![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After November, the "future operators" box will become pretty much empty. I propose that the proposed open access operators, such as Grand Union, Glasgow and City etc. are reinstated onto that template. After all, they are now the next expected developments,even if they have not been developed that much. Dewarw 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Jorvik 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the proposal no longer involves any changes to this template, I have gone ahead and created it at Template:Prospective UK TOCs. -- Jorvik 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See below. Simply south 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
should open acsess operators be split from national?Mark999 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 ( talk • contribs)
No, keep it simple. People will not care whether they are "open access." If necessary add an asterisk and a footnote etc. Remember, if they are open access they are still "National." Splitting is not a good idea. Dewarw 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrexham and Shropshire received their final approval today from the ORR and have announced that they will start operating from Spring 2008. I have adjusted the template accordingly Hammersfan 03/09/07, 16.14 BST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersfan ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking: there are very few ways in which Wiki users can get to the pages of the "pipe dreams (Grand Union, for example)."
Would not it be better if the "possible future franchises" are moved onto the main TOC template.
This would result in more people finding/being able to find these small companies.
No designs would have to be changed, just the templates merged.
Please show your support/ say that the idea is not good. Thanks, Dewarw 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how about including a link with the pipe dreams. My main concern here is that there are not enough links to them- even if they are not notable enough to appear on the main template. And I like the new design. Dewarw 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this any better?
-- Jorvik 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes! Completely understand (I was not talking about the newly designed one, but the current one!). I like the new one and fully support it. Dewarw 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose i shouldn't ask if the template should have a further section on open-acess operators, currently there are 1/2/3 (Hull Trains only/Hull Trains + Heathrow Express (or was it Connect?)/Hull Trains + Heathrow + WSMR). Simply south 10:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A little rejigging and this is what I come up with. Hammersfan 23/10/07, 16.07 BST
How about links from the Defunct & Prospective TOCs templates to this template (and the other corresponding template)? Dewarw 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Defunct UK TOCs#Proposed new template here. Dewarw 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that London Midland has sub-brands(Express and City), so I have created pages for them. Please help me add to them and get them up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
When the sub-brands are just the name of the company with an extra word attached, I don’t think a separate link or page is really merited. After all, it isn’t obvious that a train marked ‘Stansted Express’ is really part of one, but I don’t think anyone will have trouble working out that London Midland Express is part of London Midland. David Arthur 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if the sub-brands become as notable as Central Citylink (which is notable enough for its own page) then we could. Dewarw 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, as it doesn't directly relate to the template. -- Jorvik 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a funny name for a train company! Does anybody know a source for the actual operational name yet, or are NE just going to spring it on us in a few weeks? Dewarw 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But normally, Nat Ex do not do such a thing:
See what I mean, the name NXEC just sounds clumsy, unrealistic and different to what they have done in the past! Dewarw 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It’s definitely a change of policy — I believe they want to move towards emphasising the unity of National Express Trains, rather than giving each company its own independent identity. David Arthur 19:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
etc. But of course, it not my place to say is it?! Dewarw 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a continuation of the merger\reform discussion name. There is now defunct and prospective templates (not in the ultra-literal sense of course). So should this one be renamed either Template:Current UK TOCs, Template:Current and Scheduled UK TOCs or something in-line with the other two? Or should this be left with the current name? Simply south 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the prospective/current/future templates should be put next to each other in the same way that we had the Current and Upcoming together.
This will allow Wiki users to navigate from any TOC past, present or future to any other with just one click.
This is a "sort of" merger, but there would be three boxes in the one template.
What do others think? Too complicated? Unnecessary? Too big? Dewarw 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
After November, the "future operators" box will become pretty much empty. I propose that the proposed open access operators, such as Grand Union, Glasgow and City etc. are reinstated onto that template. After all, they are now the next expected developments,even if they have not been developed that much. Dewarw 15:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
-- Jorvik 18:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since the proposal no longer involves any changes to this template, I have gone ahead and created it at Template:Prospective UK TOCs. -- Jorvik 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
See below. Simply south 17:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
should open acsess operators be split from national?Mark999 16:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark999 ( talk • contribs)
No, keep it simple. People will not care whether they are "open access." If necessary add an asterisk and a footnote etc. Remember, if they are open access they are still "National." Splitting is not a good idea. Dewarw 17:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Wrexham and Shropshire received their final approval today from the ORR and have announced that they will start operating from Spring 2008. I have adjusted the template accordingly Hammersfan 03/09/07, 16.14 BST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammersfan ( talk • contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking: there are very few ways in which Wiki users can get to the pages of the "pipe dreams (Grand Union, for example)."
Would not it be better if the "possible future franchises" are moved onto the main TOC template.
This would result in more people finding/being able to find these small companies.
No designs would have to be changed, just the templates merged.
Please show your support/ say that the idea is not good. Thanks, Dewarw 16:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but how about including a link with the pipe dreams. My main concern here is that there are not enough links to them- even if they are not notable enough to appear on the main template. And I like the new design. Dewarw 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this any better?
-- Jorvik 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes! Completely understand (I was not talking about the newly designed one, but the current one!). I like the new one and fully support it. Dewarw 17:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose i shouldn't ask if the template should have a further section on open-acess operators, currently there are 1/2/3 (Hull Trains only/Hull Trains + Heathrow Express (or was it Connect?)/Hull Trains + Heathrow + WSMR). Simply south 10:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
A little rejigging and this is what I come up with. Hammersfan 23/10/07, 16.07 BST
How about links from the Defunct & Prospective TOCs templates to this template (and the other corresponding template)? Dewarw 19:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Defunct UK TOCs#Proposed new template here. Dewarw 19:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have just noticed that London Midland has sub-brands(Express and City), so I have created pages for them. Please help me add to them and get them up to scratch. Thanks, Dewarw 17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
When the sub-brands are just the name of the company with an extra word attached, I don’t think a separate link or page is really merited. After all, it isn’t obvious that a train marked ‘Stansted Express’ is really part of one, but I don’t think anyone will have trouble working out that London Midland Express is part of London Midland. David Arthur 14:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if the sub-brands become as notable as Central Citylink (which is notable enough for its own page) then we could. Dewarw 17:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: This should really be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways, as it doesn't directly relate to the template. -- Jorvik 17:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That is a funny name for a train company! Does anybody know a source for the actual operational name yet, or are NE just going to spring it on us in a few weeks? Dewarw 13:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
But normally, Nat Ex do not do such a thing:
See what I mean, the name NXEC just sounds clumsy, unrealistic and different to what they have done in the past! Dewarw 15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It’s definitely a change of policy — I believe they want to move towards emphasising the unity of National Express Trains, rather than giving each company its own independent identity. David Arthur 19:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
etc. But of course, it not my place to say is it?! Dewarw 21:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit of a continuation of the merger\reform discussion name. There is now defunct and prospective templates (not in the ultra-literal sense of course). So should this one be renamed either Template:Current UK TOCs, Template:Current and Scheduled UK TOCs or something in-line with the other two? Or should this be left with the current name? Simply south 22:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think that the prospective/current/future templates should be put next to each other in the same way that we had the Current and Upcoming together.
This will allow Wiki users to navigate from any TOC past, present or future to any other with just one click.
This is a "sort of" merger, but there would be three boxes in the one template.
What do others think? Too complicated? Unnecessary? Too big? Dewarw 16:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)