Talk:1836 in rail transport
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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 |
| List | This article has been rated as list-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Timelines task force. |
[edit] Requested move
- The following discussion is an archived 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 consensus is against move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
1836 in rail transport → Rail transport in 1836 — completing incomplete request —Andrewa (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
From WP:RM:
1836 in rail transport → Rail transport in 1836 - The orig. title is not standard english syntax. I doubt anyone will search for an article in that manner. This will boost the article's visibility.Matthew Glennon (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Survey
- 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.
- Oppose. This name represents a well-established and widely used if unwritten convention. See for example Category:20th century in music. Andrewa (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. See Years in rail transport. Should be brought up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains for wider discussion, but will involve much work if all articles are changed. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Opppose Seems fine to me, also 'visaiblity' is not a valid reason for a move. We are not a search engine whore site or we would include 'anal fisting pee Dalek' at the bottom of all our pages. Narson (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- oppose per standard naming convention; see 1836 in poetry, 1836 in art, 1836 in science and 1836 in archaeology for other examples of this naming convention. Slambo (Speak) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussion
- Any additional comments:
- 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.
