Talk:Central Citylink

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This redirect 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

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This redirect is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This redirect is supported by the Passenger trains task force.

CityLink vs Citylink

The service is called Central Citylink, as shown by the logo and by Central Trains' website, so does anyone object to moving the page to Central Citylink? Dannyboy3 22:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, should be okay, but a lot of redirect pages will have to be changed, as well as many links in other pages; or does moving a page do these things automatically? Dewarw 16:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it dosen't - you have to do these manually (or with a bot) Pickle 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if the page is moved, then there will be a lot of moving to be done! However, I do not have any problems with the page being moved. Good luck. Dewarw 19:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page, and corrected the links. Dannyboy3 16:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise Box deletion

An anon. user, 91.64.2.137, keeps deleting the franchise box ("preceded by Regional Railways, succeeded by x" etc.) on this page. They rarely give a reason. I think that the box should stay. What do other people think? Can this user be stopped from doing this? Dewarw 19:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

presumed vandalism mate, you probably can report the user as a vandal somewhere but I'm not up on that I'm afraid Pickle 07:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reported the anon user as a vandal. If they continue to vandalise the page they will be blocked. Success! Dewarw 19:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the anonymous user in question should not have removed the box without discussion (or even leaving an edit summary), I would question your (plural) assertions that this is vandalism. I would agree that there should not be a franchise succession box on this article, as it is not about a franchise. Furthermore, I would question the usefulness of franchise succession boxes in any case: as franchises are merged, split and otherwise reorganised often at each round of franchising, often a franchise will not have a single direct predecessor or successor, and such details are better explained in the text, not in a succession box. --RFBailey 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how a "Franchise Box" might not be appropriate for this article, but generally i think "Franchise Boxs" serve a useful purpose for most TOCs -especially where there has been a clear cut succession chain. If i knew the coding, I'm sure one could create a suitable table for splits and merges - I've seen it done somewhere - probably politicians, etc. Pickle 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism or not, the box is useful to the article and should not be consistently be deleted by an anon user who does not give justification. Dewarw 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splits and merges boxes are available, e.g. the one at the bottom of FGW's page. If people are not happy with the present box, then replacing it with one like that would be more constructive than deleting it all together. Dewarw 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this edit summary [1], I would suggest that Dewarw reads my comment above. I am not an anonymous user. Whoever the anon user is, they should have provided at least an edit summary and preferably an explanation on the talk page. However, when I removed the box yesterday, I gave such an edit summary and explained my reasoning in the above. To summarise, as this article is not about a franchise, a "franchise succession box" is inappropriate. As far as multiple successions go, that's not the issue with this article, but may be the case with others. --RFBailey 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are not an anon user, but the person who was deleting the box before was one, and never gave much justification. Dewarw 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowedging this, however, in your most recent revert to this article, you reverted me, not the anon user, yet still claimed a "lack of justification", when I had explained myself on this page. Please take more care in future. --RFBailey 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose/necessity of this article

I can see that someone has put a lot of hard work into this article, but I really don't see why it is necessary. CityLink is merely a brand that Central Trains use for its long-distance services, that's all. It's not a separate company, or a separate franchise: it is only a brand. As far as I can see, it merely duplicates material from the Central Trains article. What do others think? --RFBailey 21:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Central Trains do distinguish Citylink services from the normal ones (in announcements the services are called "Central Citylink service to X" etc.). It also has a separate logo of course. The brand has a separate section of Central's website. For these reasons, I think that it is a valid page. Dewarw 21:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the article, your response doesn't surprise me. But in saying that Central Trains distinguish it from other services, and that it has its own logo and section of website just confirms that it is a Central Trains brand. That's all there is to say about it. The content of the article just duplicates the Central Trains article.

Furthermore, the fleet list is misleading: the three types of train are just drawn from the Central Trains fleet, and are listed there as well. --RFBailey 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that the page is viable because it provides specific detail about Citylink services, although some was removed (probably as it was considered marketing). Hopefully, more details about the service can be provided in the future to make the page even more useful/viable. As for the train fleet- the reason why it is primarily the same as Central Trains', is because Central overlap stock and use it on both franchises. Dewarw 18:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter who owns it, or what the corporate structure is. As a distinct brand it has a distinct identity. Leave it as it is. --Commking 21:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in this article that is not already described in the Central Trains article, and I doubt that anything else can be said about it. Dewarw's comment about the fleet if anything reiterates the point I was making. It is also incorrect to say "both franchises"; as already discussed at length; this article is not about a franchise. Also, in response to "As a distinct brand it has a distinct identity", it is only barely noticable as such. --RFBailey 18:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to it "not having a distinct identity," Central Citylink have their own logo, own section of the web-site, are announced differently/ distinguished from standard Central services, are distinguished in the timetables as well as in the type of services they run. Therefore Central Citylink has its own identity and is different to Central Trains. Dewarw 21:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Looks like the article stays then. --Commking 01:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This company has been defunct for a decade and Citylink was a minor sub brand applied for just its final few years. It was purely marketing - there was no separate business unit and no separate fleet. Indeed it may be misleading to list a Citylink fleet separately in this article as Citylink did not have a dedicated fleet - the trains listed were the usual stock but were also used on Central Trains' other services, while other trains not listed in this article could end up on Citylink services.

Other sections such as routes and replacement services at franchise handover are already better detailed in the main Central Trains article. This one is really just repetition and will most likely suffer as people are unlikely to maintain both this article as well as the Central Trains one.

I think the notability has been overplayed. For example "it was decided that seats would be reservable in advance, and most services would offer at-seat catering" suggests this was a new development when in fact many Central Trains services had already offered this for many years.

213.205.252.227 (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise Box

Other "sub-brands" have this box (eg. Island Line and Silverlink Metro & County). Furthermore, this box is very useful, especially now the Central Franchise is going to be split up. Therefore, could people stop removing this box. It is considered vandalism. Thank you. Dewarw 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the vandalism policy. This is a content dispute, not mindless vandalism, and there is an important difference between the two. While you (and maybe some other uers) may feel that it is very useful, others disagree. Describing such edits as vandalism can be inflammatory.

My personal opinions about this are (i) this is not about a franchise, so shouldn't have a "franchise box" anyway, and (ii) the complexity of the situation regarding refranchising is better explained in the text of the relevant articles, not in a template. --RFBailey 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the subject is not a franchise, the box 'is useful. It is better than explaining things "in the text of the relevant articles." That is what the point of the boxes are- to allow text to be removed, and to make it much clearer to users.

No. That is not the point of the boxes at all! They are there to provide easy (and consistent) linking between articles. They are not an adequate substitute for clear, written explanations. --RFBailey 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about me calling the box's removal vandalism, but when people keep removing material generally agreed to be useful (more people who havwe voiced their opinions in favour than against), without justification (in the case of the anon user), and where similar pages have a box (Island line), I assumed that it was more than a "content dispute." Dewarw 16:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this policy. A consensus is not formed just by a straight vote: claiming "I've got more friends than he has, so therefore our idea is better than theirs" is not what Wikipedia is about. --RFBailey 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image captions

I've clarified the image captions: the Class 350 can't be on a "Citylink" service as they don't operate to Northampton, while the Class 158 may not be in service (the track it is using doesn't have a platform on it). --RFBailey 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I will check the Class 158. Dewarw 13:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

A new version of the map is in place. It is not copyrighted. Dewarw 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Central Citylink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]