Talk:Harz Narrow Gauge Railways

Requested move 14 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: not moved. There is no consensus that this is not a proper noun, and there is no consensus to insert a hyphen. Brad v  15:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Harz Narrow Gauge Railways → Harz narrow-gauge railways – The topic of the article seems to be more about the railway lines themselves than about their operating company Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH (HSB), which translates to the current proper-name page title. The lead and history sections distinguish the lines and line network from the companies, and while the article has some coverage of the company, it is not the main topic. As the company site says, "We, the Harz Narrow Gauge Railways, are one of the world's last great steam adventures, with 25 steam locomotives. ..." and "Europe’s most powerful narrow-gauge steam locomotives" and "Things you can’t experience on any other narrow-gauge steam railway", while the article is about "a network of metre-gauge railways in the Harz mountains" that "connects the principal towns of Wernigerode, Nordhausen and Quedlinburg and several smaller towns in the area with about 140 kilometres of track, much of which is steeply graded and picturesque", which is "currently operated by the Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH". Let's decide the topic, and name it accordingly. Dicklyon (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Nom's extended statement – Note that the cited book Walking in the Harz Mountains: Including Walks from the Harz Narrow Gauge Railway doesn't use the present title except as part of the book title, and the caps are because book titles are in title case. Inside, it uses "narrow gauge" lowercase in various ways in the talking about this "railway network through the Harz Mountains". And this page talks of "Germany's largest network of narrow-gauge railways. These antique steam engines chug up and over the mountains, connecting the little villages of the Harz." And this page mixes things up with "enjoy a trip on the Harz narrow-gauge Railway". And this one "Such terrain is ideally suited to narrow-gauge railways and a network was built in the pioneering days of the railway. Today the Harz Mountains system offers a wonderful public transport service and steam-hauled tourist trains with beautifully restored vintage rolling stock." The caps version is also common in sources, but if the topic is the network of narrow-guage lines, then we ought to use an appropriate descriptive title, not the name of the operating company instead. Dicklyon (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Survey
 * Oppose. The present title is the official name of the company on their website. It's a proper name and it's not hyphenated. Nor does hyphenating the name, which I suspect is the nom's real aim if you look at his recent edits, reflect English sources which often do not hyphenate "narrow gauge". --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have mis-read the nomination. The question is whether to name the article for the company, versus for the rail network itself.  Yes, I stipulate that the current title is correct if we want it to be about the company. Furthermore, hyphens are seldom used in proper names, I agree.  Can you consider the question? Dicklyon (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose Just because you've just avoided a TBAN for these moves because the ANI thread was archived without action does NOT mean that there is support for your mindless imposition of a styleguide over the established names of external bodies. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, nobody has suggested a TBAN, nor any restriction on opening Requested Move discussions. I'm following up on your suggestion to discuss such things on a case by case basis. Please review the question, which is not about style issues, but about whether to title the article for the operating company or for the rail network itself.  The article and sources make a distinction between these things.  Before Bermicourt moved it in 2009, the title was the German Harzer Schmalspurbahnen, which could have been interpreted as the generic, or as the company name Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH; he made a call, which is great, but I think it was not the best call. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah I now see the confusion. The opening sentence of the German Wiki article from which this was translated is: "Die Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH (HSB) mit Sitz in Wernigerode ist eine Eisenbahngesellschaft, die ein zirka 140 km langes Netz von zumeist dampfbetriebenen Schmalspurstrecken im Harz betreibt." In other words "The Harz Narrow Gauge Railways" (HSB) is a railway company with its head office in Wernigerode that operates a railway network some 140 km long of mainly steam-operated narrow gauge lines in the Harz Mountains." If we reword the opening sentence here, it will more accurately reflect that. Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, if we decide to title the article for the company, we should make the lede reflect that. I'm proposing going the other way, and keep it about the narrow-gauge rail lines themselves. Dicklyon (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's an invalid oppose, since it raises no policy- or source-based arguments, and is just an ad hominem pseudo-argument about the nominator (and not even based on any finding with regard to him, just a discussion that remained open and was unlikely to conclude with sanctions of any kind, it's not about RM discussions but about manual moves, anyway).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Update: The ANI thread did close without sanctions, as predicted, just a reminder to use RM process, which is what Dicklyon is doing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the article should be about the railways themselves, as the main point of interest, with information about the operating company ancillary to that. TobyJ (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to mark that as Support unless you have an alternative title to suggest instead. Dicklyon (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS as to the silly over-capitalization of the railway, per MOS:HYPHEN about hyphenating compound adjectives, and per WP:CONSISTENCY (with other articles on narrow-gauge railways).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Update: Unless the article is re-scoped to focus on the company rather than the railway as the primary topic of encyclopedic interest, in which case the present title to could remain.  However, I would oppose that change, because it's the railway that most readers will care about (and which tourism materials, railway publications, etc., dwell on), not the company presently maintaining it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment @ SMcCandlish. Using title case for proper names of companies and using the same format as their official English name is hardly "silly over-capitalization" and certainly not subject to grammatical guidelines. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is not about the company, but about the "network of ... railways in the Harz mountains".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not true. Only the infobox and section on "Lines" are about the network. And they can go as they have in the latest version of the German Wiki article on which this is based. That's because the network is largely covered in other articles. It would not take much to re-orientate this article to do the same and I'm happy to do the necessary translation, but have refrained from making changes as it seems unfair during a discussion. Once I've made those changes and other updates from de.wiki, the title and text will be fully aligned and everyone should be happy. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph in section "The HSB period" is about the company; that's about it. The rest is about the lines, routes, equipment, services, history, etc. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. This is very much like an article on an actor having an paragraph on the actor's notable family members and then going back to being about the actor. of something connected to the subject doesn't magically transform the article into "being about" that something rather than about the actual subject.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is about a particular narrow-gauge network in the Harz. (It happens to be the only one but that's irrelevant.) Capitalisation is entirely appropriate, attested in both primary and secondary sources, and helpful to the reader. Andrewa (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you saying title it for the company? Or that you've found sources that use caps for something other than the company? Dicklyon (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In that we have no separate article on the company (nor are likely to), and Harzer Schmalspurbahnen redirects to this article (the company name is Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH which probably should be a redirect too), I don't see what distinction you're making here (or you and others above). In this instance, the caps styling makes the name more recognizable regardless of whether the article is focused on the company or the network. Agree that the company is probably only notable because of the very notable network it runs. Andrewa (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support. From the lead, it is clear that the article is about a narrow-gauge rail network in the Hartz mountains and not primarily about Harzer Schmalspurbahnen GmbH.  The matter of capitalisation appears, therefore, clear.  I am somewhat ambivalent on the subject of hyphenation.  My version of Fowler tends to depricate their usage except for clarity.  In this case, I don't think that there is an issue of clarity that there may be in other cases (eg British narrow gauge slate railways).  There is some value in consistent usage across the main space for titles (WP:CONSISTENCY) referring to rail gauges and within content: that is, that narrow-gauge is adopted throughout, and not just where it is appropriate for clarity.  References to narrow gauge within an article that uses narrow-gauge as part of the title (for reasons of clarity) will inherently lead to inconsistency within an article that can most effectively be dealt with by standardising on the hyphenated form across articles.  I would observe an irony that exists in discussing standardisation in the context of rail gauges.  Cinderella157 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read the rest of the article and the discussion above. This article is primarily about the company except for one section, which is not included in the de.wiki article on which it was based. All it requires is improvement by removing the "Lines" section which is largely covered elsewhere, replacinh the infobox with "Infobox:Company" and tweaking the lede.
 * But let's be clear, this is not really about the article topic; User:DickLyon is conducting a campaign to rid Wikipedia of "narrow gauge" and replace it with "narrow-gauge" which is more acceptable in the US. Editors are being coerced into using only one (predominantly US) spelling variant of a phrase that is widely spelt in two ways. Editors should be allowed the freedom to choose which of the two common variants to use. Bermicourt (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have refrained from improving the article during a discussion; however, you can see how it might look with the adjustments I have suggested here: User:Bermicourt/Harz Narrow Gauge Railways. That should resolve the debate with a solution acceptable to both sides of the argument. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I had read the discussion above before expressing an opinion and sufficient of the article to form an opinion. I suggest you consider process. If you amend the article to make it about the company, then it is another issue.  Let this run its course an then propose your edit with a move.  If one is accepted, the other should follow?  It is never good to reduce  collegiate discussion to a matter of personal invective - it only serves to detract from the issue at hand IMHO. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am leaving all instances of "narrow gauge" used as a noun; only when this noun phrase is used as an adjective is the hyphen appropriate, as any dictionary or grammar/style guide will show you. I baffles me that you don't understand this, or that you would have a strong preference to use the style that insider/specialist publications would use, as opposed to the style that is preferred for a general readership.  And your bold edit to change the several years old hyphenation to unhyphenated was OK once, but after I reverted it, you should not have done it again; we're in discussion now (oops, that's on a different article, but same point). Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Cinderella157, thank you but I'm quite familiar with how Wikipedia WP:MOVEREQs work. The topic is precisely the issue. The nom is arguing that the article is really about the railway network. Others are arguing that the article is primarily about the company. My proposed amendments merely remove the doubt. Re so-called personal invective, there is nothing wrong with pointing out facts relating to the issue. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Bermicourt, If you are serious about resolving this, I propose the following: Accept the proposed move with the caveat that you propose to edit the article to the extent that it be clearly about the company.  If theses edits obtain a consensus, I will support a move that is clearly consistent with the acknowledged and recognised Anglicised name of the company. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Dicklyon. No need to lecture me on grammar; the hyphenated variant is not wrong, but neither in this case is the unhyphenated variant. What is wrong is to force editors to use just one variant when the sources clearly use both. Wikipedia's grammar guidelines do not trump real world practice. Bermicourt (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no "forcing" involved here, just a desire to use the style that best serves the general reader, rather than drop the hyphen as specialists do when writing for each other. Dicklyon (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Au contraire, you are going against an editor's freedom to use different spelling variants that reflect the sources. If it's just a matter of "style", you should really stop adding hyphens and moving articles. And the suggestion that we should ignore specialist sources is novel, but not AFAIK supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. Bermicourt (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure I have no ability to force anything. And I don't advocate ignoring specialist sources; but we should write in a style that's best for general readers.  See WP:SSF. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * And it's clear that "best" can be variably interpreted, so let's go from the sources. The hyphen adds nothing to the reader's experience in this case and is not necessary. So editors should have the freedom to choose either of the two widely used spelling variants from the sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Cinderella157. Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't agree with the move in the first place. The article adequately describes the company, but could be better. IMHO the move is not really being proposed because of concerns about the topic, but in order to eliminate an instance of "narrow gauge" as part of a campaign to force editors to use the hyphen even when it's not needed. Bermicourt (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really what you think? Seems like a bizarre interpretation, unrelated to anything I've said or done.  Dicklyon (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So not related to your recent moves of narrow gauge articles on railways in Britain, Portugal, China, Europe, Canada, India, Oceania, French Morocco, Spanish Morocco and even the United States, to name a few? Bermicourt (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course this proposal is related; your interpretation is not. Dicklyon (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom and . I agree with the consensus above that the article is about the railways themselves, not the company that runs them, and as such should be a descriptive title. Furthermore, it's questionable whether the company even has an English name - I haven't seen any reliable sources mentioned that tell us there is one - which means the present title is a made up proper name, and if you were really going down that route you'd have to rename it to the German version. Finally, hyphenating "narrow-gauge" is also not very controversial; all eng vars, as well as MOS:HYPHEN, recommend this for compound adjectives. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no consensus for supporting the nomination.  The article is about the company, as it should be.  No other company operates any of the railways in the Harz Mountains.  The name of the article is appropriate, as it is the English translation of the company's name, as used by the company itself, on its own website. Bahnfrend (talk) 13:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make sense. "Oppose, there is no consensus" is not a rationale. Whether there is consensus or not is a determination made by the closer, based on the strengths of the arguments presented. The fact that the article is about the railway and just mentions the company in passing has already been addressed above, as has the fact that the company's actual name is in German. The title of our article, in English, is a descriptive title for the railway. If we want the article to be about the company, it would use the company's name (in German – we do not make up fake-proper names by translation), an the entire article would have to be rewritten.  I'm skeptical there will be consensus to do .  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the article is primarily about the company, its history, lines and its rolling stock; and with very little tweaking, any remaining ambiguity could be removed as I have proposed. Your suggestion that the company's English name is "fake" and not the "actual name", appears somewhat legalistic and certainly not borne out by the website. It is not at all uncommon for English sources to translate official names. However, if the real issue is the article topic and not the hyphen, why don't we move it to "Narrow gauge railways in the Harz"? Bermicourt (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Narrow-gauge railways in the Harz" would be acceptable. Dicklyon (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cross-reference: See Talk:Narrow gauge railways in Saxony (part of a closely related RM) for a detailed proof this has nothing to do with American versus British English, and various other untenable style exceptionalism claims.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not proof, just a point of view. And the fact that American English sources use the hyphenated version 3 times more, whereas the rest of the world uses them in equal measure, says there is definitely an WP:ENGVAR angle to the "narrow gauge" discussion. However, that's irrelevant here as this is a proper name. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @User:Dicklyon, so you'd accept a move to "Narrow gauge railways in the Harz" but only if we stick the hyphen in! Well, we can now all see that this is really about the hyphen after all and not about the article topic. In which case, the decent thing would be to withdraw your move request and let those of us who are actually interested in railways improve the article about the company. Bermicourt (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's about the company, no hyphen. If not, hyphen, per standard English practice for general readers.  I think we've all been pretty clear about that.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:00, 27 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.