Talk:Go-op

Rail Professional
There is an article about this proposed service in the latest issue of the above named magazine, along with what appears to be a photoshopped image of Go! liveried BR Mk2 coaches - I'll try and flesh out the article tomorrow using this as a source. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Route diagram
I've done some work on the proposed route diagram, based on a map published in the above source. I'm sure it can be improved upon, especially with regards to juntions etc. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 18:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Done more work on this - all junctions now facing the right way etc. Might be a bit too much detail, interested to see what others think however. --TicketMan - Talk - contribs 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead links
A few of the links on this page are dead for example citation 5 for the proposed time table. I don't know wiki policy but should we remove them and put citation needed or modify the article does it does not need them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.45.140 (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

 * This page appears to be a cut and paste move from Go! Cooperative‎, and the history hasn't been transferred. I'vbe reported it at Cut and paste move repair holding pen so that the mistake can be repaired. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: this article to be moved to Go-op (train). The article currently at Go-Op will stay where it is until a clear argument is made as to which is the primary topic. Aervanath (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

GOCO → Go-Op – This cooperative has changed its name from Goco to Go-Op, as can be seen from its website go-op.coop. Capitalization as Go-Op (not GO-OP) is consistent with the Manual of Style, which states that normal capitalization rules are to be applied to non-acronym names. There is another article already at Go-Op, but its notability is disputed (the TOC is the clear primary meaning) and I propose it be moved to Go-Op (car sharing) or similar. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 00:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The proposal is to move this page to Go-Op and to move Go-Op to another title. That is two moves. The proposal is thus "requesting multiple page moves" and should have followed the directions at Requested moves, which would have posted a notice of the proposal at Talk:Go-Op. Since no notice has been posted, and nobody watching the Go-Op article has received any such notice of a proposed move, this move should not be effected. Theoldsparkle (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I already typed the following out so I'm just posting it:

GOCO → Go-Op (train) – "GOCO" is unacceptable per MOS:ALLCAPS. While the article needn't be moved just because of an "official" name change, per WP:OFFICIALNAME, some sort of move is necessary in this case. If it is moved to "Go-Op", it becomes ambiguous with the article on the car sharing venture. As it is not established as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Go-Op", it should be disambiguated, in this case logically to Go-Op (train). The car sharing article currently at Go-Op would then be moved to Go-Op (car sharing). If one of the articles is established as the primary topic for "Go-Op", it can then be moved to Go-Op, but I think the usage following the name change should be allowed to shake out first. ENeville (talk) 18:31, 8 March 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-closure comment: I pretty much agree with using a dismabiguated version of their new name, but are we sure that the now-current title is the best we can do? Disambiguating as (train) surely implies that Go-op is a type of train. Wouldn't Go-op (train operating company) be better? That would be consistent with an article where they're already mentioned... Alzarian16 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. But per WP:TITLEFORMAT, I've moved it to Go-Op (train operating company). The dab page at Go-Op is now also there. -- Trevj (talk) 12:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Go-Op (train operating company). 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/20110721092347/http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=244 to http://www.railpro.co.uk/magazine/?idArticles=244
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616060133/http://www.railjournal.com:80/news-extra/can-social-operators-plug-the-gaps-in-the-british-network.html to http://www.railjournal.com/news-extra/can-social-operators-plug-the-gaps-in-the-british-network.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110034240/http://www.medstead.hampshire.org.uk:80/mpcm.htm to http://www.medstead.hampshire.org.uk/mpcm.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Have the proposals been abandoned?
Having done some albeit minor digging over the last few hours or so, I cannot find anything to say - other than their main website - that this "operation" is going ahead? It is now way past the initial service start date of December 2017 and so far nothing has happened. Their website hasnt been updated since, their facebook page has been deleted, their last twitter post was in 2012?? Nightfury 15:09, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Came back to life in 2019. --Wire723 (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)