Talk:Merseyrail/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Split proposal

I don't know about anyone else, but the constant debates surrounding the city line and what Merseyrail stands for is getting quite tiring. Although it's predominantly a single editor, I don't see the issue being "resolved" after quite some time. I also have felt for quite a while that the size of the article is too long and that if there is an opportunity to appropriately truncate, it should at least be explored (as a separate concern).

Having observed the discussion in the section above, I noted that DankJae suggests the possibility of splitting the article, with Merseyrail (brand) as an option for covering the elements of the article not specifically relating to the TOC. This would be a fairly significant split if it happens, not least because the article size is fairly huge now and various parts of it are conflated between the TOC and brand, without clear distinction. As this arrangement seems to work for the ScotRail articles, I thought it was worth seeing if there is any consensus to do the same for Merseyrail, so that we would have an article exclusively for the train operating company, and another for the brand. If anything, we can either address some issues/concerns this if it gets support or rule it out if there isn't consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support

1. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
2. DankJae 13:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
3. As I understand matters, the main issue is that there is not a 1-to-1 relationship between the Merseyrail branding and the Merseyrail TOC. That really does require a split for clarity and yes, it probably means some duplicated content between the articles. That's fine. Mackensen (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
4. I support, yes. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

   I agree to support. Kieran375 (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

1. ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
2. G-13114 (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Semi-oppose, if it is split then the TOC article should be subordinate to the article of the broader definition.

Comments

• I don't know quite how a split would be done in practice, though before that I think we need to determine if there is consensus for having two separate articles. I'll put myself in support unless there is a reasonable opposition as to why it isn't appropriate. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
• I did suggest this largely due to the constant discussions over the City Line, and it was also applied to ScotRail. DankJae 13:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Redrose64, 10mmsocket, Dr Greg, and L1v3rp00l: as editors who have engaged in the various discussions above, especially as this would benefit from a clear consensus. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I also alerted WikiProject UK Railways and semi-active WikiProject Merseyside for any interested editors there, as this seems to be a long standing issue. Not sure what other WikiProjects may need alerting. DankJae 21:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

It makes sense, I get tired of seeing the same changes being put in and then reversed every few months. This seems to offer the best solution. LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we pop you in support then, LicenceToCrenellate? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

So you are tired of people not understanding what the City Line is, so want it changed to suit them. My oh my. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Wisdom-inc: Kindly read my rationale. The proposal isn't exclusive to being a remedy for, what I can only describe as a disruptive dispute, that you have continually engaged in, but also as a possible means of addressing some long-standing concerns I have at the article length. We have previously clashed over your obsession with this matter, and despite me seeking to suggest we create a "brand" Merseyrail article as mooted by DankJae, which could better accommodate references to the city line branded lines, you continue to rebuff and disrupt. As clearly you seem to be in a minority, or possibly the only one trying to force through your own preference, maybe you could at least consider this proposal constructively. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have continually engaged in have I? I never instigated it. I also have an obsession as well. Opinionated nonsense. Wisdom-inc (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Ah, a breakthrough...? Or maybe just being difficult despite attempts to try and address your perceived concerns. Either way, I think a split would help keep the size manageable and is probably on balance worthwhile, whether you support it or not. I assume you oppose, then. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the article. Look at the contents. All well laid out. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no concerns about the well laid out article. The problem is one guy saw a map then barked on and on about it. He developed selective amnesia not addressing the links I have given on Merseyrail stations, signage, seamless ticketing, etc. Then others who equally do not understand what the City Line is come in. Sad really. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

•  Note: I have created a redirect from the brand to this article. Anyone is free to write an article over it if a consensus to split is established. Staying neutral with regard to the current proposal. Jalen Folf (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

• Confused as to what the actual point of this is, or what the difference is going to be between the two articles that will stop whatever argument there is going on. I see a lot of OR, and SYNTH with maps and various things being thrown around and it's all very messy and unclear. Koncorde (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

  Hi, its proposed to distinguish between the train operating company known as Merseyrail and the brand of rail services of Merseytravel known as Merseyrail, i.e. clarify the City Line is not operated by Merseyrail but parts of its infrastructure branded as Merseyrail. May prefer the line be clarified inside the article, however years of debates have lead to no real solution, therefore this split is suggested. The argument over maps (at least by me) was the dispute of the City Line being on this "Merseyrail map" described in the article and asking for clarity whether it refers to the train company or the Merseytravel brand, it is likely the brand, but could not be verified as the term was omitted from the map provided by the editor who included the sentence, and other Merseyrail maps omit the line or did not use the term Merseyrail, so clarity was needed, or changing the sentence to not be on maps as a lead. Being "messy and unclear" is a reason why this split hopes to clarify these two meanings of Merseyrail more clearly in their separate articles. Ofc if the two definitions are re-integrated in the future by LCRCA, then this split can be reversed in years time. Be free to oppose, be neutral or support the proposal. DankJae 17:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So are we saying we are going to use Merseyrails definition of themselves & their network map for this article, and omitting the "City line" (barring brief historic and future plans reference somehow), and then the brand article will mention the fact that stations on the "City Line" are operated by MerseyTravel & Merseyrail (signage I think is Merseyrail)? Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume we'll be making this article mainly on the train operating company, so yes where the Merseyrail trains currently operate on their self-defined network will be the main subject of this article. At least that's my stance.

What exact content is moved is still open to discussion, some have mentioned anything not about the train operating company should be moved, so I assume the brand article will be where most of the history is, with the Serco-Abellio franchise history purely remaining and potentially short bits on electrification and the loop etc (may have to be duplicated). The City Line is mainly currently operated by Northern Trains (as well as other operators)[1][2] and not Merseyrail but with some oversight by Merseytravel, but its stations are signed as Merseyrail, despite the trains using such branding currently do to run there.

Although should the City Line become wholly run by Merseyrail in the future (as hoped by LCRCA) to the point where both uses are equivalent then a split can be undone, but as of now that is not the case, with the LCRCA even using the term "City Line network" separately from "Merseyrail network", [3] in their 2018 Rail strategy, although this is a minor difference.

Sources (although same website) state that the upcoming devolution of the "Merseyrail network" will only include the Northern and Wirral lines (based on station/track statistics), not City, and if true, the City Line's status in this article would be more questionable, so to appeal to other editors, a move to an article discussing the Merseyrail brand, which the line is clearly signed as, as an alternative solution.[4][5] Ofc this is just my personal take, be free to suggest alternatives. DankJae 22:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

The LCRCA document very helpfully delineates the two "networks" which would suggest that there should be more than just these two articles in discussion. Not least the naming convention of City Line (Merseyrail) the content of which would require a re-think as currently it's a bit of a mess trying to thread the eye of a needle much like this article is. Earlier attempt to rename the article was reverted, even though I would suggest the Passenger Transport Executive "Merseytravel" would probably be more accurate. I think broader look at some of the sub-articles would be necessary as there is pretty overt POV on articles such as Liverpool–Wigan line (and as a result I suspect in the station articles as well). Koncorde (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe a discussion over how to describe the City Line should be started after this proposal (I guess on its talk page), as well as general copyedits. The article has quite a bit of uncited content, needing verification. I guess my dispute above over a map also applies there, as it seems to be a copied paragraph in this article. DankJae 00:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the article can be cut back and better use of the subheadings made (Like the Northern line), but the article should not be split! ✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 00:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I just read all of the comments of the City Line. There is a metro network called Merseyrail. It has three lines. Two are operated by one company, the other one, City Line, is shared services, which is when trains run by other companies enter Merseytravel's area they automatically becomes Merseyrail City Line trains under Merseyrail branding. What is difficult about that?

I have the impression some want all mention of the City Line erased from the article, even though it exists. By their knowledge and terms they use, they appear to be employees in the rail industry. Why removed it? Maybe a rail agenda of some sort. I do not know.

I agree the article should not be split. It is well structured as it is. Look at the contents page. It is a map of where to go in the article. Well laid out. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:4793:A695:47EF:A190 (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suspect you are Wisdom-inc so will not really give much weight to this opinion. I'll look to put a draft together of a split article in the new year for consideration. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone please note that this edit is very likely have been made by @Wisdom-inc so should be disregarded - see WP:BE 10mmsocket (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for a year, as (interestingly) it had also been previously. Black Kite (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Splitting process

@DankJae, Mackensen, and LicenceToCrenellate: It's now been nearly 3 months and there hasn't been any express opposition to the proposal, but we are the ones who have expressly supported it. I think it's a reasonable enough period of time to consider looking at the next steps here. I may suggest that a draft version of the split article could be created and then tweaked, itself then agreed upon prior to a proposal to move into mainspace. At the same time, which content will be be taken from the Merseyrail article, or will it just be a straight pull-and-drop? There will inevitably be some duplication/crossover, but I think it's important that we work towards the best way to make the distinction between the TOR and brand. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bungle, Would support and help with any draft. DankJae 15:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bungle @DankJae its been almost a year since this. Do we have any updates? --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 10:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@NeoJade Tbh, seemed more work for any benefit. I raised the suggestion as at the time, there was a major dispute and edit warring with one editor over the City Line being part of Merseyrail. So lightly suggested a split as an alternative solution. But as that editor was now blocked and the article more stable I have questioned whether the split should go ahead at all. Personally willing to reconsider the proposal, but while I first suggested it, @Bungle did start the discussion, so not sure who is the nominator. Another editor on the RM at City Line did also question a split, but they’re not here. @10mmsocket

The article could do with some reducing, but possibly not into a brand Merseyrail article, may be into a history article or Merseytravel itself. But this is just my opinion now, ofc if more editors still support the original proposal then that should be done. DankJae 11:22, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I've seen, there is already the City Line article, which as it is referenced a lot with merseyrail, should be at least acknowledged here. obviously I wasn't involved in the issues though. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 11:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

It was a fair amount of work needed that I never actually really got around to starting. That said, consensus and circumstances can change over time and while I think there remains merit in the original proposal to split content, I don't think the strength of feeling remains the same as originally proposed (or the perceived need, given there was an ongoing dispute at the time too).

The article definitely does need to be trimmed and could spin off at least one article on a specific element of Merseyrail, so maybe consideration should be afforded to how better we can trim the article from its current state. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Well if it helps, the history and future section are too large for a start, so some article to accompany those would be preferred. Whether a new "history" article, or move content to the wikilinked articles and summarise here or move to Transport in Liverpool (or a rail transport spin off) or Merseytravel (specifically the future stuff) maybe. Although not sure if a new proposal needs to be set up consulting initial supporters above on the previous proposal. DankJae 20:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, "History Of Merseyrail", for the history side of things, as it basically is a constant updating thread. Then, like Merseyrail etc for up to date or potentially future goals? --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 09:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I do not think it is large at all. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Size is not the main reason for the split, but a consideration. The main reason for the split is to represent the two meanings of Merseyrail, and where the City Line fits in. If you're restarting the City Line debate, the split probably should go ahead to settle it once and for all. DankJae 00:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternative split

Considering the City Line issue has come up or general concerns of the size of the article, should a split proceed as either:

• Proposed Merseyrail and Merseyrail (brand)
• Or an alternative;
  • A semi-opposer argued for Merseyrail (train operating company) to be split off instead.
  • Or some combination of the following:
    • Merseyrail (DAB?)
    • Merseyrail (brand)
    • Merseyrail (train operating company)
    • Merseyrail (network) / Rail network of Liverpool / History of Merseyrail (more on the network bits)

@Bungle, Mackensen, LicenceToCrenellate, Kieran375, G-13114, 10mmsocket, and NeoJade: Not proposing all of them, nor at the same time, but those are the ideas and counter-ideas put forward. Thanks DankJae 01:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@DankJae, I have followed the recent discussions on this over the past few days, even symphasising with Redrose64's "oh not again" comment, putting aside that this recent IP editor has taken a starkly similar tone to an editor formally also in dispute around this time last year. That aside, it is a long running issue, not just with a single editor, and the motion to split I think still has merit. I was a tad concerned that the level of consensus wasn't quite where we'd want it to be, but I am committed still to looking into a brand/network split article approach. I don't know if this is a !vote yet as such, but i'd oppose a DAB on the PT, and be open to splitting the history, perhaps. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle, I hoped the issue would've settled and too sympathised with "not again", but seems it isn't unfortunately. Plus, maybe a clear consensus of one article, two lines, needs to be agreed to make it more clearer and stable, should the article be altered undiscussed again. Yes, the IP seemed similar to that editor last year, in terms of disruption. When looking through the archives (not looked closely), a split seems to have been proposed before, years ago, so possibly making the need even greater. The consensus was not as clear as hoped, which is why I refrained from acting on it.

I wouldn't like a DAB either, but if such a split were to occur, then we may need to find out what is the primary topic, or at least discuss it, I'd argue the operator and its conterminous network as being more prevalent, like ScotRail, but it was argued the otherway.

Also should the City Line be slightly edited to make the distinction clearer here (i.e. not equally under "Network") or would that be too disruptive. DankJae 11:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think a logical collection of articles would be:

• Merseyrail, into which is merged
  • Northern Line
  • Wirral Line (except "History")
• City Line (Merseyrail)
• History of rail transport in Merseyside, split from the "History" and large parts of the "Future" sections of Merseyrail and the "History" section of Wirral Line

The Northern and Wirral line articles duplicate a fair amount of this one, and the additional introduced material will be balanced by the removal of most of "History" and "Future". The City Line will be predominantly covered in its main article, making the primary topic of "Merseyrail" the network, but can still be mentioned in this article and have a summary subsection (much as it does now). The history article is fairly self-explanatory, the only note being that this article's "Future" section actually contains a fair amount of historical content which would need to be incorporated into it.

The exactl format of the Merseyrail article can be discussed later, but it might look something like:

• Lead
• History (see main)
• Network
  • City Line (see main)
  • Fares and ticketing
  • Performance
  • Future
• Northern Line
  • Stations
  • Services
• Wirral Line
  • Stations
  • Services
• Rolling stock
  • Depots

There's not a lot of consistency between the articles on UK commuter rail systems, so I've just tried to cobble together something which makes sense. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I've had a long-term aspiration to split-off the History section entirely into its own article, and much of the future stuff (which is rightly noted above as being historically linked) should also go with it too. In fact, I was advocating that on this very page over 10 years ago, and I even suggested at that time an article on the history of rail transport within Merseyside (none of which materialised). To me, it seems like we have two separate considerations to decide upon:

• Condensing the article by splitting off the history/future related prose into a purpose-written article about the history of the region's rail transport system(s), and/or specifically/including Merseyrail. Consider my !vote support on this already, as something I first suggested over a decade ago
• Redefining the focus of the article onto either Merseyrail the network vs the brand (and I feel like consensus has remained consistently in favour of the former). The extent of the disputes around Merseyrail "the brand" come from the inclusion of the City Line, of which an article already exists and therefore maybe this should form the basis or be reconstructed to what we thought a Merseyrail (brand) article may have been

This has dragged on for so long, that only we as editors can actually make the change, and agree what is the best approach, otherwise nothing will change (as evident by the status-quo). This could be an informative, clean and concise article if managed in the right way. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

To ensure as many editors can be alerted, should the split template be re-added, although omitting the destination. It was removed as another editor believed the split stagnated. DankJae 18:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

@Koncorde, L1v3rp00l, Dr Greg, and Redrose64: Pinging those pinged before, who wrote previous comments on this talk page, on the revival of the proposal following the return of disputes. DankJae 18:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Support any splitting of history (including future) into preferably a H of RT in something article, or open to a specifically H of Merseyrail one. Although "History of rail transport in" does raise the question whether there has to be a "Rail transport in" article. Plus if the LCR now covers Halton, should they be included too?

This article needs to clarify what exactly it is about, which I believe is the electric concession of the two lines (planned to be devolved) run by the operator of the same name, and therefore the status of the City Line has to be clarified or reworded to distinguish it. I have had the City Line on my list to improve (only done the lead so far, concerning what it actually is, although should've added it to the body too).

What is clear that (unfortunately) the status quo has been constantly disputed for years, so a new approach is needed. DankJae 18:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

On the history article scope, it depends when you want the cut-off to be, really. 'History of Merseyrail' would likely cover little before the initial planning of the network in the 1960s, while '...rail transport in Merseyside' would have greater scope to cover earlier companies and lines. I don't have a strong preference.

We'll need more input to form a consensus, but it is clear that the current setup isn't working and that something needs to be changed. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It may be that a draft "history of xx(?)" article is created and developed, over which time it'll become clearer as to whether there is any merit in having a distinctly separate "H-O Merseyrail" and "H-O rail transport in Merseyside" versus being able to collectively contain within a single article. As this is a different consideration to the definition of Merseyrail (as far as the article is concerned), we also want to be mindful to consider each proposal on individual merit. I think the first thing(s) to consider are what the question/proposal(s) will be, if this is again put to a !vote for consensus building.

Perhaps (as a throw-away example);

1. Should the current Merseyrail article's primary focus be on the train operating company which operates services on the Northern and Wirral lines, or broadly the brand "Merseyrail", which includes services on the branded City line
2. Should a separate article be created for the "History of rail transport in Merseyside"
   • Should this further be split into a separate, more detailed article on "History of Merseyrail", also to include appropriately sourced material relating to the "future" section

I'm not suggesting questions worded explicitly as per my suggestion, or that we wouldn't want to further clarify, but also it's important to be concise if any progress is to be achieved. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree with being concise, so those not following closely can easily understand what is being proposed. DankJae 01:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd also consider closing this discussion (which is a bit long and tricky to follow), and making the vote a new topic. Not that I want to discourage discussion, but it might be better to phrase the proposals as yes/no questions rather than open-ended statements, perhaps:

1. This article's primary topic should be reduced to the Merseyrail network (the Northern and Wirral lines) and its train operating company.
2. The City Line should be primarily covered in City Line (Merseytravel) .
3. The existing Northern line (Merseyrail) and Wirral line articles should be merged into this article.
4. A separate "History of rail trainsport on Merseyside" article should be created and the appropriate content split from this article and "Wirral line".

Having separate "Vote" and "Discussion" subsections also works well, in my experience. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I do understand the idea of re-doing the discussion into yes/no (which is much easier to follow), although my only issue is that there was some consensus here, so not sure. Hopefully those above can comment again, supporting a re-do of a proposal. But I do not want the situation where a new vote has a smaller engagement than the previous one. DankJae 18:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you could justifiably claim a consensus (if not unanimous) for a split from this discussion, and consider the new discussion about how to go about achieving that. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we should be clear what questions are being asked, and how they're being worded, before any steps can be made moving forward. Those questions should probably be in a new section, but I don't feel like we have fully decided on what needs to be asked yet. Judging on what has already been discussed, we need to determine consensus on questions relating to: 1) the purpose of this article - network vs brand, 2) the primary topic for the City Line, 3) the desire to have separate or merged prose for the Northern and Wirral lines, 4) splitting the history section of Merseyrail into a new article, 5) an entirely separate, though related, general Merseyrail rail history article.

The last proper !vote last year was to determine consensus on splitting the article, broadly aligned with the first point, but no clear plan how that would look, or with due concern for other matters since discussed. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:16, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

So far as I can tell the only point of difference regarding the questions is whether we should split the history content into one article or two. For simplicity's sake I'd rather propose a single history split now, as a second can always be made in the future if "History of Merseyrail" can support a standalone article. @DankJae, any thoughts?

Once we've settled that point we should really press ahead, or things may stall again. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bungle, @A.D.Hope, I mean my only issue is that it seems odd to have a History of rail transport in Merseyside without a Rail transport in Merseyside article, just saying, which is why, as this is Merseyrail, for History of Merseyrail to be considered. But if there is a case elsewhere on Wikipedia where only a history article exists, fully fine with only History of rail transport in Merseyside (or any similar name). But I do wonder if we can just make a Rail transport in Merseyside article, which just happens to go into history (and also the future, which technically isn't history). DankJae 18:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The trouble with "Rail transport in Merseyside" is that I reckon it would mostly duplicate this article and City Line (Merseytravel), which is the opposite of what we're trying to achieve.

I don't have a particular problem with "History of Merseyrail", but its historical scope would naturally be more limited than "History of rail transport in Merseyside". Given the railway companies whose lines eventually became Merseyrail all have articles that shouldn't be a problem. A.D.Hope (talk) 11:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

But if this article is decided to be mainly referring to the operator, there would be some extra missing things to go to a RT in Merseyside. But nonetheless, fine with a History of RT in Merseyside, especially if history only articles already exist. DankJae 13:05, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of sorting out this article, would it be enough to suggest putting the historical content in 'a new history article' and leaving the details for later? We don't need to have the entire restructure figured out from the start. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

yeah thats fine, main priority is getting on with a split DankJae 14:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

I feel like the easiest part of this process, in terms of consensus and implementation, is the splitting off of the history section into a dedicated article, something I have advocated for. As noted above, we already have the skeleton structure of a proposed History of Merseyrail on this article already, and I concur that perhaps moving in that direction in the first instance, then considering the finer details later, may be prudent.

An article specifically on History of rail transport in Merseyside, or History of railways in Merseyside or whatever it may eventually be titled, would surely require greater planning and ground-up development, to some extent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:48, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

So @A.D.Hope, @Bungle, is it to be History of Merseyrail? Even in the short-term, that article could be quickly expanded to all of Merseyside if needed in the future. DankJae 15:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to split off the history (and "future"?) into an article titled as such, and as noted, could always be further expanded, or broadened later down the line (with consideration to the title too). For now, I think this is worth pursuing with, to at least then be able to extend focus onto the wider discussion around what we want the article to represent. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, fine by me. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, @Bungle, are we starting a draft first or setting up a new proposal to see if any of the previous contributors have an opinion? DankJae 17:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Either works, although I'm not sure I'm up to sifting through the 'future' section just now. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any disapproval towards having a History of Merseyrail, comprising (mostly?) the current history section and large parts of the future section. We need to consider how much is left behind, and how it'll be written. That's a heck of a lot to condense into a paragraph or two, but ultimately I do feel it needs to be done.

Alas, we need to start somewhere, so I have created a draft of Draft:History of Merseyrail, which will make any chops and changes a little easier to manage. Maybe we should have that discussion in a new section, and tackle this one thing at a time? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Just looking over the history draft, I reckon we could/should cut down the future section by quite the amount, as half the talking points are redundant. For example, Battery_train_trials and Extending the network via battery/electrification make eachother redundant, as it is repeating the exact same thing,

Perhaps we could split the future section like this to try and stop the redundancy/repetition of the exact same points.

Future

- Past Proposals (Older proposals that have no obvious work done to them, for example, tram-trains)

- Expansions

- Additions to the current network (ie, Maghull North before it was built, not stations that expand the distance of the network, but just fill in the network)

- Expansions to the network (ie: headbolt lane, wigan, preston, etc)

Obviously these can be changed to see fit, but I really don't think the current format is completely necessary as it is heavily redundant. Its also all over the place imo, which again, this format could help fix. If agreed that this how it should go, or if you just want a draft of this version, I can work on writing one up.

Also, perhaps we could/should move to the talk page for the draft for discussions on the history, ^^ --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 07:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree on moving any discussion about this specifically to the draft article talk page. The idea behind that being so we could essentially develop the base of that article in a "non-live" state and work out really what we want it to look like. I have always had someone of an issue around the "future" section, not least because of the repetition but that numerous aspects and reports date well over 10 years ago. It should not be a fan page about the network so i'd be wanting to look at some serious condensing.

However to the original point, discussion on that is maybe best at the draft article talk page. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope, overall good proposal but maybe this should be after any potential splits, to avoid complicating the discussion. The lines have their own articles for lot of details. Fares and ticketing and performance probably should be under a operator section. While City Line moved below Network. DankJae 18:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

At the moment there's little point in planning what should be in the Merseyrail article beyond the bullets above, but it is helpful to have an idea of what will be where so that we end up with a cohesive article (and network of articles) at the end of the splitting/merging/re-focussing process. We can work out the finer details later. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

City Line

The City Line exists. Read Merseytravel Merseraril documents. Many are pretending it does not exist. They clearly have little idea of what it is. The City has been in the article since day one. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 00:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It is part of the article, but the City Line is not operated by the train operator Merseyrail nor part of the concession so a distinction has to be made. Just because it is on some maps, does not override that the operator of the same name does not use it. Furthermore, please provide sources. DankJae 00:51, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. DankJae 01:14, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are the offender. Leave the article alone. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

You are very confused. The City Line has been in teh article since day one., That is the only consensus needed. Some one comes in saying we need a consensus after 20-25 years. My World!

Leave the article alone until you understand what the City Line is. The idea is not to butcher the article continuously so as to take you through learning curve. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I have provided the version of the article on "day one", which omits the City Line, open to discuss a way forward, but keep the article as it was while a discussion is ongoing. Consensus is not the opinion of one editor. Please remain WP:CIVIL and avoid personal attacks. DankJae 01:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The way forward is you LEAVE the article alone. You clearly lack understanding. You are a nuisance. I am not batting the ball with someone of limited understanding, I will get nowhere with people like you There is lots on the City Line in the archives. Read them. Rad Merseytravel and Merseyrail docs. 140.228.54.0 (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Reading this section it is obvious the editor DankJae does not understand what the City Line is. He is disruptive. I suggest he desists from editing. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 18:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You added uncited material. The other editor was temporarily blocked. DankJae 18:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I do not know who the other editor is. No uncited material whatsoever. No POV. I read it realizing it was badly written nonsense. Just clarifying the appalling description of the City Line. It is clear you do not understand what the City Line is reading this section. All suburban train services running thru the LCR are under Merseytravel's remit. Merseytravel has put all its suburban services under one umbrella, Merseyrail, no matter who runs the lines, with the same branding and seamless ticketing, to make it all seamless and one network for passengers. Now you know. Not difficult is it? 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This article has to balance two "Merseyrail's" (networks) the one of the train operator and of the brand. Describing the City Line as part of Merseyrail equal to the Northern and Wirral will lead to confusion that it be assumed Merseyrail trains operate on it. So the wording was cut to better distinguish between the two. The City Line has been extensively discussed, with splitting the article being considered, so the City Line can be treated a core part of the brand, but not of the network run by the same named company, which is more commonly what "Merseyrail network" refers to. While the wording may be "nonesense" that is all that was written in the sources, there are very few sources found that describe the City Line. I added a section on a 2000 Merseytravel statement that said they aimed for a unified identity, so hope can helps a bit.

I am not disputing the City Line is partly under Merseytravel's remit, just not comfortable to eagerly describing it as "Merseyrail" without clarity.

Plus recently I do see Merseytravel removing Merseyrail branding from the City Line for its own, but that's personal experience. Nonetheless, adding sources to back your edits will greatly help. But after constant disputes the section was reduced to only sourced material. DankJae 19:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not batting the ball with you as you have not a clue what you are on about. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

You provide no sources, so your arguments don't hold any weight, so not discussing further. DankJae 19:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@IPeditor, please consider WP:NPA. You can have a different view to others, but please be mindful to refrain from personal attacks. Some form of article protection may be necessary to explore otherwise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No personal attacks, just an assertive observation. I am not batting the ball with someone who clearly has little idea of this - even after having an explanation given to him, which he never fully understood. A waste of time going any further as nothing will be gained.

I do not have view. My view, or anyone else's matters not a jot. I give facts. 137.220.109.241 (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

There has already been several debates and consensus reached over the current depiction of the City Line. Obviously, if you wish to discuss changing the consensus, that is okay, but I feel as this debate is getting very uncivil as of late. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 21:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Fact overrides any ganging up under the veil of consensus. 152.37.85.6 (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Where are your sources? Wikipedia does not operate under the veil of implied fact. We operate as a group, under the standing of consensus and verifiable evidence. Jade • Talk • Contributions 21:20, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is this Wisdom-Inc popping up again under a different IP address, as they seem to every few months? LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm under a similar assumption, just hoping and believing it is not the case. --- 𝓙𝓪𝓭𝓮 ^(Talk) • 𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓎/𝓉𝒽𝑒𝓂 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Editor Danners430

This editor has to desist from reverting edits without any justification. 507 trains are now in the past fleet not being used on the network. Now you know. 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

My justification is quite simple. Where is your reliable source that says they're out of service? A quick glance at the 507 article shows them to be in service. Once you have a reliable source for their full retirement, then by all means make such edits. I would also add that edit summaries such as this are generally seen as wholly unacceptable. It's not up to any editor to "find out" as you put it - the onus is on you as the editor making claims to source your edits. Danners430 (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

They were withdrawn on Jan 16 with fanfare. A quick Google would have told you that.

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/rail-express-9L24/20240213/281930252882202 2A01:4B00:BB18:A600:E738:4C0D:38F4:6829 (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

A quote from that article - "Last Class 508 is retired, while '507' fleet is reduced to 21 units." Where does it say that Merseyrail no longer operate Class 507s? Danners430 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting - it is your responsibility to source the changes you are making. It is not up to other editors to find sources for your unsourced claims. Danners430 (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just reverted the edits yet again. That source does not state that the 507s have been withdrawn - as I have already stated above. The Class 507 is not the same as the Class 508. Danners430 (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)