Talk:Stafford–Manchester line

Trains: in UK Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article 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 articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject UK Railways (assessed as Low-importance).

More information:
/
	This article lacks references.
	It is requested that an a map be included in this article to improve its quality. Please work with the Maps task force to create and add a map to this article.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Cheshire

	Cheshire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The route diagram template for this article can be found in Template:Stafford-Manchester Line RDT.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible renaming

Would it not make sense to merge this with the Stone to Colwich Line into this and rename the article Stafford and Colwich to Manchester Line? I thought that since both routes had a common history it would make sense to combine them. And it would avoid the need for the Stone to Colwich stub article. G-13114 (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chester to Manchester line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chester to Manchester Line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for renaming and merger

I'm not sure I understand why this article has been created as it is, as the line between Stoke and Colwich Junction, is and always has been more important than the Stafford branch as it has always been the route used by London-Manchester expresses. I would propose one of several actions:

We rename this article the Manchester-Colwich Junction line and create a new article for the Stone to Norton Bridge branch and merge the existing Stone to Colwich Line article into this.
We combine this with the Stone-Colwich article and rename this article as something like Manchester-Colwich Junction-Stafford lines.
Like 2, but we combine this with the Stone-Colwich article and rename this article as something like West Coast Main Line - Stoke-on-Trent routes
Like 3 but Stoke-on-Trent routes (WCML) or Stoke-on-Trent branches (WCML).

I personally would favour 3 or 4. Does anyone have any thoughts? G-13114 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In general I prefer not to make up our own names, like you have suggested above, and to go with what reliable sources identify the separate routes to be and how they are known. Also, have you placed links to this discussion on any relevant project pages? I know previous rail line rename/merge proposals have resulted in considerable debate. Rcsprinter123 (yarn) 15:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Absent sourcing that either uses different names or lumps these two lines together, I think they should be left separate. I will remove the merge proposal templates, because there doesn't seem to be consensus almost two months later. — Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]