This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New England Public Transit, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.New England Public TransitWikipedia:WikiProject New England Public TransitTemplate:WikiProject New England Public TransitNew England Public Transit articles
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 and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TransportWikipedia:WikiProject TransportTemplate:WikiProject TransportTransport articles
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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 years ago29 comments14 people in discussion
CTrail → CT Rail – I am pretty sure that "CTrail" is just a stylization of the name. This could result in confusion with people believing the subject is called "C Trail". Therefore, to avoid confusion, I am proposing a move to the company's official name, "CT Rail". JE98 (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting.wbm1058 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JE98, 162 etc., Pi.1415926535, BarrelProof, Thryduulf, Trainsandotherthings, Necrothesp, and Dicklyon: There is consensus that "CT" and "rail" are distinct "words" and the lack of a space separating them is confusing styling for readers outside the Connecticut region (as this is not camel case). However it appears that some think of this as a "company" – implying that "Rail" should be capitalized – while the article says it's a "brand for commuter rail services overseen by the Connecticut Department of Transportation", not a company. Services are operated under contract, with Amtrak, TransitAmerica Services and Alternate Concepts being the operating companies. The article currently says: "CTrail trains, along with other CTDOT rail operations, use the reporting mark, CNDX." Shouldn't it say, "CT rail trains", as it says "CTDOT rail operations"? Is the common name lowercase? Relisting to survey whether "rail" should be capitalized in the name. wbm1058 (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oppose: I don't see any evidence that "CT Rail" is the official name. It appears consistently as "CTrail" in official documents. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Leaning support: The Railway Age cited source uses "CT Rail" in two places, the logo shown in the article includes a space so it appears as "CT rail", another self-published page uses "CTrail" (with italics for the "rail" part) which also separates the "rail" part typographically, this news article has "CT Rail" in a heading, and this has it in its headline. The term is clearly derived from "CT" (Connecticut)+ "rail" – the rest just seems like styling (and『C Trail』is a natural and confusing way to read it if the space is omitted). The article cites mostly self-published sources, so it is necessary to look separately for independent reliable sources. — BarrelProof (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Weak support as someone unfamiliar with the subject I did read the title as "C Trail" when I saw it in the article alerts list. My searches show an approximate even split between "CTrail" and "CT rail" with some (but not all) of the former presenting it as "CTrail", suggesting a weak preference in sources for the spaced version in plain text. This is taken across all sources though, I've not attempted to refine by official/unofficial or reliable/unreliable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Oppose All official documentation of the company uses the wording CTrail, as well as most news coverage that I've seen. I believe that a redirect of the search term CT rail to CTrail is sufficient. The name is somewhat confusing, but we can't control how CTDOT names their rail services, and shouldn't change the name of the article from what it's officially named just because it might avoid some confusion. If I was in charge of CTrail, I would change the way the company stylizes its name, but we should record the names of things as they are, not how we want them to be.Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
The logo is taking a bit of an artistic license with design, and the word rail is in italics, which moves it farther away from the letters CT. The letters C and T are also in a thinner font than the word rail, which further moves the two sections apart (it seems whoever designed this logo was aware of the issue we've been discussing). Most every official mention of the name that isn't the logo uses CTrail as one word [[1]] [2][3][4]Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Looking at independent sources, I've found a mix in which wording they use. One Fox 61 article (local news station in CT) used the wording CT Rail in their coverage of the recent resumption of full service [5] though confusingly the embedded video uses the name CTrail. Railway Age also uses the wording CT Rail [6]. Progressive Railroading calls it CTrail [7], as does NBC Connecticut [8], another Fox 61 article [9], and Trains magazine [10]. My vote remains oppose, but I better understand the logic behind the proposed move now. I would be satisfied with the proposed move as long as the article makes a note that the official name is CTrail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
MOS:TM and WP:TITLETM indicate that when independent reliable sources are mixed, we should avoid using unusual styling and instead use the form that most closely resembles ordinary English. I think that form is "CT Rail". — BarrelProof (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support. Just stylisation. The logo clearly shows "rail" as a separate word. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support – CT Rail can at least be parsed by readers, which CTrail cannot. Dicklyon (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
With respect to wbm1058's question regarding capitalization of the word "rail," my preference would be for rail to remain lowercase. While I wanted to preserve the original spelling as 1 word, it's clear the consensus is otherwise. Essentially all sources have the word "rail" lowercase, including those which write it as "CT rail". What we are essentially doing is adding a space between CT and rail to make the name easier to parse for those unfamiliar with the subject matter. As such, my opinion is that we should preserve the original lowercase word. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Partial support with the lowercase "rail" instead of the proposed uppercase, but still with the space. I agree with the views expressed by Trainsandotherthings, although also have the view that "CTrail" looks far too much like "C Trail" as we can't stylise wikipedia article names in the same way a graphic's text can be. Looking at the logo, it does seem like there is some space between the "CT" and "rail", even though I can't be wholly sure that it's actually a space and not just clever styling. Bungle(talk • contribs) 20:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ido not support the lowercase "rail". This is a proper name, and should be formatted as such. "CT rail" indicates a generic term for Connecticut railways in general, whereas "CT Rail" is a specific named thing. Since there are sources that use "CT Rail" and since that is the proper way to format a proper name, that is what we should use. — BarrelProof (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Support. Definitely more recognisable with the blank added, or as said above, parsable. I can argue the capitalisation both ways. But the current redir from CT RailtoConnecticut Department of Transportation is ridiculous. The destination of both it and CT rail should be this article, either way. Andrewa (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
That redirect was created in 2018, the year CTrail began operations. This page we are on now was not created until 2021. The redirect just needs to be updated. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment We have come to a general consensus that the current name should be changed by adding a space. The only dispute now is whether the new name should be CT Rail or CT rail. I suggest we start a new move discussion on that question or otherwise reorganize the discussion here, as the current discussion is getting very long and confusing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think it will be faster and less effort to pick an outcome without needing to restart with a new move discussion. My rough impression is that we are leaning toward "CT Rail" (which is what was proposed originally in this RM already). — BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
SupportCT rail only. The name is properly stylized CTrail. The effect of the change to italic text is to give the appearance of a space. This is specifically only a vote to fix an inaccurate representation of the stylation, and not a vote to switch to a non-stylized version of the name. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not necessarily a vote, and the proposal is specifically about whether to switch to a non-stylized name. See the proposal, which proposes CT Rail and says the current title "is just a stylization of the name". Per MOS:TM / WP:TITLETM, we do not try to imitate unusual self-published stylings. If you are suggesting self-published WP:OFFICIAL stylings are somehow more "proper", than independent reliable sources, I think you will find that view unsupported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't this discussion be closed by now? It's been over two weeks. JE98 (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Agree that Moving it to CT Rail is clearer in that it's far better than the current name. Agree that the suggestion that it's some sort of trail is misleading. But still unconvinced about the captitalisation, it seems less common than CT rail, not surprisingly in view of the logo. The blank is enough to remove the confusion IMO. I guess by The name CTrail represents C(onnecticu)t Rail, or Connecticut Transport Rail (my wikilink, currently a redlink which we should perhaps fix) you mean that therefore we should avoid CT rail for this article as it's ambiguous (but do we yet have an article for that other meaning?). Not convinced that's logical either. Hence no change to my !vote above. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. In a name "c t rail", every component would by usual rules have a capital letter; the lowercase 'r' is a stylization. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
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.
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
@RobelyBasis and Davidng913: I have no strong opinion about whether the MBB cars should be included in the tables in this article and on Hartford Line. What I do have a strong opinion about, however, is that that decision needs to be based on reliable cited sources. No 'there's a railfan rumor', no 'this Youtuber said so', no 'this is what I've seen'. Either cite a reliable source, or do not make the edit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
That's why those edits were undone in the first place. And because I don't see sources on those coming soon, I have no problem leaving them on the roster. Davidng913 (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also someone keeps removing it from the chart on the Hartford Line page. Not sure if you want to revert it again or not but I’m done fighting about it at this point. Davidng913 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
