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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

East West Rail → East West Rail Line – This page was recently renamed from East West Rail. There was no attempt to discuss it on the talk page to establish consensus. There was no link to the discussion being had by the clique and the 7 days of normal discussion time did not happen Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways may be helpful to determine the actions over the last few days, i.e.:

1. Difficultly north moves EWR to East West Main Line;
2. I revert based on the fact that the move was not discussed prior to the move being carried out;
3. Kitchen Knife then copied-and-pasted content from EWR to EWML, which messed up several pages' histories (my thanks to Polyamorph who was able to merge them together, and reset it to the EWR article.
4. KN then created several new pages, including one or two in draft space, as a move from the EWML article (for - as far as I can see - no reason at all).

If the nom could also define who the 'clique' is/are, that would be helpful. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK My mistake I didn't see Difficult North's original unannounced move. This would all have been a lot less fraught if rather than having a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways aka the cliques, talk page or at least it had been commented on in the article talk page with a link to the discussion. Not everyone who edits individual articles is dedicated to the overall theme but may be editing because of a geographic or other connection, having discussion about specific pages in the project pages excludes those people. As for the moves for no reason, I was trying to work out how a move without creating a redirect was done.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was Difficultly north who started the "discussion" at WP:UKRAIL. I use discussion in quotes because it was after they made the move, almost in the form of a fait accompli. I agree that they should have sought consensus here before making the move, but given that the discussion at UKRAIL coalesced almost immediately into a consensus that the move was improper I don't think that there's much to be gained by labouring over the procedurally-incorrect location of the discussion other than to say that a notification should have been posted here – and I think there's even less to be gained by continuing with silly veiled references like "the clique".

In fact I'm inclined to argue that @Mattdaviesfsic's revert back to 'East West Rail' would have been appropriate even without any discussion because the original move was obviously not in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NAMECHANGES, and especially so given that there was (and apparently still isn't) any reliable source indicating that the name change applied to anything other than the consortium delivering the project.

I would also note that you appear not to have made a post on this talk page either when you were contesting the various moves, which has a certain significance given that it could be said that the greatest complication in the process so far has been your botched copy-and-paste move. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with responses made above, so just a small clarification: the engineering consortium building the Bicester-Bletchley phase is the East West Rail Alliance. The consortium of Local Authorities sponsoring the project is the "East West Rail Main Line Partnership" (having just renamed itself, which is how all our mess got started – in good faith. See eastwestrail.org.uk .) And for completeness, the organisation that the government established to deliver the project on time and on budget [because "the blob" (© 2020, Dominic Cummings) at Network Rail would only bog it down in pettifogging detail ] is the "East West Rail Company" (see eastwestrail.co.uk ). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I simply adopted what seems to have become the De Facto move policy in play at the moment. Which reverts to unapproved edits don't require consensus. I also put a comment on the edit "if you want to move establish concenssu first".--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that clearly is not true, since it was your move that required consensus. Regardless please read copy-and-paste move as well as WP:AGF. Some humility would also not go amiss. Polyamorph (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is clearly very true as has been said moves without consensus can be reverted. Having a chat in a far-removed part of Wikipedia amongst a clique does not constitute consensus and you know it. So stop BSing and bullying.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion at UKRAIL was nothing more than an informal agreement amongst a handful of editors that the original pagemove did not have consensus and thus should be reverted. You are the one who misunderstood the situation and, instead of reverting a no-consensus change, actually performed a new one yourself – and in a manner that is explicitly discouraged.

Every problem here comes back to your originally failing to realise that the move away from "East West Rail" by Difficultly north was the move for which there was no consensus. You've admitted in two separate places that you have subsequently seen that move, so I'm at a loss as to why you're still doubling-down on all this nonsense about "cliques" "[chatting] in a far-removed part of Wikipedia". XAM2175 ^(T) 20:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are serious allegations made by Kitchen Knife. I've Reported to ANI. Polyamorph (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose: "East West Rail" is overwhelmingly the common name of this project and also the primary topic for the name. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: the article describes the project as a whole, rather than just the actual railway line, and "East West Rail" remains by far the most common name. XAM2175 ^(T) 14:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose as it is still just an engineering project. It is not even a line yet, let alone a main one. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME. Polyamorph (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per COMMONNAME and per the fact that there is no hurry here. We can take our time and see what emerges over the months and years, and in the meantime the magic of redirects and hypertext and all that good stuff should avoid people being absolutely unable to find where this stuff is. If we don't instantly get it right, it will cause no harm; it can stay how it is till things are clearer. I also think it would be very very helpful to drop, immediately and completely, this talk/accusation about cliques which I honestly think is only making things worse, notwithstanding what I assume is its user's good intent. Best to all, DBaK (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per common name and as others have stated this is about project as a whole, not just the railway line 10mmsocket (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rail route template[edit]

As a subsidiary argument. should the rail route template ((East West Main Line RDT)) be moved to East West Rail as well? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is another of the mistaken and erroneous moves. It needs moving back to where it came from. No further discussion needed. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the risk of upsetting some people I've moved it back Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:44, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I belatedly support moving the template back to EWR, pending the result of the RM above. About half of the template is devoted to existing lines east of Cambridge (onto which a future service called EWML might continue); is that helpful, or should it be removed to emphasise the Oxford–Cambridge section of EWR? Certes (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EWR has ambitions east of Cambridge, in the unlikely event of missing section being completed, who knows what it may be called then. I'd leave the template as is for the time being. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]