Jump to content

Talk:Southeastern (2006–2021)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Header photo

[edit]

Does anyone have a nice, recent photograph of a Class 375 Electrostar? We’re still using one with Connex logos as the header image. David Arthur 19:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See talk at Talk:South Eastern Trains as well Pickle 00:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the header photo with image:Southeastern-465164-01.jpg, which although not a new train, does at least have Southeastern branding rather than Connex. When we get a 375 photo then it can be changed. Thryduulf 19:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the above image with Image:NewCross-375913-01crop.jpg - a photograph of a Class 375 with Southeastern branding photographed two days ago at New Cross station. Thryduulf 23:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Southeastern's Highspeed service has now formally launched, on 13th December 2009, should the header photo be now changed to the (Javelin) Class 395? It is Southeastern's flagship service; as well as the country's fastest domestic train service! Think there exists a suitable picture in commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.221.105 (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Class 395

[edit]

Quote: They will be known as British Rail Class 395 when in service.

Surely not! 10-11 years after the winding-up of British Rail? Wikipedia has developed the (in my view) unsatisfactory and confusing practice of naming articles about post-BR traction classes "British Rail Class X", but that ought not to be extended into making inaccurate statements in the text of articles. -- Picapica 09:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The same classification system that was used by BR is still in use today, so it is still the British Rail classification system. It is not a Network Rail Class X, nor are/were there Railtrack Class X trains. Class X is possible, but ambiguous with other schemes, for example that used on the French network and with headcode classes. Until a new classification system is introduced - which AIUI is very unlikely at the moment - then British Rail Class X is correct. Thryduulf 13:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a Network Rail Class X, nor are/were there Railtrack Class X trains.
Of course not. Straw dog argument. Network Rail and Railtrack are/were infrastructure companies as eny fule kno.

Then which successor organisation has the equivalent naming rights? Shadow) Strategic Rail Authority? (Office of the) Rail Regulator? HSE? HMRI? ROSCOs? TOCs? Manufactuers? RAIB? DfT? All of them have direct input into the rolling stock to some degree. There clearly is no single organisation that embodies every bit of BR's rolling stock design/classification role. Thryduulf 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see more reason in your second point, inasmuch as you are arguing that the notion of a "British Rail Class" lives on, as part of the post-BR legacy system. However, I have seen no evidence that this is true anywhere outside of Wikipedia and its derivatives. I have never seen or heard reference anywhere else to any such beast as, for instance, a "British Rail Class 222" - and I remain of the view that naming articles in this way is putting taxonomic convenience before respect for the principles expressed inWikipedia:Naming conventions that

names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists;

and that

article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.

--Picapica 16:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of ambiguity benefits the reader as much as the editor. In the vast majority of places where there is any need to talk about different classes of trains there is no need to establish that the classes are British Rail classes.
An article about "Class 395" in a specialist work needs no disambiguation. As you have already pointed out though we are not a specialist work - we are a general work and thus have need to distinguish between British railway trains and the countless other uses (including trains of other nations - Deutshe Bahn uses a very similar system but with different numbers, for example Class (0)66 would be a steam locomotive).
As there is no industry need to disambiguate, but an encylopaedic need to do so, we must choose a name that "the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize.". The majority of English speakers would clearly recognise that "British Rail Class 395" is going to be about the British Railway system - even if they have never heard of the organisation. The generalist also cannot be expected to know that the Class 455 trains were built before Class 444s so to look for the former at British Rail Class 455 and the latter at Shadow Strategic Rail Authority Class 444, while they must read about Class 395s at Department for Transport Class 395 - even though this could be about any form of transport in any country that might have such a department. Taxonomic naming thus also helps the reader in cases like this.
The only name that is accurate and consistent is TOPS Class 395 - but this would not be regognised other than by a specialist, and might be ambiguous - after all BR bought it after seeing it in operation in North America, and the DB system (which is not named in its article) seems [i]very[/i] similar. I beleive also that the railways in the Benelux countries also use a very similar system. Thryduulf 22:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of English speakers would clearly recognise that "British Rail Class 395" is going to be about the British Railway system.

No, in my view they would expect something about British Rail (1965-1994). There never was a "British Railway system", though there was a "British Railways system" and there has, of course, been a "British railway system" for over 175 years. It is the "British Rail" -- the latter-day marketing name of a now defunct organization -- that is the very large fly in this ointment. If the prediction about the classification of the new trains turns out to be correct, any article about them ought, in my view, to be entitled "Class 395 electric multiple unit", or, if disambiguation were required, "Class 395 electric multiple unit (Great Britain)". -- Picapica 22:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "British Railway system" I meant "railways in Britain" in it most generic form, I appologise for my unclear wording. The assumption might be that it relates to the British Rail era, but assumptions are not always correct - the article should make it clear about the dates/organisations involved. There are still people who (incorrectly) refer to the whole railway system as British Rail still ("I travel to Crewe regularly, but going by British Rail these days it is pot luck if you get there"). To these people describing a Class 395 (which is more than a predicted desgination, as I've seen at least two different official uses - see the article) as British Rail is perfectly logical. They will not be suprised at the content of this article after clicking a link calling it "British Rail Class 395".
There needs to be consistency in the naming of articles about the rolling stock used on railways in Great Britain so that links end up at their intended target with the minimum of effort from the editor - meaning that readers are taken where they expect to be taken. There should be no need for the casual reader/editor (remember non-specialists do edit these articles as well as railway enthusiasts) to know whether Class X is a diesel locomotive, electric locomotive, electric multiple unit, diesel multiple unit, or a multiple unit or locomotive that can run on diesel or electric power.
The only terms that coudl encompas (sp?) all of these are "train" or "rolling stock". Train is incorrect as a Class X train relates to the train reporting number (headcode), and a train may be formed of combinations of more than one locomotive/multiple unit and/or coaching stock. "Rolling stock" is better but also includes coaches and wagons, which have their own classification systems. It is also not immediately obvious to none-specialist readers what it is.
Class 395 (Great Britain) would need distinguishing between other types of classes (busses, boats, etc perhaps) and is therefore not suitable. "TOPS Class X" has been rejected several times.
To have some classes suffxied with "(Great Britain)" and others not is going to result in unnecessary links to disambiguation pages - a hinderance to the reader and creates extra work for editors unnecessarily.
There is apparently no official term as there is no need for the relevant organisations to disambiguate; we do have such a need and so must create and use a term that results in the least suprise for readers and editors. This is the entire purpose of naming conventions. "British Rail Class X" will not leave anyone suprised the article relates to what it does. No better term exists, so why change it? Thryduulf 00:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]

Read about the new timetable today ( [[1]] BBC News and [[2]] Southeastern website) - the 508s are to be replaced with 466s on the Sheerness Branch and Medway valley lines, among some other extra services. don't know if we can spin this into the article or just amend it when the change does happen ? Pickle 07:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

New logo added by User:Rvd2007

Logo currently appearing on the official web site

Is there any proof they are using this new logo? I know that the font is called Rockwell. Unisouth 09:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what is the source for the new logo? It still has not appeared on their web site. David Arthur 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone provides a source, I’m restoring the logo that appears on the official web site. David Arthur 20:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The logo used on this page and on the official site are indeed not the correct logo, strange how it hasnt been updated on the main site but has been on the majority of documents given out by the company. I guess we leave it with the old SET logo until the new logo is put up onto the website? [[[User:Jennisuk|Zephyr]] 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)]

I have just put a comment and since removed it on the other southeastern trains page! The logo 'rockwell' can be seen on their newsletter leaflet available at train stations. I prefer the old logo and not the new one. --Screen42 00:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with your comment about the new logo, it looks old fashioned, but not in a good way like Southern's logo does James MSC 11:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today Southeastern launched their newlook website, complete with the new logo at the top. As it is now used on their site i think that we should be using it on this article. Southeastern's site. Zephyr

Class 375 Electroliner

[edit]

Someone decided that the Class 375 goes as three coaches per set, when they are infact very wrong. The majority of all 375 sets come as sets of 4, and sometimes three. You can see most services from London Victoria to Ramsgate & Dover Priory with eight coaches, and seven on the rare occasion, consisting of two fours, or one four and one three.

I've changed it to look more appropriate.

The 376 is OK at the moment, because when in service they either operate as five or 10 coach configurations. Alteran Ancient 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electroliner??? its ElectrostarLikelife (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of Integrated Kent Franchise

[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement about the nature of the IKF. Let me nail my colours to the mast. The Integrated Kent Franchise is an amalgamation of the old South Eastern Franchise and the CTRL Domestic Services. For the purposes of accuracy on the succession box, I believe it is fair to treat the CTRL-DS as a franchise itself that simply did not run any trains. Is this fair, or am I talking out of somewhere unpleasant? Hammersfan 31/10/07, 13.17 GMT —Preceding comment was added at 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Integrated Kent Franchise is the franchise that replaced the South Eastern franchise in 2006. At this already included the CTRL-DS service to be commenced apon completion of the CTRL. So the franchise is still the same. 'Preceded by' also means that the thing preceding existed beforehand. This is definitely not the case. The CTRL-DS did not exist before the Integrated Kent franchise as the South Eastern franchise did. Further more the succession box should only list operators and Franchises not individual services. I can see your point that the CTRL-DS is a impotent service wroth special mentioning but the the succession box is definitely the wrong place for this. 91.64.3.248 14:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CTRL-DS

[edit]

It's troubling that this article manages to mention "CTRL-DS" several times without either explaining the term or linking to a page which might explain it. Can someone who knows this stuff please fix it? Thanks. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

‘CTRL-DS’ just means domestic services on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (i.e. High Speed 1). I’ve added a definition to the appropriate section of the article. David Arthur (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant, thank you very much. 92.234.10.126 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CTRL changed it's name to High Speed 1, and signage is starting to appear (at Ebbsfleet for example). The Wikipedia article has been renamed, so I've updated this article. Edgepedia (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Javelin Merger Proposal

[edit]

I proposing this because looking at the London 2012 this service, the St Pancras to Ebbsfleet shuttle during the Olympic games, is referred to is the Javelin®. See [3] I was looking at the page a view to moving it, but I feel that the information could fit in a couple of paragraphs on this page. Edgepedia (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was initially called the Olympic Javelin, but the later refs have it called the "Javelin" and the link above is showing a registered trademark. I've updated the article with this information. Edgepedia (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British Olympic Association registered Javelin as a UK trademark on 02 June 2006, see [4].

Merge into class 395 Someone proposed this. As you can see (on the page), The British Olympic Association registered Javelin as a UK trademark. Southeastern refer to the services as Southeastern Highspeed on there website. Javelin is therefore the service that will be operating during the 2012 olympics. Therefore this merge does not make sense. Edgepedia (talk) 08:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a week with no comment, so I went ahead and did the merge. Edgepedia (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sboxs (rail starts)

[edit]

Should the sboxs now be bule? As Southeastern's colours are now bule it makes no sence having them still yellow after 3 years of Southeastern, it's not South Eastern Trains any more! Likelife (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

proposed version:

Preceding station National Rail National Rail Following station
Dunton Green   Southeastern
South Eastern Main Line via Paddock Wood 		  Hildenborough

Its been eight days with no comment so I may to start changing them Likelife (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overhauled Routes List

[edit]

Just decided to put a few hours into overhauling the current routes, guiltlessly taking the template from the Southern TOC Article and summarising all of Southeastern's routes onto it. It should be error-free, but I may have missed something. If you do spot anything, feel free to correct it. I am only familiar with the Victoria and Chatham-based routes, so someone may have to look over the Charing Cross and SEML-based routes. Thanks Alteran Ancient (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

London Bridge redevelopment

[edit]

Not sure if appropriate to add to Southeastern's page a section about the redevelopment at London Bridge and what looks likely to be terrible disruption to Southeastern services, the subsequent withdrawal of some of Southeastern's services, and the company's decision not to communicate these effectively to the affected public and not to offer appropriate / acceptable alternatives. They are major changes, a significant number of people will be affected: while Southeastern is not the only TOC affected (hence my hesitation), it does seem to be the worst at communicating with it's customers, and looking at various coverage it also appears to be the only TOC that is withdrawing entire services for years or in some cases permanently without providing decent alternative options. Billse10 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new timetable planned for this December, and there has been some (local) criticism about the public consultation about this. ASAIK, the changes are currently with the DfT for approval. Not too sure about the rest of your comments though, surely the services changes around London Bridge are to do with the Thameslink Programme over which SouthEastern has little control? Edgepedia (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The (obsolete) southeastern consultation document, section 7, goes into detail about these changes. Edgepedia (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason I hesitated was the changes that are Thameslink Programme related which are not within Southeastern's control - however, their decision not to discuss or even communicate with fare payers (and it has been so bad it can only have been a deliberate decision) is a reasonable reflection on their performance and indicative of their attitude to customers. There hasn't been much local criticism of the public consultation because there was no effective consultation whatsoever (a fact that has indeed been criticised locally): affected locals weren't even told "this is going to happen" unless they asked questions or went looking for information. It's still not common knowledge in some of the worst affected areas*, and Southeastern have chosen not to publicise the withdrawal of services to any meaningful degree. I admit a bias in that I am an affected local (username might be a clue there) but I'm trying hard to be fair - again, hence the hesitation - however their performance in this regard is appalling, and people looking for information about the company should know that? Billse10 (talk) 13:32, 21 April 2014 (UTC) (* for example, numerous estate agents are still selling houses based on commuter access to London via both London Bridge and Charing Cross; rental agencies are signing people up on contracts which will incorporate periods with no London Bridge train service without telling them - because the agencies themselves don't know, because the railway company responsible for services in the area has chosen not to have any effective publicity)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Southeastern (train operating company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Southeastern (train operating company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Waterloo East" or "London Waterloo East"?

[edit]

When I modified the layout of the table, I deliberately changed every mention of "Waterloo East" to "London Waterloo East", since it is a London station in Zone 1 and is officially classed as a London Terminal for ticketing purposes. In the same way, London Charing Cross, London Victoria, London Bridge and London Cannon Street all have the "London" prefix as well, as do several other through stations served by other operators, like London St Pancras International and London Blackfriars. Every time I do this though, someone undoes my edit without giving any reason for it. Most recently @Redrose64: only said "please stop doing this" while not providing any reason for why "Waterloo East" is more appropriate. Can someone please explain? I'm hoping this discussion will help resolve the disagreement but if there is no mutual consensus, I will seek an RfC on this. 2A00:23C5:D033:4400:9429:6123:E576:453F (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The station name is Waterloo East. This is what is shown on the station signs (example), and is reflected in our article title, Waterloo East railway station. Similarly, our other articles have names like Blackfriars station, Cannon Street station, Charing Cross railway station and St Pancras railway station. However, although we do have London Victoria station (and London Waterloo station), that is because the word "London" actually appears on the station signs. London Bridge station may also appear to be an exception, but it's named after London Bridge, not after the City - particularly since it's not in London but Southwark. If we followed your suggestion to the letter, this one would be shown as "London London Bridge". Being in zone 1 has nothing to do with it, we don't use "London Elephant & Castle", "London Farringdon", "London Shoreditch High Street" or "London Vauxhall". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the argument about what the station signs say is a very weak one. The signs at London Blackfriars station say "London Blackfriars" (as can be seen here), yet the Wiki article shortens it to "Blackfriars" anyway. Same goes for London Euston (full name is shown in this video around the 1:00 mark), London Charing Cross (full name here at 16:54), London Cannon Street (full name here at 0:00), London Fenchurch Street (full name here at 0:00), London Liverpool Street (full name here at 1:38) and London Marylebone (full name here) - all of these stations lack the "London" prefix in the Wiki article title for some reason. If I'm allowed to nitpick even further, at London St Pancras International the platform signs include the word "International" (as seen here at 0:55),[a] which the title of the Wiki article also lacks. If anything, in my opinion this puts a serious question mark on whether these articles should keep their current names - I would argue they should all include the "London" prefix too.
Secondly, regardless of what I have written above, this dispute has nothing to do with what the article about (London) Waterloo East should be called - it's about what the station should be called in the table. Following your logic, we should also change "London Cannon Street" and "London Charing Cross" in the table to just "Cannon Street" and "Charing Cross" because that's what their respective articles are called - I suppose that would make it more consistent, but it would also take away the explicit detail that these services terminate in central London. Besides, other TOCs' articles do include the "London" prefix, even at stations that don't have the prefix at their articles. For example, the Govia Thameslink Railway article calls them "London Blackfriars", "London Moorgate" and "London St Pancras International". Why can't the same be true with "London Waterloo East" here?
Thirdly, being in zone 1 may not be relevant to the issue, but being a London Terminal station for ticketing purposes (which basically includes all zone 1 stations except Elephant & Castle, Hoxton and Shoreditch High Street) certainly is. Basically, if you have such a ticket and you get out at any of these stations, according to the system you are in central London and your journey on National Rail services ends here. (London) Waterloo East is part of this terminal station group and thus I think it deserves to have the London prefix included in its name. I also don't think it's wrong to say or write "London Farringdon", "London Vauxhall" or "London City Thameslink", for exactly the same reason (especially Vauxhall, since it's also a major bus station for central London). There was even a brief time a few years ago when audio announcements at some Brighton main line stations did refer to City Thameslink station as "London City Thameslink" (as heard here at about 0:52, although I admit the video is not of the best quality).
86.166.6.50 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Perhaps it was wrong to include London Bridge station in this dispute - as you pointed out, London Bridge is the landmark that gives the station its name, therefore "London" is not really a prefix in this particular case. But my point still stands with the other stations.
My intuition on these matters would be to generally drop the London prefix unless it is necessary for comprehension. Describing a service as "to London Paddington" makes sense when you're in Reading for instance, because you are not currently in London and so it is useful to know that Paddington is in London. However if you're at Acton Main Line then I'd say a service should be described as "to Paddington" because both stations are in London. I'd also say that the presence of a tube station would modify matters - speaking as an LU employee (but in an unofficial capacity), we do not refer to "London Waterloo", it's just "Waterloo". -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Although I'm aware this is just the Thameslink platforms - I couldn't find anything to confirm whether it's true for the mainline platforms too.
Should be Waterloo East, that is what the station signage says, the London Victoria and London Waterloo articles are so named as there are other Victoria and Waterloo station articles that these need be disambiguated from. Toweplus (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Station count

[edit]

In the infobox, the number of stations called at is listed at 180, while in the Overview paragraph below, this number is 179. When 109.144.221.66 edited this article, the number was updated to 180 in the infobox only. I cannot, however, seem to find evidence to support this edit or the reversion of it. Could anyone shed some light on this matter, or correct it as appropriate?

NPOV - "Performance" section

[edit]

Relatively new Wiki editor here, I apologize if my cleanup tag is in error but I feel the performance section of the article needs to be discussed. To me, it reads more like a criticism section and a few of the references seem editorial in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.246.30 (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references are verifiable (WP:V) and are from reliable sources (WP:RS) quoting industry normal passenger surveys. How is that not NPOV? --10mmsocket (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And *never* apologise for trying to clean up an article by challenging its content. Thank you. We need more people to do that. --10mmsocket (talk) 08:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 October 2021

[edit]
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; the old franchise to Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021); the new franchise here. Sceptre (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– SE Trains Limited will be taking over operation of the South Eastern franchise on 17 October from London & South Eastern Railway Limited as described in both articles. The new operator will continue to trade as Southeastern. Propose the current Southeastern (train operating company) be renamed to its legal name (less the Limited per WP:NCCORP), and the future operator to Southeastern (train operating company) as the latter will become the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. A similar thing happened when the Northern franchise changed hands with the branding retained. The Northern (train operating company) was renamed Arriva Rail North, with the former then becoming a redirect to the new operator. A by-product is that only a small number of the 1,200 plus incoming links (mainly town and railway station articles) will need to be updated. Pleatrox (talk) 05:58, 8 October 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.

Requested move 16 February 2024

[edit]
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. – robertsky (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) → Southeastern (2006–2021) – may fit in accordance with WP:CONCISE. There is no other company that operated within this timeframe. This has been done with TransPennine Express (2016-2023) so I see no reason why this could be made shorter. The same could even be done with Great Western Railway (train operating company) to Great Western Railway (2015) or 1996. JuniperChill (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Trains has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject London Transport has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Kent has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2024 (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.

Shouldn't this be titled Southeastern (2006–2021 train operating company)...

[edit]

Because it feels more natural to say it that way, just like with Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)? and also because the years should go before the noun. Note that this is not an official RM. (forgot to say that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways has been notified by me 18:31 25 april 2024 UTC) JuniperChill (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 August 2024

[edit]
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 - no consensus in favour of the proposed moved. Opposition was based on stability. The argument that, after six months, the page is not stable at its present location did not find consensus - if that is the change sought, then start another RM (in due course) directed to moving it there. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– I think its more natural way of disambiguating TOCs by years. It matches Banana (1986 video game), but since it contains two years, I am not sure if its acceptable. [updated 22:27 16 August 2024] just also note that the original title was Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) (without the comma) which is option C if it needs to be move back to that. What do you guys think? JuniperChill (talk) 10:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just boldly revert last night's undiscussed move? 10mmsocket (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@10mmsocket? JuniperChill initially boldly moved the pages to the proposed titles here yesterday, but was reverted as undiscussed, hence this RM. As part of the move dispute Talk:Thameslink (1997–2006 train operating company) is now out-of-sync. DankJae 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up for me. I obviously got confused looking at the page history. Appreciated. 10mmsocket (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Southeastern_(2006–2021)&oldid=1265239926"