Talk:Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line

Opening heading

Quick question, surely this might be known as the more succinct "west midlands loop" or something ??? Pickle 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This would imply that its main purpose is as an alternative to the WCML. However, I feel it is a line in its own right, with a variety of local services. The engineering line reference (official usage used by Network Rail) is RBS - standing for Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford, therefore I thought this was an appropriate title. It also conforms to other articles. — Tivedshambo (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK makes sense ;) Pickle 17:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the new footbridge at Wolverhampton station has a sign (obviously denoting the number of bridge or something) that says RBS. Worley-d 20:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Map alterations

I don't have time to do them at the moment, but I'd suggest the following tweaks to the map:

• I don't think the A5 or A38 should go on - if we set a precident for A roads there'll be so many bridges there won't be room for anything else. Just show motorways.
• The Cross-City line should diverge above-left of New Street towards Redditch.
• The Coventry-Leamington Spa line should diverge below left of Coventry.
• There are three tunnels on the line - one either side of New Street, plus Beechwood tunnel between Berkswell and Tile Hill.
• The Birmingham-Kidderminster line goes over the top at Smethwick Galton Bridge.

 – Tivedshambo (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that only big A roads (ie not quite motorways) should be included (unless notable otherwise), there is also another road bridge icon which doesn't imply a huge motorway. Pickle 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Article name

I'm concerned about the name of this article: does anyone actually call it the "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line"? Isn't generally thought of as part of the West Coast Main Line? Apart from the line diagram, couldn't the content be merged with the WCML article? That article is crying for improvement as it stands, with all its lists and tables of insignificant information. --RFBailey (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My view is that it's better to have localised branches and loops of the WCML (such as Northampton Loop Line as separate articles, with West Coast Main Line providing an overview of the whole route. I agree both articles need improving, but merging them together would just lead to one even longer straggly article. The article title has been discussed above - if you can come up with a better alternative, I'd be happy to go along with it. Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham Line would follow the pattern set by Birmingham to Worcester via Kidderminster Line, etc. – Tivedshambo (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The point is, it's still a name we've made up. Is someone going to search for "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford line" or "Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham line"? --RFBailey (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Probably not directly, but there are other ways of reaching articles. There are plenty of Links to the article. I've just created Birmingham Loop Line as a redirect as it's a possible search. I don't know if you think any other name would be better. – Tivedshambo (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RFBailey: This line is officially (by Network Rail) called the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line. Surely we are approaching wikipedia in making it as official as possible? Worley-d (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually from what I can see Network Rail refers to it as the Birmingham loop. Look at this http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/StrategicBusinessPlan/RoutePlans/2009/Route%2017%20-%20West%20Midlands.pdf which states:

• WCML, including the Birmingham loop (Rugby

– Coventry – Birmingham New Street – Wolverhampton, rejoining the WCML at Stafford) (17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.07) and the Stechford to Bushbury Junction line (17.09) (the Grand Junction which provides vital diversionary capability for both the WCML

Trent Valley route and the Birmingham loop);

It would appear based on that that Birmingham loop is the official title. I can't see any mention of Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford. G-13114 (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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: No consensus to move. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Birmingham Loop Line — Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC) Per talk page rationale. No objections recieved. G-13114 (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I would propose that this is moved to Birmingham Loop Line. Because A) It sounds better and more intuitive. B) It has official usage. C) It is consistent with other wiki articles such as Northampton Loop Line, Hertford Loop Line, Oldham Loop Line etc. Does anyone object? G-13114 (talk) 07:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm neutral. I'll post a message at WT:UKT. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) (logged on as Pek) 20:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support Official name. Simply south...... trying to improve for 5 years 21:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose According to Quail (2nd edition), maps 11A/14B/14C/16/19/21B/12B, the line is not one but three - "Rugby and Birmingham Line" (Rugby-Birmingham New Street); "Stour Valley Line" (Birm NS-Bushbury Junction (north of Wolverhampton)); and "Bushbury to Stafford Line" (Bushbury Jct-Stafford). They do share the engineers' line reference RBS, which according to the list at the back is "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford". So, it's not a Wikipedia made-up-name. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Perhaps it does have official usage, but as I've pointed out in the above section, so does 'Birmingham Loop', so that isn't a made up name either. I think clarity and consistancy with other articles such as Northampton Loop Line are also important when naming articles. G-13114 (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
    • Comment The Northampton Loop Line was built as such, whereas this line only became a loop upon the construction of the Trent Valley Line (and that's not even talking about the line from Stechford to Aston or Birmingham New Street to Wolverhampton). Tim PF (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Comment Whether it was built as a loop or not. The Trent Valley line is now considered to be the main line of the WCML (see Network Rail Route 18) and the route through Birmingham as the divergance. If you see the link to the official Network Rail document I posted in the above section, [again here on page 4] 'Birmingham loop' is defined by Network Rail as (Rugby – Coventry – Birmingham New Street – Wolverhampton, rejoining the WCML at Stafford). The line from Stechford to Bushbury juction is treated seperately, so perhaps this could do with it's own article, Stechford to Bushbury Junction line? or perhaps a subsection in the article?. Either way 'Birmingham loop' has an official Network Rail definition. G-13114 (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per nomination. G-13114 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it were being changed, it would be to Birmingham loop line with only the word Birmingham capitalised (see WP:MOSCAPS). The Network Rail reference quoted does not use Birmingham Loop Line with a capital L. The same reference does also refer to the line as "the Rugby to Stafford loop", and is apparent that the various terms used in that document are descriptions, rather than official titles. As the current article title ties up with the ELR, best to stick with that. A redirect from Birmingham loop line wouldn't be unreasonable. - David Biddulph (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. So why do all the other similar lines (Northampton Loop Line, Hertford Loop Line, Oldham Loop Line, Hounslow Loop Line etc) use capitals. If this is wrong than so are they. Are you going to propose moving all of them? Also the ELR appears to be anachronistic, being based entirely upon which company built the bits of lines 150+ years ago (e.g. London and Birmingham Railway, Grand Junction Railway, Stour Valley Railway) rather than on modern day usage or traffic flows. Also are we going to name all wiki railway articles based on ELR's, in which case we would certainly come up with some pretty anachronistic titles! G-13114 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • If changed it should be BLL not Bll as it is not a loop line that happens to go through Birmingham, Birmingham Loop Line is a proper name, and is therefore capitalised. Your MOSCAPS argument falls flat when you consider things like British Touring Car Championship which is all capitalised because that's its name. What we tend to ignore capital-wise are things that are CaPiTaLiSeD lIkE tHiS for no good reason, or where the capitals are simply a style (eg McFLY vs McFly). -mattbuck (Talk) 12:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
      • Where is the WP:RS for "Birmingham Loop Line" as an official proper name? British Touring Car Championship is indeed justifiable by official sources such as www.btcc.net; if there is an equivalent WP:RS for "Birmingham Loop Line", then of course that would be an appropriate article title. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
        • I already gave you a reliable source for 'Birmingham loop' and 'Birmingham Loop Line' is consistant with other similar articles. You didn't answer my point. Are you going to demand that all other similar articles like Hertford Loop Line are renamed without capitals? That would be fine with me, but as long as they have capitals then so should this if it is moved. If not then frankly I don't see what merit your objection has. G-13114 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • @G-13114 - I didn't state that the ELR was based upon which company built the bits of lines 150+ years ago. Please observe what I actually put, which was 'the line is not one but three - "Rugby and Birmingham Line" (Rugby-Birmingham New Street); "Stour Valley Line" (Birm NS-Bushbury Junction (north of Wolverhampton)); and "Bushbury to Stafford Line" (Bushbury Jct-Stafford)'. In my source (Quail vol. 4 (2nd edition)), the text alongside each of the three stretches (e.g. "RUGBY and BIRMINGHAM LINE (London and Birmingham)") is described in the key at the front (2nd para from bottom) as "Traditional line descriptions may be quoted, e.g. CREWE and BIRDSWOOD LINE (Grand Junction)".
      I also stated 'They [these three stretches] do share the engineers' line reference RBS, which according to the list at the back is "Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford"'. Therefore, the ELR is in no way anachronistic, but is merely the acronym for the three-word line name. It is certainly not "based entirely upon which company built the bits of lines 150+ years ago".
      If we're concerned with traffic flows, there are comparatively few services which run the whole length of the route. Most traffic uses a portion of the route, with two being particularly significant: Rugby-Birmingham-Wolverhampton (trains from Euston), and Birmingham-Wolverhampton-Stafford (cross-country services). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
      • In fact, there are almost no scheduled trains that run the whole line.
         Virgin Trains runs one train a day each way outwith the summer, when they also extend some of the Birmingham / Scotland services to use Pendolinos through from and to Euston.
         CrossCountry run between Coventry and Stafford on their Bournemouth to Manchester services (and between Birmingham and Stafford on their Bristol to Manchester services).
         London Midland don't run any through trains, notwithstanding the fact that they run an hourly service between Euston and Birmingham via Northampton and a half-hourly service from Birmingham to Liverpool.
         When engineering works on the Trent Valley Line force diversions, many trains will use the Stechford to Bushbury Junction line to avoid the Birmingham New Street bottleneck.
         It really makes it a non-route, which is presumably why Network Rail lumps it in with the rest of the West Midlands. Tim PF (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
        • That may be true with the current timetable. But there certainly have been trains routed that way in the past. I recall a few times using a train to Manchester which was routed that way circa 2003. G-13114 (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
          • I think that there were quite a large number of trains that did that during the upgrade of the WCML, as I remember them myself in early January 2006, although it could be that it was a normal routing for a weekend at the time. There may have been more use in the past by Cross Country (either by VirginCC or the BR version) as well. However, I think that RedRose is correct in saying that there are only a few, mostly off-peak services that use this route, as it is quite a diversion from the Trent Valley Line, and that this has probably been the case for the last 164 years. I do find it odd, however, that London Midland don't run through trains from London to Liverpool this way; it could be that the two services need different Class 350 variants. Tim PF (talk) 01:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
            • I read on the Wolverhampton railway station article that there are a few through trains from Liverpool to Northampton. But that article has no references so i don't know if that's true. G-13114 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
              • I wouldn't be at all surprised if the trains did run through at times, even if not advertised as such. Birmingham New Street can be very congested at times, and I knew someone who was involved with the timetabling of trains, some years ago, who said that Central Trains had a few end-on connecting services to save having two terminating trains (not necessarily from different directions). Whilst the Liverpool trains can use platform 4c (the only bay), this is not the case for Northampton trains, which could certainly take advantage of running through towards Liverpool, even if the destination blind (?) is changed whilst at the station (or more likely just before arrival).
                Stranger things have happened on that line, when for several years there was some Silverlink / Central Trains joint stock so that they could run London to Birmingham trains end-on through Northampton. I used it once to get to Luton Airport with my bicycle (cycling from Berkhamsted (or was it Leighton Buzzard?), although my early morning return via Bletchley used a Virgin Train diverted via Nuneaton). Tim PF (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose -- For several reasons. First, I think you are misinterpreting the usage of "Birmingham loop" in the "Route 17 - West Midlands.pdf" document. It may just be used on PDF p4 as a local abbreviation for that paragraph, without any official backing. Furthermore, on PDF p22, it states: "...allowing traffic to bypass the Wolverhampton to Stafford part of the Rugby to Stafford loop" (my emphasis), so the same line is referred to in the same document by two different "official" names. Second, as I commented earlier, the Northampton Loop was specifically built by the LNWR as a loop of its main line, and still operates today as the slow lines. The RBS line was never built as a loop since the Rugby to Curzon Street and Wolverhampton to Stafford sections were part of the original WCML. Third, there is a possible ambiguity, as the Midland Railway also had a Birmingham loop between Saltley and King's Norton (with freight still using the older Camp Hill line). Tim PF (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. 1) I doubt it, as page 4 is the official definition of the route, that clearly overides what is said on some minor paragraph later on. 2) I already answered that objection. Whether it was built as a loop line or not is irrelevant since it has not been the main line of the WCML for 164 years since the Trent Valley Line opened. The Trent Valley is now considered (and has been for generations) as the main line of the WCML and is defined as such by Network Rail as Route 18. In any event the term loop appears in both of the terms used in that document. So Network Rail clearly and unambiguously regards the line as being a loop 3) How likely is it for that to be a problem? Since only a tiny number of people intensely familliar with railway history in the West Midlands area are likely to know that. G-13114 (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm now rather confused. The cited document is about Network Rail's "Route 17 West Midlands". Does this mean that you want to merge this article along with others into a Route 17 – West Midlands article? After all, that is the route that is defined on PDF page 4. As for the clearly overrides, it certainly wasn't clear to David Biddulph or me. Tim PF (talk) 12:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
      • No, since "Route 17" is the name of a group of lines. We already have a few articles for Nework Rail strategic route sections (See Network Rail#Route plans) so I would not be against the creation of such an article. That does not however negate the need for articles on individual lines within the defined group. G-13114 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. I was never particularly happy with the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford title (see this from 2007). That said, it is clear to me from the lack of sources that it doesn't have one consistently-used common name, so we're stuck with having to have a descriptive article title. "Birmingham loop line" (with or without capitals) may be a slight improvement, but as someone pointed out this could be slightly ambiguous. As for whether that is a proper noun or common noun, then Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn--I've got better things to do than worry about that. --RFBailey (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I would tend to agree that there isn't a consistently used common name for the line. It appears that RBS and Birmingham loop are both valid names and both have official usage. But if we're going to choose one, then we might as well choose the one which is simple, less wordy and is consistent with other wiki articles like Northampton Loop Line and Hertford Loop Line. G-13114 (talk) 15:18, 29 April 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.

Renaming

In my opinion, I think that this article should be renamed, either to the Birmingham Loop Line or the Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line. Either way, the article should include 'to's instead of '-'s. The dash in the title could be misleading as in the case of Mid-Cheshire Line. Please, this would be the appropriate naming. Nathan A RF (talk) 16:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Birmingham Loop Line was discussed above and rejected. I don't consider hyphens to be misleading, as Rugby and Birmingham are not adjective prefixes, unlike "Mid-". However if there is consensus for a change I'd go for Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham Line, as I suggested once before. Optimist on the run (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too happy with the current title, as it is rather clunky, but Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line and Birmingham Loop Line both have the advantage of having usage in official documents, but Rugby to Stafford via Birmingham Line doesn't so far as I know, and Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line is just silly, and using either of those would be wikipedia inventing names which should be avoided as it is original research. So it really has to be one of the first two. I was in favour of moving it to BLL, but as you can see above most people disagreed with me, so as long as that is still the consensus it will probably have to stay put. G-13114 (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

By the way, the dash in this article's title is, correctly, an "en dash" (–) whereas the "Mid-Cheshire Line" correctly has a hyphen (-) in it. -- Dr Greg  talk  20:12, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, as the document referenced on the main page by Birmingham Loop Line is the Network Rail usage of that name, I think it should be used. No other webpage or document apart from this Wikipedia page and a few Wikimedia Commons images refer to the line as the Rugby-Birmingham-Stafford Line. I strongly agree that the name should be changed to Birmingham Loop Line despite all other arguments, as this is the name referred to by Network Rail, the owner of the railway, so they must be right, as they know the official name. Nathan A RF (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, after looking through the arguments above, I see that the ELR has come up a lot. The ELR RBS has no valid contributions to the naming of this article whatsoever. RBS refers to the place to place route, not the line name. For example, the ELR TTH is Tonbridge to Hastings. However, the line referred to is called the Hastings Line, not the Tonbridge to Hastings Line. Nathan A RF (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan A RF: Please see my post of 21:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: As I explained above, not relevant as a reference to naming various lines. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Please can I get some clear opinions of this? Without any rejections or support I will change the name to Birmingham Loop Line. The Engineer's Line Reference has no case here, the Network Rail name is Birmingam Loop and many people don't refer to it as the Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line (which is what someone would say, replacing the – for to) Nathan A RF (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Please explain your reasons for stating that the ELR has no case here.Optimist on the run (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Some are saying that because the ELR is RBS that it means that the route is called Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line, which is not true. The ELR is to signify the places at each end of a line. For example, the Hastings Line has the ELR TTH (Tonbridge to Hastings), but the line is not called the Tonbridge to Hastings Line. Therefore the ELR has no relativity to the naming of this line, and I continue to support the removal of the stupid name pronounced Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line. Nathan A RF (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to moving it. G-13114 (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I feel this is the appropriate name. Nathan A RF (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

ELRs do not necessarily "signify the places at each end of a line". Ten minutes walk from where I live is a place (southern end of Foxhall Road Bridge, MLN1 53m 41c) from which I can see all of the following:

• DCL - Didcot & Chester Line
• DEC - Didcot East Curve
• DPS - Didcot Power Station
• DWC - Didcot West Curve
• MLN - Main LiNe

Only one of these five, or just 20%, matches your claim. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Still, you have furthered my claim that the ELR has nothing to do with the name of the railway line itself. Thank you. Nathan A RF (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Birmingham Loop Line – Actual line names of railways are not related to ELR name, "Birmingham Loop Line" used by Network Rail, line name not used by locals, line name pronounced in a particularly stupid way (Rugby to Birmingham to Stafford Line) Nathan A RF (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support: for the same reasons I gave in 2011 above. It's a less clunky, more natural sounding title, also descriptive of the line's status as a loop off the main spine of the WCML. It is also consistent with articles such as Northampton Loop Line and Hertford Loop Line etc. In fact the case is probably stronger now then it was five years ago, one of the arguments used against it then was that it wasn't a proper route as there were then no through services which used the entire line, but that has changed with the introduction of the London-Birmingham-Scotland service. G-13114 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - the nominator's arguments seem to stem from one example of a line where the ELR is not used as the article title, although I'm sure I could come up with counter examples if I had the time/inclination, and on his own interpretation of the pronunciation of the article (personally I read it as "Rugby Birmingham Stafford line", without trying to interpret the dashes as "to" or anything else"). I agree this is not an ideal title, but IMO it's better than "Birmingham Loop Line" which implies to me that it was constructed after the main Trent Valley route, which isn't the case here. Optimist on the run (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Strictly speaking it was, the Trent Valley Line was opened in 1847, whilst the RBS line wasn't completed until 1852 when the Stour Valley Line section opened. G-13114 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: The evidence either way is sparse so far, and a quick Google [1] [2] provides no support, with only 7 ghits for the new name (your results may vary) some of which use both names equally [3]. Andrewa (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Please note that link 3 you provided has information that is directly copied from Wikipedia, so it has no validity in this argument. The first paragraphs of both articles are the same. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think both names are valid, however I would prefer BLL, because (1) It is less clunky then RBS (2) It has official usage in Network Rail documents (3) It is descriptive of what the line is, i.e. a loop running from the main WCML (4) It is consistent with other article titles like Northampton Loop Line, Hertford Loop Line and Oldham Loop Line for example. G-13114 (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This article needs to be renamed

Please, I am getting fed up with all of this now. Please can all who are interested in this please post why you think this article should or should not be renamed to Birmingham Loop Line Nathan A RF (talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The RM closed just before I saw it, but to me it's the "Birmingham Loop". I've never seen the R-B-S term outside Wikipedia. The ghits for R-B-S all seem to be copies of Wikipedia or automatically generated from the Google map. For example, this book boasts "High Quality Content by WIKIPEDIA articles!". (Cover picture: lineside posts at Rugby?)[4] Certes (talk) 23:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

As there appears to be no consensus either way. I would say that there could be a case for a Bold move to BLL. G-13114 (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

May be this is a case of disruption as there has just been a move discussion that was closed a few days ago, please give it a few months for possible change of consensus. Keith D (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. There was a move request, there was no consensus for the move. Please stop flogging a dead horse. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

There are four threads above concerning the article name, two of which are move discussions, so a WP:BOLD move would definitely be seen as disruptive, certainly revertable, and possibly blockable. As it is I'm considering move-protection. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Protection might be considered a bold response to someone suggesting on the talk page "that there could be a case" for a move. Certes (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64 Just because the move may be bold, it does not mean it is wrong. If you feel this article should be move protected, then please state why Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line is "correct" and Birmingham Loop Line or related names are "incorrect" Nathan A RF (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

As there isn't any consensus either way on what it should be called, then either name can be valid. There isn't a consensus against moving it any more than there is keeping it where it is. So I don't understand the over-the-top reaction to the suggestion. G-13114 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia conventions, if a discussion concludes with "no consensus" that doesn't mean it's a "draw" and no decision has been made. "No consensus" means the proposal has failed and will not go ahead at this time. You may not like it, but those are the rules. It's wasting everyone's time to continue discussing a proposal that failed less than a week ago. Sorry. Come back and try again in a year's time if you find some new evidence not already discussed here, but in the mean time, accept you have lost on this occasion and please find something more productive to do with your time. -- Dr Greg  talk  16:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nathan A RF and G-13114: Pages are not protected to favour one version over another (although it's a well-known fact that The Wrong Version™ is always protected). Pages are protected to prevent disruption to Wikipedia; and one of the permitted reasons for move-protecting a page is "Pages subject to a page-name dispute." This is one such case; comments like "there could be a case for a Bold move to BLL" indicate that the dispute has not gone away. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Redrose64: You still haven't answered my question, which was why do you think that this article shouldn't be renamed to Birmingham Loop Line? Nathan A RF (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I did, five years ago. It's still on this page, unarchived. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: This RM has ended with consensus not to move this time. The target shouldn't be suggested again unless it's backed by reliable sources, demonstrated to be a WP:COMMONNAME (for example) (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Birmingham Loop Line – Main image on article changed to have name "Birmingham Loop Line". The same reasons as I have stated before also are included Nathan A RF (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - No new reasons given compared with last month's proposal. --David Biddulph (talk) 09:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think you'll find that what I just said was a new reason, the main image on the page has been changed to listing the line as the Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line to Birmingham Loop Line (please see the main page and look under where it says on the right Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line) Nathan A RF (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose So an image was renamed. Why is that a WP:RS? Also, your persistent re-raising of this matter might be seen as WP:POINTy. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I boldly replaced the image last month because I felt it was clearer than the old graphic. I'm just another editor, not a RS! Personally I would like to see the page moved, but I think nothing has changed and it's a bit early to raise the matter again. Certes (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've just got back from holiday to see this is being raised yet again. This is getting monotonous. Whilst R-B-S may not the best title, it is clear from numerous discussions above that "Birmingham Loop Line" is not the solution, for several reasons. If someone can come up with a better title then they are welcome to propose it, but in the meantime please drop the stick. Optimist on the run (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: I don't have the time to read all of these "WP:" rules that you type, if something is right or has a difference of opinion, it is not the same as some rules saying what is right or what should be the difference of opinion. There are no rules on getting to the right answer as long as it is correct. Please STOP following my edits and if you have a problem talk to ME directly. Nathan A RF (talk) 01:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Nathan A RF:, I'd have thought it was clear by now. People do not agree with your suggestion that this page be moved. Stop pestering people about it.
    • If you don't have time to read Wikipedia guidelines, then consider this: if you want to go to place X, but no one else wants to go, repeatedly saying "let's go to X" is only going to annoy people and make it less likely you'll get to X. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

    @Nathan A RF: I do have a problem, and I have tried talking to you directly; but you just erase the comments without discussing. --Redrose64 (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

    • @Redrose64: Just saying "oh your edits are disruptive, look at this" is not communicating in a human way. Please tell me if you have a problem that you can help me resolve the situation instead of repeatedly commenting on my "disruptive" edits and then just labelling a way to fix it. Nathan A RF (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Mattbuck: I have a large patience and I have been wanting this changed for a while. Why, if I believe that something should change, should I back down and just get rid of my opinion? Please, I am getting fed up with all this discussion now and all I want is to edit in peace and fix Wikipedia's mistakes. Please, leave me alone in future. And Redrose64 also. Nathan A RF (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

      @Nathan A RF:, if you're repeatedly told "no", then yes you should back down. As for leaving you alone, we aren't doing this because it's fun, we're doing it because we think you're incorrect. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

      Nathan, there are occasions in life where persistence pays off. However Wikipedia is not one of them. You may have unlimited patience, but you'll quickly find the rest of us may not. If you wanted to be left alone, why re-raise the debate? Optimist on the run (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose; seems like I didn't get the answer I wanted the first two times, so we go to vote again. Sigh. The joy of all things (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

For and against

The following discussion 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.

---

I do not propose a renaming (at least until next year). All I want from this is to gather information. Please could comments be left about the name of this article. I myself have some reasons

• Reasons against Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line
  • Name is derived from Engineer's Line Reference, which has no validity in naming railway lines as the ELRs mention the main/end of the section they occupy
  • The hyphens in the name make the actual reading of the name "Rugby Birmingham Stafford Line". This is quite poor as a name.
  • This name is unheard of by three of my close friends, all of whom live in Birmingham
  • No Network Rail document mentions this name
  • The name is hard to distinguish between the West Coast Main Line and the Trent Valley Line
  • Sources that relate to this name are maps derived from this page or books such as this [5] with "High quality content from Wikipedia articles"
• Reasons for Birmingham Loop Line
  • Line name corresponds to other lines with loops, and makes sense
  • The Network Rail document here [6] mentions this name
  • This name would mention the fact that this line is not a part of the West Coast Main Line
  • This line was completed after the main West Coast Main Line which means it is a loop

Please could all who would like to contribute post your answers below. Please, no criticism. Only post just for & against reasons. Nathan A RF (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Abstain.The joy of all things (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Your opinion on what counts as a good name is irrelevant.
• What your friends do or do not know is also irrelevant.
• Your opinion on what counts as a loop is irrelevant.
• RBS no more implies it's part of the WCML than does Trent Valley Line, or for that matter Tarka Line. Unless you're suggesting it be renamed Birmingham Loop Line (which isn't part of the West Coast Main Line)

Whether Network Rail documents mention it is useful, however, I would like to make the following point to all yours:

PUT DOWN THE FUCKING STICK, WALK AWAY FROM THE FUCKING HORSE CORPSE

-mattbuck (Talk) 19:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: Excuse me, please do not use obscene language when talking to me. I only suggested reasons for and against, not that any change should be made. I know that those are my opinions and thus I wanted others' to. I will not be backing down because this is a debatable issue. 1, My opinion is not irrelevant. 2, My friends' opinions are not irrelevant (even more so as they live in the area of the West Midlands). 3, My opinion may be wrong, but it still stands and anyone can correct me. 4, Trent Valley Line is a section of the WCML wheras RBS is a route for WCML services. I'm sorry, but if you have to swear in bold then you really don't have anything else to contribute then. I do not intened to change the page, I just want to know all that I can about the two names and you are not really helping. Please do not comment unless you acquire some maturity or some suitable thoughts to post. Nathan A RF (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Nathan A RF, if it were some other editor starting the topic then I'd believe they simply had queries. But given you have been repeatedly told no, and don't seem to be willing to take that for an answer, I will not give you the benefit of the doubt. This to me seems like just another move request, only using wikilawyering to pretend it's something else. Find another hobbyhorse. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mattbuck: I am finding other things to do, whilst also gathering info here about this page. Nathan A RF (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@The joy of all things: Do you not have any opinion whatsoever? Nathan A RF (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I did have an opinion, but the community and WP:MOS were against me on a separate Underground lines issue. I feel it would churlish and insidious of me to give one opinion one way, whilst two days ago I was seeking something similar to what you are asking. It is akin to stealing some money and then grassing up some bank robbers - it just feels like bad form. Sorry. Regards.The joy of all things (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I entirely endorse mattbuck's comments at 19:33. Nathan A RF, your obsession with page moves is starting to cross well over the line separating assume good faith from competence is required (the most recent discussion was here, in case it's slipped your mind). Given that you've continued to move pages unilaterally after acknowledging the warning that you'll be blocked if you move any further pages without discussion, you're on extremely thin ice; if you do intend to remain on Wikipedia I would very, very strongly advise you knock off any activity related to page moves. If you absolutely, positively, feel it's totally necessary that a page be moved, then ask at the talkpage of the relevant WikiProject (in the case of UK railway articles WT:UKRAIL) and if there's a consensus that the move is appropriate then someone else will make the move. I'll cross-post this warning to your talkpage, so you can't pretend you're not aware of it. ‑ Iridescent 21:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, this section I created to gather opinions of both names not to be repeatedly shouted at. I do not intend to move this page. Nathan A RF (talk) 06:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Requested move 26 January 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford Line → Rugby–Birmingham–Stafford line – Without taking a position on the previous title controversy, I'd like to just decap Line in this descriptive title. I thought this would be uncontroversial, so I boldly went there, but that got reverted, so let's discuss. If you support the downcasing but would rather see Birmingham loop line, say so. Dicklyon (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitely not Birmingham loop line (capitalised or otherwise) - see above multiple discussions. Personally I'd prefer Line to be capitalised, for consistency with other lines which definitely need caps, but I admit that's just preference, which is why I didn't revert the recent premature move. Optimist on the run (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't know where Birmingham loop line is coming from; the cite on the name in the lead doesn't even use that term at all (though it does mention "the Birmingham loop"); maybe someone messed up on trying to source it? As to caps, it's not just a preference, but a strong titling convention, per WP:NCCAPS, to reserve caps for proper names, and this is clearly a descriptive name. Dicklyon (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support—this should be straightforward, according to our Manual of Style. Tony (talk) 05:07, 30 January 2017 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Addition to line diagram (not the map)

Between Ettingshall Road and Coseley, the station of Deepfields (opened 1852 - closed 1902) needs to be added for completeness sake. This information is included on page 6 of the location list of the Stour Valley Line which tallies with all the stations shown on this line template included in this article.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 03:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

According to this it was called Deepfields & Coseley and was replaced by the current Coseley railway station in 1902, 400m down the track. G-13114 (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)