Talk:Southeastern (train operating company)

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply
  ]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

Sounds like

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

]

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)[reply]

• Support
  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)[reply
  ]
• 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  No, that's not all that matters. See

  incomplete disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply

  ]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Oppose per Voice of Clam and Thryduulf. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:50, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]