therefore suggest this RM be put on hold, pending a wider consensus on which guidance should apply. Blueboar (talk)

Thank you for the pointer. I found some discussion of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Style advice#Erroneous use of "and". It looks like the conflict has existed for more than 15 years. See also Talk:Northampton & Lamport Railway (another article with "&"). In general, there shouldn't be project-specific style guidance that conflicts with Wikipedia-level style guidance (at least in the absence of some explanation of why the higher-level guidance does not apply). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oppose, MOS:& states: retain an ampersand when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark, such as in Up & Down or AT&T. In this case & is used in the trademark as demonstrated by the crest in the infobox. Useuntarge (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Support. Ampersands are generally only retained in very limited circumstances. This is not one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2023 (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.

Add topic