Talk:Wright Eclipse SchoolRun

Proposed merge with Wright Eclipse

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Done - Despite myself voting this'll never be merged so may aswell get it done myself. –Davey2010^Talk 19:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

---

All part of the same family - same body as the Eclipse Commuter which is mentioned in the article. aycliffe^talk 14:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom - Although it's more like a coach it's still part of the Eclipse so makes more sense to merge. --–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support, sufficiently closely related to be considered a variant of the same product.

Having said that, it does potentially open up a tin of worms as to whether the Solar, Pulsar and Meridian — which are arguably even more similar to the Eclipse than the Eclipse SchoolRun is — should also be merged, and if so, what to call the resulting article. In the past I've heard the whole range described as the "Millennium" range, and I think that name could be referenced in one of the Ian Allan "Recognition" books, although I'm not sure it's an official designation. I believe I also read somewhere else that "Eclipse" was intended to be the "main" name for the range, i.e. the "Solar" was considered to be part of the "Eclipse" range. If that were the case, it would trump "Millennium" as the appropriate Wiki name, on the basis of common usage. Unfortunately though, I can't remember where I read it, nor whether it was in what might be considered a reliable secondary source.

And of course a similar argument could be applied to the Renown, Commander, Floline, Ultralow, Liberator, Pathfinder, Endurance et al which have been retrospectively dubbed the "Classic" range, and are in a similar way essentially the same body structure on different underframes...

Quackdave (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.