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: moved to Eryholme–Richmond line. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eryholme–Richmond branch line → ? – Either Richmond branch or Richmond branch line – The line does not have any reliable references calling it Eryholme–Richmond branch line. Plenty of Mirrors and those who have used the name of the article in their webpages.^[1][2] The railway was built in 1845 when the junction with the East Coast Main Line was Dalton Junction. This was re-named in 1901 to Eryholme Junction,^[3] so by way of comparison, for the first 56 years of its existence, it would not have been called the Eryholme–Richmond branch line. There are different names, but those that state just Richmond branch with a lower case 'b' are:

• ^{[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]} The North Eastern Railway Civil Engineering Drawings List held at the National Railway Museum, has 22 references to Richmond, 17 of which state Richmond Branch (both capitalised), and others stating Richmond to Darlington, or Richmond to Eryholme.^[14]
• Just Richmond Branch Railway:^[15][12]
• Hansard refers to the the line when it was under threat of closure as the Darlington–Richmond Line.^[16]

Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 21:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Press haven't yet published a book on the branch, nor even one about the main line through Eryholme.

The authorising Act of Parliament (8 & 9 Vict. cap. cii of 21 July 1845) had a short title of "Great North of England and Richmond Railway Act 1845", naming the railway as the Great North of England and Richmond Railway. Unfortunately, the PDF copy of the printed Act hasn't yet been scanned and uploaded. The index entry may be seen at Google Books. Tomlinson, in

• Tomlinson, William Weaver; Hoole, Ken (1967) [1915]. Tomlinson's North Eastern Railway: Its Rise and Development. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

refers on pp. 463-4 to a line (not branch) "from Cooper House near Dalton to Richmond (9+3⁄4 miles)"; and on p. 473 to lines opened in 1846, including "the Richmond Branch on the 10th September". So we still have two choices, but a different two: Great North of England and Richmond Railway and Richmond Branch. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Richmond branch or Richmond branch line, or leave it. – It seems clear that this branch does not have a proper name, so a conventional descriptive title is in order. Red's proposal to name it after the authorizing act seems peculiar, and "Richmond Branch" is not consistently capitalized in sources. Both of the proposed names are found that way in books. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not proposing to name it after the Act (Great North of England and Richmond Railway Act 1845), but after the railway name as given in the long title of Act (An Act to enable the Great North of England Railway Company to make a Branch Railway, to be called "The Great North of England and Richmond Railway," in the County of York.), i.e. the part between the quotes omitting the definite article and italics. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd prefer a commonname. Dicklyon (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Richmond branch or Richmond Branch has a number of inbound red links for multiple railway lines in the United States. If we're going the descriptive route and avoiding eventual disambiguation then Eryholme–Richmond line would be best, omitting "branch" as it's not necessary. Mackensen (talk) 11:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  We should be guided by the sources and go with a commonname, like Dicklyon states above. No doubt the American Richmond branches/lines etc have more Google hits than the one in England, and if so, we can disambiguate. I am more than happy to remove redlinks from anything stateside as having the redlinks when the project (Wikipedia) was in its infancy was helpful, less so now where we can trim things down, no? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 08:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, if there are a lot of red links to a specific Richmond Branch in the U.S., we shouldn't be removing these links. Per WP:REDLINK, red links may be added if the subject is notable and verifiable; it isn't relevant whether these links were added when WP was in its infancy or whether they were added later. If there are enough red links, the subject is most likely notable, which means these links do still serve a purpose (i.e. pointing out the fact that a notable subject doesn't have an article).

  This probably indicates, however, that these existing red links need to be changed. For example, there are several links to a Richmond branch in Pennsylvania, so these can be changed to Richmond Branch (Pennsylvania). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Epicgenius - fair point, I can't argue with that. Sorry for the late post, I don't know how I missed this. I still think we shouldn't avoid a certain name because it might need to be disambiguated with other similarly named railways. In all honesty, I thought the Richmond in London might be some sort of amibiguity, I never thought about the ones in North America! (Sorry). The joy of all things (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've gone ahead and corrected the 15 redlinks to Richmond Branch (Pennsylvania) as it doesn't seem to rely on the outcome of this move. ASUKITE 17:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: WikiProject Trains, WikiProject UK Railways, and WikiProject Yorkshire have been notified of this discussion. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 04:03, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Eryholme–Richmond line as noted by Mackensen - if the redlinked topics are verifiably notable, there's a good chance they will have articles in the future, making this title the more informative and concise choice. ASUKITE 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Eryholme–Richmond line after reading the discussion above. In balance, it appears to best satisfy WP:CRITERIA. It is more concise than the present title. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—Per Cinderella. Tony (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The joy of all things, Redrose64, Dicklyon, how do you feel about Eryholme–Richmond line? -- asilvering (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me. It's a pretty conventional descriptive naming pattern on WP rail topics. Dicklyon (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment; not really, that's why I proposed the name change, but I guess I am in the minority here. What I don't understand is why we should the keep the article's name as it is (or a modification of that). There are no reliable sources for the name Eryholme-Richmond branch line (or variants on that). There are many for alternative names used by noted authors on British railway subjects who name the line other things. I don't think we should be scared away from naming it something that might need disambiguation in the future, especially seeing as this article exists, and other articles that might have a similar name don't, as yet. Cinderella157 points to WP:CRITERIA which states Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. I don't know about n-grams and if that has any bearing on why the article was named Eryholme-Richomnd branch line, but to me it seems the original editor named it after point A and point B on the line. Akin to the other similarly-named "dales" lines, we could go with the "Swaledale line", which seems as arbitrary to me as Eryholme to Richmond branch line (because we have a Wensleydale Railway, a Wharfedale line, and Airedale line etc), but again, I haven't seen any sources for it to be called Swaledale line.

  Whilst I may not agree with it; I will respect whatever consensus is reached. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The original 2006 title Eryholme-Richmond branch line predates n-grams, so it's not affected by that. I moved it in 2017, just to put the en dash instead of the hyphen. Among the sources linked above I see other descriptive terms, such as "line from Richmond to Eryholme Junction". I don't see anthing I'd identify as "commonname". Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]