Talk:Central Citylink

Trains: in UK / Passenger trains Redirect‑class 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

Redirect

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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.
	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]

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]