Talk:Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan high-speed railway

Requested move 27 January 2019

 * 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 section. 

The result of the move request was: There is no support for this move. (non-admin closure) -- DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan high-speed railway → Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan passenger railway – reason for move 173.167.126.157 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Object to speedy move are you saying there has never been any passenger service on Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan railway ? -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy procedural close nominator did not provide a rationale -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The first reference (the only one in English) calls it the "Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan railway" (not "passenger r."). We could merge the minimal content at Shijiazhuang-Taiyuan railway. Alternatively,, of which this is a section, is a redirect to Qingdao–Yinchuan passageway, and about twenty other articles about high-speed railways in China use "passageway" (many listed at High-speed rail in China) so we could follow suit and call it Shijiazhuang–Taiyuan passageway. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merging makes no sense, they are different lines, with different establishment dates. We don't merge two movie articles together just because they have the same name. "Passageway" makes little sense, it's not proper English (a passageway is not especially a rail line and is a misleading title), and it isn't being used as proper noun, so shouldn't be used at all. -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 05:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to merge if one is seen as the replacement for the other, essentially in a "history" section. But if not, not. "Passageway" is surprising to me, but that's how it is. I couldn't find any RS using that term. 94.21.204.175 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are conflating two different topics together. We don't merge articles on two buildings when one is built on top of the location of a demolished building. One World Trade Center is not merged with World Trade Center (1973–2001). And from the state of the articles, it appears that the older rail line still exists, so isn't just history. if you can't find any RS using the term "Passageway", then we can't use that term -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2019 (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.