Template talk:TSGN and SE Stations

Thameslink core

Given the key status (and importance) of Thameslink core stations - is it worth separating them out in this table? (St Pancras International - Farringdon - City Thameslink - Blackfriars - London Bridge(?) ) Turini2 (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 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: no consensus. There is neither a move nor no move consensus. The community consensus is to split, hence a split request should be initiated. (closed by non-admin page mover) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Template:TSGN and SE Stations → Template:Railway stations served by Govia Thameslink Railway – While a move is required to remove the unnecessary caps in "Stations", the move will also make the naming convention of this template consistent with other TOC station templates, as indicated by the consensus reached at the RM at Template talk:Railway stations served by c2c. The suggested title stems from the fact that Thameslink, Southern, and Great Northern are all a part of Govia Thameslink. At the same time, I'd like to request the Southeastern content be split into a new template called Template:Railway stations served by Southeastern for the same reasons. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Bensci54 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment are Southeastern and TSGN largely interconnected with each other? The template seems to have been formatted, so only specific services need to be shown when needed, so don't see the harm having it as one from a functional perspective. Swanley railway station for example uses both operators so uses both parts of the template. If that is a rarer case, there could be a possibility of a split, but note such a split would have to carry over all the formatting ideally. So the template isn't just two operators put together but more interconnected. May be a split should be raised separately. DankJae 02:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

• This should really not be a requested move but a split request. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I should probably add I support the split in principle. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Just a note for the closer - if this is to be considered a split discussion, this is transcluded on 465 pages, so there will be a little work in processing it. ASUKITE 15:01, 26 July 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.

Split proposal

As per the discussion above, I would like to propose a split of this template into Template:Railway stations served by Govia Thameslink railway and Template:Railway stations served by Southeastern. Southeastern is an entirely separate TOC from Southern, Thameslink, and Great Northern, and it does not make sense to have both TOCs covered in one template, regardless of whether they serve the same area. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 22:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)