Talk:Rugby and Stamford Railway

Renaming?
I was thinking this article should be renamed as Rugby to Peterborough Line, because it also covers the later shortcut addition which bypassed the route to Stamford, and was the main line for nearly a century. Does anyone have any thoughts or objections? G-13114 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry. object, the name Rugby and Stamford Railway is the name of the company that built it. Most similar articles have sections that could be described as "later history" Chevin (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But does this cover the line or (a very short lived) company? The line was only under the ownership of the Rugby and Stamford railway for a tiny proportion of its history. The line through to Stamford was the main line for about 25 years, and then became a minor branch, whilst the later direct cut off line was the main line for about 90 years. Rugby and Stamford railway would still redirect here. G-13114 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's usual to write a second article for its later history, like Nottingham to Grantham Line‎ or Birmingham to Peterborough Line or Hope Valley Line Chevin (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But I'm not really sure I can see the point in creating a seperate article for a subject that has so much overlapping subject matter. Why create two articles when one would suffice? G-13114 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As the legislation was entitled Rugby and Stamford Railway Act, this is how it should be referred. The line may only have been 'run' for a month but years of planning and building were under that name AsparagusTips (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. and  give 14,100 and 666 results respectively. If one article is sufficient, I think it should stay at Rugby and Stamford Railway. -- Trevj (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)