Talk:Southeastern (train operating company)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Southeastern (train operating company) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead Image

Can anyone find a lead image for the infobox that was taken since Southeastern (latest incarnation) commenced operation in November 2021? There's a couple of 707 images from the month before but i cannot see any more recent. It would be nice to be 100% factually correct even if nothing fundamentally changed with the rolling stock between the two companies. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Updating of Images in the Rolling Stock table

My intention was to update the previous photos with more engaging, cleaner and brighter photos than what was there before. Some of the photos before my edit was made, were either in poor lighting conditions or alternatively were blurry for example the Class 375 and Class 377. Again, following on from my talk section on the Thameslink Southern Great Northern page, I've had to carefully choose which photos to use and so again if we could come to an agreement with which photos are inferior and those that aren't that would be very grateful. Maxopolitan (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Cannon Street Loop clarity

@Aaroncrudge and SeagullHD: I'd like to let you know that you both are approaching an edit war on the service table issue of clarity on one of the routes and must discuss the issue here. Do we need the clarity, yes or no? Jalen Folf (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My response is that the via points relating to the route served are displayed on all routes in the table and therefore it is important to ensure consistency across all services in the table. The second via point is to differentiate between the two different services on the same overall route and my view is that both are therefore required and important both for clarity and consistency sake. Aaroncrudge (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I never cared much to begin with and that claim that we were approaching an edit war wasn't true. SeagullHD (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021)#Requested move 16 February 2024 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.

I forgot to tag this for moving but if that is successful, will be renamed to Southeastern (2021). JuniperChill (talk) 13:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 23 February 2024

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) 15:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

---

Southeastern (train operating company) → Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–) – Per WP:PDAB. See Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021). 162 etc. (talk) 16:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current train operating company is very clearly the primary topic over its predecessor - WP:PDAB is just an informative supplement to a guideline, but even if we accept that dubious basis for a nomination as relevant, a simple BEFORE would have shown that its standards are met. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can explain why it is "very clearly" the primary topic? Southeastern (train operating company 2006–2021) appears just as notable to me. 162 etc. (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It is no less notable as a concept, but it is not the primary topic for train operating companies named "Southeastern". If someone is searching for or linking to this title they are expecting the current operator not one that ceased to exist three years ago. Evidence: Look do a BEFORE search, identify what proportion of sources published since October 2021 refer to each company as "Southeastern" without qualification. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like WP:RECENTISM to me. 162 etc. (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

RECENTISM is about article content and not really relevant here. What matters is which article people are looking for now, and the evidence from my searches is that, in the context of train operating companies, it is overwhelmingly this article. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Support Southeastern (train operating company, 2021). Not sure why a company that has been in existence for two years would be more significant than a company operating the same franchise that was in existence for fifteen years. Long-term significance is just as important as pageviews. And yes, WP:RECENTISM very definitely applies to article titles too, as it says. But for existing organisations we usually just use its starting year without a dash. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
• I've left a notice about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Requested move at Talk:Southeastern (train operating company). Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is the primary subject and doesn't need disambiguating. Furthermore with the prospect of a change of Government it may change again in the near future.

  Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Please explain why it is the primary topic. Because it still exists? That's the definition of WP:RECENTISM. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  As pointed out above, What matters is which article people are looking for now, and the evidence is that, in the context of train operating companies, it is overwhelmingly this article. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  No, that's not all that matters. See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. It might pass 1, but it fails 2. I should also point out that the current title is incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  There is no requirement for a topic to pass both aspects in order to be primary topic. The guideline is saying that sometimes criterion 1 is relevant, sometimes criterion 2 is relevant. If they conflict then consensus needs to decide which is the most important in the given situation. In this case, this is very clearly the primary topic regarding usage and they are about equal in terms of historical significance. I see no evidence why putting something other the topic most readers are looking for at the title they are likely to look for it at benefits readers in any way. Thryduulf (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  Note that the bar for WP:PDAB is set considerably higher than for a primary topic. Using an intentionally ambiguous title doesn't benefit readers. 162 etc. (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  The bar is high, but exists. That means that there are circumstances when using an intentionally ambiguous title does benefit readers. The evidence is that this is one one of those circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  What evidence is that? 162 etc. (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  The evidence presented above that this is overwhelmingly the primary topic for people looking for train operating companies named Southeastern. See also the page view graph. Between 1 January 2023 and 15 February 2024 (the day before the requested move of that article) it received a maximum of 23 views on (21 January 2024), on that day the present company received 254 views. The lowest number of views for the present article was, I think, 167 on 15 June 2023 (when the former company got 2 views). The busiest day (by far) for the present company was 11 May 2023 with 800 views, the former company got 3 views that day. So on the busiest day for the former company's article it was still over 7 times less viewed than the present company's article got on it's least used day. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  You're looking at the wrong article title. Pageviews are about 75% in favour of the current operator, or 3:1. That's definitely much lower than any other PDAB primary currently on Wikipedia. 162 etc. (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

  3:1 is still way above the threshold at which we can say that readers are looking for the current operator significantly more often than the previous operator. We need to do what is best for readers, and that is taking them directly to the article they are looking for three times as often. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose at present. When a new TOC or equivalent takes over, this can be renamed Southeastern (train operating company, 2021–20xx), but until then leave as is. As stated above, most people will be interested in the current TOC, not the historical one. — Voice of Clam (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't like the idea of an open-ended date range. It works fine as it is with a disambiguation note at the top of the page and we can revisit it if and when it ceases to be or another company with the same brand name comes along. Geof Sheppard (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Voice of Clam and Thryduulf. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

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.