Talk:Central Citylink

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No it dosen't - you have to do these manually (or with a bot) Pickle 19:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CityLink vs Citylink 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: While the anonymous user in question should not have removed the box without discussion (or even leaving an edit summary), I would question your (plural) assertions that this is vandalism.  I would agree that there should not be a franchise succession box on this article, as it is not about a franchise.  Furthermore, I would question the usefulness of franchise succession boxes in any case: as franchises are merged, split and otherwise reorganised often at each round of franchising, often a franchise will not have a single direct predecessor or successor, and such details are better explained in the text, not in a succession box.  --RFBailey 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can see how a "Franchise Box" might not be appropriate for this article, but generally i think "Franchise Boxs" serve a useful purpose for most TOCs -especially where there has been a clear cut succession chain. If i knew the coding, I'm sure one could create a suitable table for splits and merges - I've seen it done somewhere - probably politicians, etc. Pickle 01:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vandalism or not, the box is useful to the article and should not be consistently be deleted by an anon user who does not give justification. Dewarw 16:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Splits and merges boxes are available, e.g. the one at the bottom of FGW's page. If people are not happy with the present box, then replacing it with one like that would be more constructive than deleting it all together. Dewarw 16:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In response to this edit summary , I would suggest that Dewarw reads my comment above.  I am not an anonymous user.  Whoever the anon user is, they should have provided at least an edit summary and preferably an explanation on the talk page.  However, when I removed the box yesterday, I gave such an edit summary and explained my reasoning in the above.  To summarise, as this article is not about a franchise, a "franchise succession box" is inappropriate.  As far as multiple successions go, that's not the issue with this article, but may be the case with others.  --RFBailey 18:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know that you are not an anon user, but the person who was deleting the box before was one, and never gave much justification. Dewarw 20:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for acknowedging this, however, in your most recent revert to this article, you reverted me, not the anon user, yet still claimed a "lack of justification", when I had explained myself on this page.  Please take more care in future.  --RFBailey 22:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franchise Box deletion 

message: I've clarified the image captions: the Class 350 can't be on a "Citylink" service as they don't operate to Northampton, while the Class 158 may not be in service (the track it is using doesn't have a platform on it).  --RFBailey 16:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image captions 

message: A new version of the map is in place. It is not copyrighted. Dewarw 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Central Citylink. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024105502/http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/nx/mc/releases/pr2003/pressrelease/?id=3277265 to http://www.nationalexpressgroup.com/nx/mc/releases/pr2003/pressrelease/?id=3277265
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018042013/http://nottingham.openguides.org:80/?Central_Trains_Citylink to http://nottingham.openguides.org/?Central_Trains_Citylink
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922041251/http://www.centraltrains.co.uk:80/templates/Page.aspx?id=443 to http://centraltrains.co.uk/templates/Page.aspx?id=443
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018042013/http://nottingham.openguides.org:80/?Central_Trains_Citylink to http://nottingham.openguides.org/?Central_Trains_Citylink
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified