Talk:Merseyrail/Archive 3

Reading the runes
Network rail have a little AV out see here. The video from Network rail talks about "the final phase of the Merseyrail loop will be completed" the diagram seem to show the Canda Dock branch/Inner Loop but not the loop line. The text that goes with the vid on Network railways website doesn't mention the loop. Clear as mud then. There is also a direct line from Ormskirk to Warrington West!!! That could be interpreted as the Edge Hill Link but the would be the northern line, not the loop. This Warrington West, is a new one though from the diagram it could be Warrington BQ low level, though why you would call it Warrington west it would rather illogical to terminate the Ditton line before Bank Quay though you could make it Warrington east by going on toward Lymm. Either way, I have suggested it but I have never seen an official proposal for Merseyrail or Anywhere else. Unless it an extension from Ellesmere port but the diagram doesn't make sense at all then. I don't know what this means for the article.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Warrington West is proposed new station between Penketh and Warrington Central.
 * https://www.warrington.gov.uk/info/201251/other_projects/2022/warrington_west_station
 * This will be on the Liverpool-Mcr line via Warrington, which is diesel run and a shambles with cattle trucks as passenger tarains. If Network rail are on about an Ormskirk to Warrington West service then the line would need electrifying, and there are no firm plans for that yet (or are there?), although it is well overdue and just a priority. It would become a part of the Northern Line. The line was to be on the Northern Line by 1991 to Warrington Cenral. I don't see that is mentioned in the article. I can't see the logic in terminating at Warrington West when Central hits the centre of Warrington. Ideally Warrington BQ should be move a few hundred yards north where the Lpool-mcr line crosses the WCML and make it an interchange station.
 * It looks like the Bootle Branch Line is in their sights for passengers. Liverpool FC are 'near' the line with EFC moving home. But this line will become very busy with freight as the new container port expands and more business on the biomass terminal comes about. Also the existing container ports needs more rail for containers and HMG want far more freight onto rail. The Bootle Branch is the only line into the docks. There is talk of another line out of the docks, whether this is separate line running off the docks using the North Mersey Line, well who knows. If a separate line then the Bootle Branch will not be overloaded with freight and passengers. The Bootle Branch is not yet electrified. 90.212.242.167 (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that is mentioned in the article yes it is, I saw it 90.213.130.132 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see that is mentioned in the article yes it is, I saw it 90.213.130.132 (talk) 10:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit War
Editor Kitchen Knife has developed an attitude and deliberately provoked an edit war. He will not cooperate on advancing the article and continually insults. Will someone tell me how this editor can be stopped? I will NOT be bullied. Thank you. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The one attempting the bullying is you.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You became involved to create conflict and conflict only. I have noticed that is is your style. I see nothing you ever do is positive. Your modus operadi is conflict with other editors. Get your mind set to a positive mentality. Be constructive. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 90.213.130.132 I suggest you stop edit warring. Even before my comment above, you did not have consensus to add the large amount of content about battery powered trains. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you carry on with this attitude you will likely get blocked.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I just reverted the article to the last version before edit war, edited on 23:19, 12 January 2017 by Redrose64. I STRONGLY suggest that everybody stop reverting each other and try to come to an agreement here on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 3 out of 4 people say the version you have just reverted to is wrong. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong or not, . See also WP:WRONGVERSION. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Guy, is your change here to be taken as an indication that you too, like the IP editor, are supporting the inclusion of the unsourced claim that the line is to start using Class 379s (as you've illustrated and captioned)? What's your source for this? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dingley, no one is claiming that 379s are to be used. It was clearly stated that it was a test train only. You know this, and you have been previously put right on this. So why do you write this nonsense? 90.217.85.4 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claims that 3 out of 4 people think inaccurate. The Welsh Route Study page 103 does not support the clams pf a proposal.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It clearly does make a strong suggestion for battery trains on this line. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Andy Dingley, I simply reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO I have no opinion regarding your content dispute other than that anyone who reverts from now on will be reported and blocked. Everyone needs to leave the article alone and discuss the issue here per WP:TALKDONTREVERT and WP:BRD. If you think that I should have chosen a different pre-edit-war version, let me know which version and I will consider restoring that version instead.

BTW, If you didn't like that version, why did you revert to it? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my mistake. I just went back to Redrose's version (which still had the 379 photo). I should have checked and gone back further, past the IP's earlier additions. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not object to you reverting back further - even to the . Then we can discuss each change on its own merits, on this talk page, and add each one back in once there is both consensus and reliable sources. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334


 * So, any objections to me restoring the 22:22, 16 January 2017‎ version, or would that result in further edit warring? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That version is fine with me. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a reasonable version. It doesn't make the unsupported claim (and image) about Class 379s, nor does it present battery electrics as a foregone conclusion - those two claims are the real problems here.
 * As already noted, I'm not against describing battery electrics here, but it would have to be sourced (we have two good sources, primary and detailed, then a secondary) and it mustn't go further than suggesting batteries as one possible solution, not as a choice already made. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Dingley, no one wrote that battery trains were to be implemented. It was clearly written it was suggested/proposed by Network Rail and the text backed that up. You have been continually told this. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been mentioned as one possible solution that all, and the ref do support that, just not anything beyond. The suggestion that the vehicle type used in the test might be uses has no basis. After the test IIR the unit was converted back, because the battery had been installed in place of the toilets and there were some other problems with the length of time to charge.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Guy Macon:
 * Clear bullying by two editors is going on here.
 * Why was the mention of battery trains removed when it had a solid source from Network Rail? The POVs of Dingley and Kitchen Knife are irrelevant. Wikipedia is about facts.
 * Why are you backing two guys who clearly are uncooperative and have an attitude? Kitchen Knife was insulting towards me showing no cooperation, Dingley can't even read properly constantly contradicting himself - or doesn't want to read properly. He suffers from selective amnesia. He did say his first language is not English, so there may be an excuse for him. But his attitude is clearly one of confrontation. He comes across as a bit of a know-it-all. He may be brighter than what he comes across but his confrontational attitude take hold.
 * I kept changing the article to suit these guys, it was not a full blown edit war at all, more coming from the Talk page. Then it was clear two of them wanted to get rid of me for good and doing all they could to do so.
 * Then Kitchen Knife came in and removed the references leaving the passage as POV only. It had to be reverted to make sense.
 * Kitchen Knife has some sort of problem with some chap who was blocked 7 or 8 years ago. Read up this talk page, he links to it. He thinks I am the chap. Amazing.
 * It is obvious that Kitchen Knife has some sort of problem, with his continual edit war with all, even with you. He is saying in the Revision History page that it was unsourced when two sources are given for all to read. One source was given by Andy Dingley. He has to be stopped.
 * I have tried to be cooperative with these people and continually told them to cooperate to no avail, as you witnessed yourself.
 * People like these make Wikipedia look like a joke. No wonder it is viewed as Childrenspedia. 90.217.85.4 (talk) 12:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This case has already been evaluated by an uninvolved administrator, and the result was "Semiprotected two months, due to edit warring by IP-hopper. The IP can get their change made if their text receives consensus on Talk". See Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive334. Accusing the other editors of wrongdoing is unlikely to win them over and result in them agreeing with you, and attacking Wikipedia as a whole is similarly unconvincing. I have some really good advice for you which I wrote up at WP:1AM -- if you are willing to listen. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Andy Dingley did not say his 'first language is not English'. What was 'preclude was just plain wrong. "English is not my first language" wrong'; that is to say, misusing the word "preclude" in this fashion is the sort of mistake made by somebody whose first language is not English. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I am not "backing two guys". In fact, I have never expressed an opinion and have no opinion about the content dispute on this page. I merely noted that there was edit warring (an uninvolved admin decided that 90.217.85.4 was the one edit warring and semiprotected the page) and that there appears to be a strong consensus among the editors of this page against the changes 90.217.85.4 was trying to edit war into the page. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Battery-electric trains
I have some unsourced content from the article, which includes the phrase "battery powered trains preclude the cost of full electrification of the line". The word "preclude" means "remove the possibility of; rule out; prevent or exclude; to make impossible". So let's try these out in turn: None of these make sense, therefore, the sentence as it stood made no sense. If it is to be retained, it needs to be rewritten. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "battery powered trains remove the possibility of the cost of full electrification of the line"
 * battery powered trains remove the possibility of the cost of full electrification of the line
 * battery powered trains rule out the cost of full electrification of the line
 * battery powered trains prevent or exclude the cost of full electrification of the line
 * battery powered trains make impossible the cost of full electrification of the line
 * What do you think it should be? 90.212.242.167 (talk) 01:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup it is currently jibberish.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That is clunky.

"battery powered trains rule out the cost of full electrification of the line"
 * The above makes perfect sense.

"battery powered trains prevent the cost of full electrification of the line"
 * Removed 'exclude'. The above makes perfect sense.

"battery powered trains make impossible the cost of full electrification of the line"
 * That is clunky.

90.212.242.167 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "I have removed some unsourced content from the article, "
 * All was sourced with three refs in the para. I put it back. 90.212.242.167 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No they are still all jibberish battery trains do not prevent, rule it out, make impossible, electrification. You haven't provided a single ref which uses the word preclude. Allowing all electric travel to be done without the cost of full electrification does not preclude full electrification, it may make it somewhat redundant but that is all.
 * Oh and Low carbon battery-powered train carries first passengers --Kitchen Knife (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You POV was that refs were 'jibberish', but have not said where. My POV is that you are now writing gibberish. Your POV is that battery trains will not eliminate the need for electrification on THIS LINE - the topic is the Borderlands line. The FACT is that Network rail are proposing battery trains for THIS line, with ref and page given. 90.212.242.167 (talk) 02:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I emailed a friend with the contentious passage. He has an English literature degree (his wife has a masters). They said the word 'preclude' is totally suitable. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 11:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are talking nonsense Mr Burns.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's so badly worded as to be meaningless. Now if there has been some serious plan to avoid some electrification of the system, or to extend train running beyond the electrified system, and if this has been considered seriously to involve batteries rather than other internal combustion hybrids, then this might belong here, if re-worded. But as it is, and without any indication that this is a serious proposal to fix a serious limitation, then it doesn't belong. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't move contentious sentence around in the text, so as to then be placed immediately before an existing reference, so as to imply that the content is supported by that ref. Especially not when it is "overhead is cheaper than 3rd rail", a claim that is dependent heavily upon the clearance around bridges. Although "wire is cheaper than conductor rail", it isn't if it also involves raising a large number of bridges - just look at the South Wales Main Line at the moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We now have a lot of attitude on here especially Kitchen Knife, who thinks I am someone who I am not. Andy Dingley says the battery trains mentioned by Network Rail have nothing to do with Merseyrail when reverting. From Network Rail: "In the longer term, potential deployment of rolling stock with the ability to operate on battery power for part of their journey may provide the ability in an affordable manner to improve the service offering between the Wrexham – Bidston route and Liverpool". That means the Wirral Line on Merseyrail. Very clear indeed. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No we have a lot of attitude from you and it is unhelpful. Bring some acquaintance of yours who has a BA is an attempt at bullying and "saying my mate say's". It is not really going to work when the people you are talking to have qualifications of equal stature. If you are not John Burns then you doing a very good impression of him.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have attitude by the truck load. Your first comments had attitude. You are extremely unhelpful. You come across as a bit of know it all. I prefer facts and what Network Rail is mentioning.
 * The word 'preclude' which Redrose64 objected to, without giving any suggestion for an alternative, is quite apt. If someone can't grasp it then fine another word is chosen, no big deal. What is clear to some is not to others. The idea is make the article move along and be fully understandable to lay people, not only to train spotters. That takes cooperation not attitude.  90.213.130.132 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, preclude was just plain wrong. "English is not my first language" wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Preclude was fine. End of. If some don't like it I change it. No Probs. So much pedantry. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You are beginning to sound more and more like John Burns aka User:Waterspaces. Your knowledge of English seems very very limited. Preclude is totally wrong--Kitchen Knife (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They're also edit-warring sufficient to warrant a block, should anyone care to throw it at ANEW. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Batteries through Bidston isn't sourced. You could use this as a source, but even that is weak. It's not reporting a plan for batteries, it's reporting problems with electrification and suggesting batteries as a solution. It hasn't gone any further than that. I've no objection to having this content in here, but it needs to be better written and it needs to include that (or equivalent) source. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I added some info, a paragraph to a section, and three bull terriers attack me. How odd. I wonder what the motive is? 90.213.130.132 (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Added the source given, which back up the text in the article. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in my case, removing some terrible writing. If it's gone back in, you'll be at ANEW. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What is ANEW? 90.213.130.132 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ANEW Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I never saw much of that at all. It is mainly edit arguing on this talk page. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not call that an edit war. Currently Kitchen Knife is clearly antagonistic and attempting tom start one. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Now 4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Merseyrail&type=revision&diff=759905388&oldid=759898166] Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Batteries through Bidston isn't sourced." It is sourced I have given the source, the Welsh RUS. I have already written this. It says.."In the longer term, potential deployment of rolling stock with the ability to operate on battery power for part of their journey may provide the ability in an affordable manner to improve the service offering between the Wrexham – Bidston route and Liverpool". It mentions "Bidston" and "Liverpool". You cannot get to Liverpool unless it is through Bidston. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That source is a very lightweight, almost throwaway, comment about something that might be a solution to a problem that isn't even yet a problem. Yet you're using it to support putting an image of a class 379 set there with the caption, "Proposed by Network Rail for the Borderlands Line". It's not Network Rail's job to specify stock, new stock (not 379s) is already on order and there is no indication that some supposed "Bidston Battery" set would be 379s. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your POV of the comments is irrelevant as the meaning is quite clear. It is clear Network Rail think there is a problem by their passage and they even suggest a solution which reduces costs. The passage prompted a magazine article which you approvingly gave, which was based on the Network Rail suggestion in the Welsh RUS, which I referenced which you said was not a reference. The train shown in the article is of the type converted for electric/battery use on the Mayflower Line. It was to add value.


 * proposal
 * prəˈpəʊz(ə)l/Submit
 * noun
 * 1.
 * a plan or suggestion, especially a formal or written one, put forward for consideration by others.
 * A proposal is a suggestion and does not have to be written, although it was in writing in the RUS. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The user seems to have very limited english language comprehension. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another ad hom attack on Andy Dingley? mmmmm 90.213.130.132 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment was about you and your inability to perceive that shows your very limited comprehension. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The comment was about you and your inability to perceive that shows your very limited comprehension. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't you think you people would be better using your time and efforts to do something positive? 90.213.130.132 (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stopping you posting inacurate information is positive.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kitchen Knife and Andy Dingley here, there is no source for anything more than a throwaway sentence along the lines of "Battery trains have been suggested for the Bidston to Wrexham route." Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, the reference is from Network Rail in the Welsh RUS. Your opinion is that it is a throw away line. Opinions do not matter, yours, mine or anyones. The RUS is a serious document not speculation from a tabloid.  I suggest you read back. I used the Welsh RUS as the reference.
 * Andy Dingley stated "there's nothing here indicating that batteries have been considered for Merseyrail". The RUS mentioned ""In the longer term, potential deployment of rolling stock with the ability to operate on battery power for part of their journey may provide the ability in an affordable manner to improve the service offering between the Wrexham – Bidston route and Liverpool". OK, he did mention that English was not his first language so he may have got mixed up. No problem.
 * Andy also discredited the Welsh RUS reference. He then found a magazine article on battery trains running on the Borderlands which was a good find. He thought it was a better reference. I incorporated it. This mag article used the Welsh RUS as a reference, which I also used as a reference. No problem both are in.
 * Kitchen Knife has offered nothing positive thinking I am some chap who was blocked 7 years ago. He must have a thing about this chap.
 * Kitchen Knife constantly insults me. Wiki is firm and clear on editors insulting.
 * Kitchen Knife has never backed up anything.
 * Kitchen Knife has never been positive or attempted to cooperate to improve the article.
 * Kitchen Knife has been negative all through.
 * The only edit war is from Kitchen Knife. He removed a sentence removing the references Andy Dingley and I brought to the article, which made it POV only. A form of vandalism as far as I could see.
 * Kitchen knife in 'Reading the runes' above was mixed up about Warrington West station. In general chatting I told where the station was to be. That may have affected him.
 * Now I ask this again... Kitchen Knife will not cooperate on advancing the article and continually insults me. I will NOT be bullied. Internet bullying is taken very seriously by the authorities these days. Will someone tell me how this editor can be stopped if he does not desist? Absolutelypuremilk, I assume you have this knowledge.
 * Now you, Absolutelypuremilk, appear to have joined in an unprovoked gang attack. 90.213.130.132 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I've found that the problem goes back two and a half years at Borderlands line, with the word "preclude" being misused in. I later the same day, but I had obviously forgotten about it until  made  today. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Raised at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In Battery electric multiple unit they show the same lack of ENglish ability, in that they seem to think Network is "railway talk" also peclude in Feb 2016 .--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

City Line
This is in the opening para: "City Line, though this is an informal term used by governing body Merseytravel" The "City Line" is a very `formal` term. It is used in their documentation and maps. This needs changing. 2.123.250.216 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Merseyrail. 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/20160205181925/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrewphillips309/History.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andrewphillips309/History.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141012195531/http://www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf to http://www.networkrail.co.uk/networkrus_electrification.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807161649/http://www.letstravelwise.org/public/merseyrail.html to http://www.letstravelwise.org/public/merseyrail.html

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) 01:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merseyrail. 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/20141129065142/http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Merseyrail-in-talks-over-brand-new-train-fleet to http://www.liverpoolconfidential.co.uk/News-and-Comment/Merseyrail-in-talks-over-brand-new-train-fleet

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) 22:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fuel Cell and Battery train trials
The DfT had put on hold all major electrification in the UK. The transport minister stated that hydrogen fuel cell and battery train technology has advanced so much that these will be trialled as an alternative to full line electrification. These two technologies have been earmarked for trial around the Liverpool region in the next few years. I have added information onto the article where this is applicable with references. thank you. 90.213.130.200 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Skem Branch
All the diagrams I have seen (2), show a bidirectional link so that trains from WIgan cab also get to Skem, so what happens to the Kirby Wigan Manc service, who is Rainford served. Is the entire branch to WIgan electrified. What happens to the other 2tph to Kirkby do they stop there or go to Wigan. If it was me I'd want trains from central all the way to Manc but atleast Wigan. SUrely there must be some docs somewhere which hint at these options?--Kitchen Knife (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

For all the annoucements about the proposed station, none of them make any reference as to where the line will run. Network Rail don't have much to show on their web site either. Odd. Hagis uk (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have a look at page 32 or 28 depending on which system. http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/media/313320/DRAFT-West-Lancashire-Masterplan-FINAL.pdf --Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting. The latest refresh of Merseytravel's 30 year plan says that Merseytravel hope to include Headbolt Lane as part of the Skem extension: http://moderngov.merseytravel.uk.net/documents/s18865/Presentation.pdf - see page 8. If they're not going to electrify it then perhaps they're hoping to use battery trains :-) Hagis uk (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is also virtually impossible to keep Merseyrail as a closed system with any this, plus what happens to the railhead at Headbolt Lane Knowsley 800. Which if the North Mersey Branch was reconnected to docks which Peel also owned.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The drawing on page 31 (or 27) and map on page 33 (or 29) of DRAFT-West-Lancashire-Masterplan-FINAL.pdf shows (in purple) a branch to the centre of Skelmersdale, from a triangular junction to the west of Upholland, close to the southern corner of the Pimbo estate. This branch would be more than a mile from the old Ormskirk-Rainford line, but roughly parallel to it; this in turn means that a new Skelmersdale station would be nowhere near the old one. There would be no reopening, since the junction, branch and station would be on sites not previously used by railways.
 * Anyway, to the speculation: one possibility is that the electrification - and thus the network boundary - be extended from Kirkby to either Upholland or Wigan, taking in the new branch. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That route is almost certain, this is the bridge under the M58 there and there is an uninterrupted route through to the current line. There is a bay platform at WIgan which could be used, though there has been mention relocate Wigan Wallgate south to an expanded Northwestern.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is about 7 miles of unelectrified track into Skem from Kirkby. Merseyrail is trialling battery/electric trains from Ormskirk to Preston which is over twice the length at 15 miles. Battery electric trains have been a great success in Japan running off electrified track onto unelectrified track.  Austrian railways have just ordered a raft of battery/electric trains. They are proven technology. In my opinion, once Merseyrail have had successful trials and adoption of battery/electric trains, the Skem link will come about as the heavy cost of electrified track has been omitted. Where there is a mix of electrified and unelectrified track expect conversion to battery/electric trains to be quite swift. 90.213.130.200 (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Mentions possible addition to new 777 fleet using battery trains to new destinations such as Helsby, Skelmersdale or Wrexham. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F8DB:2030:5E46:6A06 (talk) 20:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Halton Curve
Should this be in the article? Although Merseytravel are heavily involved in the reinstatement of the curve and a service to Chester/North Wales from Liverpool, there is no indication that the line running over the curve will be on Merseyrail - as yet. Although Chester to Liverpool service via the curve will touch on 4 Merseyrail stations: Chester, Helsby (if incorporated into Merseyrail), Liverpool South Parkway and Lime St. It will also run on the City Line from South Parkway to Lime Street. 90.213.130.200 (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the Edge Hill Spur, bringing into commission the tunnel from Edge Hill into Central, goes ahead and there is political pressure to get this done as part of the NPR moves, then all urban trains from St.Helens, Wigan and Chester, will be sent into Central down the tunnel leaving Lime St dedicated to medium and long haul services. These services will most likely be turned over to Merseyrail. The trains from Chester via the Halton Curve would need to be overhead wires, 3rd rail and battery operation. The new Merseyrail stock can be adapted and is designed to be. There is political pressure to expand Central to accommodate more trains with more platforms. This is all speculation by me; based on positive feedback though. 90.213.130.200 (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Metro
The opening is incorrect. Merseyrail is a metro for sure, not Commuter Rail. All metros have an aspect of Commuter Rail of course. The City Line is run by Northern with Northern trains with Northern colours sponsored my Merseytravel, not Merseyrail. Only the ticketing crosses over to ease interchanging for passengers. Commuter Rail is one line that runs in and out of a city centre, not being a "network", similar to the Wigan to Liverpool Lime St line - in and out. The intro needs changing. .2A01:4B00:881D:3700:B992:FE0:E14B:41B6 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail Electrics is a 100% 3rd rail segregated network
 * Merseyrail has its own dedicated trains.
 * Merseyrail has its own company dedicated to operating the network.
 * No other other organisation runs services over its tracks.
 * The trains are high frequency
 * The trains are metro trains.
 * The trains have their own livery.
 * The trains run underground in the centres of Liverpool and Birkenhead.
 * Merseyrail is a concessionary service like the London Overground. It's part of the national rail network. No other TOCs use large parts of the Overground, and the fact freight doesn't run on Merseyrail tracks is probably more an indication of a lack of freight facilities in the area. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail is a totally segregated 3rd rail network, with a its own company running the segregated network. The rolling stock is owned by Merseytravel. Your speculation of why something doesn't happen regarding freight is just that - speculation. Freight does not run on Merseyrail, neither does any other service with it being totally segregated being dedicated to moving people around the Liverpool City Region. I would rather stick to facts. Merseyrail is a metro. It ticks all the boxes.
 * .2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6C5C:2AEC:66C3:245F (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but do you have any sources which refer to it as a metro system rather than a part of the national rail network? Wikipedia is not about opinions. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not 100% segregated network - there are a number of connections with other routes, such as at Aintree, Bidston (where the platforms are shared with the Wrexham services), Bootle, Chester (where freight trains often pass through the electrified platform), Hunts Cross, and Southport. There are freight trains over some parts, for example to reach the facilities at Ellesmere Port.
 * The trains are not entirely "dedicated" - a number of units were sent from Birkenhead deport to Slade Green a few years ago to operate local services in Kent, such as between Dartford and Paddock Wood.
 * The trains are no more "high frequency" than (for example) the services between London Bridge and Dartford.
 * The trains - and  - differ little in general construction from,  and  which are certainly not "metro trains".
 * Livery doesn't come into it. a number of units were painted orange and brown for Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive, but that does not mean that they were in any way different from those Class 142 that were painted two-tone blue.
 * Trains run underground between Moorgate and Drayton Park, between Blackfriars and St Pancras, and between Dalmarnock and Exhibition Centre.
 * The rolling stock is owned by Angel Trains, and leased to Merseyrail. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the definition Passenger rail terminology they have to Urban and Mersey Rail is Urban, Suburban and Rural, also it is not full segrgated there are level crossings. The definition that covers it isCommuter rail --Kitchen Knife (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The network awkwardly straddles both definitions, but in central Liverpool and Birkenhead the service is very much metro-like even though it is a National Rail-owned network (and the average system user may not know or care about the ownership structure and simply see it as a parallel to the likes of the London Underground). Therefore I've mentioned in the opening that the service is 'metro-like' in Birkenhead and Liverpool in that it runs a rapid and frequent service in the urban centre. Jamesctplant (talk) 13:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A system being a Metro vs a mainline rail system is basically down to the legal authorities to decide. Just as an example, in the New York City region, you'll find the PATH (rail system), which provided service between Manhattan and New Jersey. At first glance, looking at the system, it checks off every single box on the Metro check list. It even uses the same fare card as the New York City Subway and it's current generation of rolling stock, the PA5, is based upon the current generation operated on the Subway. One tiny issue... the Federal Government classifies it as a mainline commuter railroad. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck... But it's not a duck. Merseyrail: It's equipment all has TOPS numbers. It's tracks are legally property of Network Rail. Most stations only see a train every 15 minutes. That's not very Metro like if you ask me.Metropod (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 15 minutes is regarded as metro as you do not need a timetable. You just roll up and not wait long for a train. In the centre, trains are every few minutes. Merseyrail electrics is a segregated network. Who own the rails is irrelevant. Having a few level crossing is irrelevant - these are at stations not interrupting train performance. They are all at stations when the train is stopped anyhow.  2A01:4B00:881D:3700:F8DB:2030:5E46:6A06 (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being part of the mainline rail network doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't a metro system however, one such example is Kolkata. --RaviC (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, a Merseyrail spokesperson quoted in this Echo article reveals that MR themselves consider their system a metro, however the strict definition might fall. &#124; 🔬🚆 &#124;  Telo &#124; TP  &#124; 20:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensing
User removed a vast amount of content a few hours ago from this article, with no edit summary and no "new" article for it to move to, nor do I see any discussion. It's far too much to remove without some consensus or discussion. I am not saying this is bad faith, but needs some explanation. I also do think the article should be trimmed, considerably but perhaps by creating a new article instead for non-core prose. I don't think it's reasonable to remove well over half without understanding why. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reverted back to a revision before theirs - All of their changes need discussion, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 17:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a decent article that the layperson (not train enthusiast) can understand - that is the aim of wikipedia. Still needs some work here and there, but overall the structure is right. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:DE5:1856:E7AE:FCD2 (talk) 12:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Factual correctness
Your edit on lines is potentially contentious and diverts from the status-quo (and what is accepted) without you actually seeking consensus for this change. You have only had your registered account since last month, which could mean two things; either you are a new user and do not understand consensus, or you're an experienced user and don't want, or cannot, use a previous account. Whatever it is, you really should get some agreement before changing the figures you have. You cannot use the above discussion either in defence, as this was both 18 months ago and largely with IP editors (how do we know some aren't you in a different guise)? You have a warning on your talk page for edit-warring already. I suggest you revert back and seek consensus first. If not, I may have to do that for you, which won't help matters.

I am not outright saying I agree or disagree (though I lean towards disagreeing), but really you need consensus from authentic editors in your favour. At the very least, explain why it's 3 lines when the city line is served by a different operator. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article clearly mentions THREE lines: Northern, Wirral and City, even with headings. It even shows the City Line on the Merseyrail map. The City Line is mentioned in the Merseytravel website. I am not imagining it. YIu are saying this line does not exist, when it clearly does. It does not need consensus to state overt fact. You have gone into an ad hom attack. I will change it back. Wisdom-inc (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Firstly, there is no dispute that there is a line labelled as the "city line". I have not at all suggested it "doesn't exist" (please provide a diff if you believe this), although the definition of it is up for debate. The issue is whether the line is actually one which can be considered part of the Merseyrail network, which the article is primarily about, when entirely different operators run trains on it. If trying to discuss with you in a reasonable manner is an "attack", then i'd be concerned about how you may react if someone else were to actually be more forceful. Another editor has actually reverted anyway; don't risk getting involved in another edit war. The gung-ho approach to editing when there is not some degree of support seldom ends well. Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Read this talk page. I agreed with much of what was written by others. The City Line does exist. It is in Merseytravel's documentation and maps and on the Merseyrail maps. As said above, who owns the tracks and whatnot is irrelevant, which is correct. Most trains are rented in the UK, so, er, er, er.  Merseyrail's tracks are owned and maintained by Network Rail, so maybe Merseyrail does not exist then - It cannot do by your logic. Ridiculous of course. Passengers care not a hoot about who owns what - they just see a train network. The City Line's tracks, stations and trains are in effect rented when in Merseytravel's area, with even the station in Merseyrail's colours. Merseyrail ticketing is also used. Who are you and others to say it does not exist? What you and your mob are saying is laughable.  It exists get over it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are based on fact, not some trainspotter's or train company's employee's whims. One of those those who reverted is named "Watcher Zero". I checked him out. He is from Manchester, regularly on forums slagging Liverpool. Alarm bells!
 * You wrote, "there is no dispute that there is a line labelled as the "city line"". So not a dispute then. Sorted. Then you say it may not be a part of Merseyrail. mmmm A sudden change of stance.  It is not a part of London Underground for sure. What is it a part of?  It is a part of MERSEYRAIL. It is on their maps and all that. Get it? Have you looked?  Their map is even in the article.
 * Also DO NOT bully or threaten me! Trying to reason diplomatically with the likes of you gets nowhere. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The best article I have seen on Merseyrail, is the Liverpool Localwiki article. A lay person wanting to know what Merseyrail is, gets it nicely explained. Wisdom-inc (talk) 23:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not looking to get in to a long-winded debate about this, nor am I going to take kindly to your tone ("the likes of you"?) It's perfectly fine to have a different opinion, but you need your opinion to be a generally accepted one through a consensus approach. It should also be on the record that I have neither bullied or threatened you (again, those kind of accusations need to be substantiated, as per WP:NPA, "Comment on content, not on the contributor"). Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:35, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not take kindly to your tone either - seeing as you started it not me! I do not take kindly to threats and bullying. I do not give a hoot about your "opinion". Opinions do not matter, that is: yours, others or mine. Opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. Only FACT matters in an encyclopedia. Take that onboard. A consensus of opinion overriding FACT?  Are you serious? Read what I write and take it in. The focus of this is whether a factual line, the City Line, exists. Factually it does - read what I write and Merseyrail and Merseytravel's documentation and maps.  All the opinion in the world will not wish that away.
 * So you want a consensus of opinion to override fact, including people who do not particularly like the city of Liverpool who do all to disparage the city, overriding fact - BTW, I am not from Liverpool, or live in teh city. I can't believe this!  This is why wiki is regarded as a joke. In some serious forums, if wiki is given as reference they are mocked. Wisdom-inc (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW. Merseytravel lists 92 stations under their wing. Those on the City Line are there. Have a look: https://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/train/find-a-station/
 * Here is the official map via Merseytravel, clearly showing the City line. https://merseytravel.adidocdn.dev/Content/Bus/Route%20Maps/MerseyrailNetworkMap.pdf Should we have a consensus of opinion to override this factual map, then pretend it does not exist? Wisdom-inc (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that "Merseyrail" has two different meanings: This article seems to be primarily about (1) but also covers (2). The "number of lines" is 2 for meaning (1) but 3 for meaning (2). Both answers are factually correct, depending on which meaning of "Merseyrail" is intended. So what to put in the infobox? I suppose one option would be to put "2 (operated by Merseyrail company); 3 (branded as "Merseyrail")". --  Dr Greg  talk 12:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) The name of the train operating company that operates the Northern and Wirral lines
 * 2) The branding that Merseytravel applies to all three lines, even though the City Line is operated by Northern Trains.


 * 1) Merseyrail has only 'one' meaning - it is an urban rail network consisting of 'three' lines. Merseytravel and Merseyrail maps and documentation clearly state this.
 * 2) Merseytravel is the umbrella organisation who farm out the operation of the the urban rail network they call Merseyrail, to a number of organisations.
 * 3) The name of the train operating company is Serco-Abellio, not Merseyrail.  They operate a 'part' of a network, two of the three lines, for Merseytravel called Merseyrail.
 * 4) The Merseyrail branding applies to all three lines.
 * 5) One Merseyrail line, the City Line, not operated by Serco-Abellio, shares the train services with others. While moving inside the Merseytravel area the train service is Merseyrail branded, while outside it has other branding.
 * 6) Stations inside the Merseytravel area are branded and painted Merseyrail.
 * An example, Hough Green station is on the City Line, painted and branded Merseyrail, with Merseyrail maps on the walls. You can stand on the platform, then a train comes in (happens to come from Manchester, but that is irrelevant to the passenger), take this now 'Merseyrail' train into Liverpool, using Merseyrail ticketing. You take the same train back to Hough Green. To the passengers who ride this route they care not a hoot where the train came from before they boarded, nor care where it goes after they alighted. They are on a Merseyrail train, the maps, tickets and station all state so.
 * Many find this difficult to understand and accept. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail has 92 stations on all three lines. This needs mentioning in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Merseyrail has 92 stations on all three lines. This needs mentioning in the article. Wisdom-inc (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the helpful contribution, Dr Greg. Having had a quick skim through the talk page history, it isn't the first time this matter has arisen and the uncertainty over what the article is meant to represent has never really been addressed. I do indeed accept that, depending upon which definition is being applied, either could be considered true. As you note, the article is primarily about the TOC which does not operate trains on the line(s) labelled as the "city line". So really, consensus is needed on what the article is actually representing which in turn may provide a resolution. Easier said than done though, perhaps, given it would be a significant shift. Maybe splitting in to two separate articles respectively can't be ruled out either. Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr Greg's suggestion of "2 (operated by Merseyrail company); 3 (branded as "Merseyrail")" makes good sense to me.LicenceToCrenellate (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Three Merseyrail lines.
 * Two branded Merseyrail, being 100% operated by Serco-Abellio, .
 * One branded Merseyrail, operated by others, using shared train services.
 * Wisdom-inc (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is about the three lines, with the City Line having its own section, however some wording needs changing here and there. The City Line was named and identified before Merseyrail was opened. From the article...
 * The existing electric and diesel hauled lines identified to become the new Merseyrail lines were given the names of 'Northern Line', 'Wirral Line' and 'City Line' respectively. The lines out of Lime Street station would become the City Line, lines out of Exchange and Central High Level the Northern Line and the line out of Central Low Level the Wirral Line. Identifying and naming of the lines was the first stage of Merseyrail's creation.
 * The original plan was to have the lines identified as the City Line, to be electrified running into Central station via the Wapping Tunnel from Edge Hill. The whole three lines then would be seamless, running the same trains, then run by one organisation. Budget cuts meant the Wapping tunnel was not built with electrification to St.Helens/Wigan and Warrington shelved. This isolated the mainly diesel operated City Line from the rest of the network, until electrification and the Wapping tunnel is reused. However the City Line stayed as it was, in preparation for future seamless electric integration with the other two lines.
 * The line from Lime St to Wigan has been electrified with wires since 2015, with trains capable of 3rd rail and wire running. Serco-Abellio were unable to operate the line as the freight only line from Edge Hill to Bootle, which would take trains to Kirkdale, is not electrified. This means the trains could not get to Kirkdale for parking and maintenance. When the Wapping Tunnel or Waterloo tunnels are reused, the now electrified St.Helens/Wigan line would be merged into the Serco-Abellio franchise able to enter Central station.
 * The new Merseyrail 777 trains can run on wires, batteries and 3rd rail, or a combination of all three, in preparation to merge the City Line to Wigan, Runcorn and Warrington lines into the Serco-Abellio franchise. The use of battery trains, with a small battery with a range of around 10 miles may make it feasible to merge the Lime St to St.Helens/Wigan line into the Serco-Abellio franchise, as the 777s could use the Edge Hill to Bootle line to reach Kirkdale. Although there has been calls to fully electrify this few miles of track to have electric freight trains into the Port of Liverpool. Electric freight trains have entered Garston Docks in the south of Liverpool for nearly 60 years, so it is overdue.
 * The metro-mayor wants all the Liverpool City Region to be on the Serco-Abellio franchise, expanding into Runcorn from the Wirral as well. The battery aspect of the 777 trains makes all this workable. The metro-mayor is in advanced talks, ongoing for the past 18 months, in taking all the Serco-Abellio lines, and maintenance, into the City Region ownership. It looks near 100% that will happen (maybe this should be in the article). The Northern and Wirral lines look likely be be owned by the City Region, however with maybe only a part of the City Line when that is fully integrated with the other two lines. The 777 trains will be 100% owned by Merseytravel, whose remit is the Liverpool City Region, not just Merseyside, which is only a part of the city region. Wisdom-inc (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Merseytravel
The area Merseytravel are responsible for the transport is the Liverpool City Region. The City Region consists of Merseyside and Halton and has done since 2013/14. The City Region has its own mayor, called metro-mayor, which is over the mayors of subordinate councils. Merseytravel brand all commuter stations inside their area as Merseyrail, no matter who runs the station or what companies trains run through the station. Even Upon and Heswall stations on the Borderlands Line operated by the Welsh, are branded Merseyrail. All non-third rail commuter trains operating with Lime St as the terminal are branded Merseyrail's City Line. Other commuter trains running though the City Region will have Merseyrail branded stations, but not on the City Line. It seems many get confused over this. Wisdom-inc (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are the one that is confused. Again. Note the branding here https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/merseysides-ghost-station-just-8-22426981 --Kitchen Knife (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * dead link from a newspaper. You do not understand what the City Line is. UP to your tricks again Sunshine. If you keep harassing me you can be dealt with. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also read the section above to improve your understanding. Wisdom-inc (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the ending 2 dashes need to be removed from the link so that it navigates correctly (link). Also regarding the section above, it's worth noting that nobody else came in to support the view from Wisdom-inc. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I was glad to see that this discussion was created, but was disappointed to observe that the edit-warring continued. Accordingly I have applied a 7-day full protection but have held back from serving blocks. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I think the childish insults together with the edit warring, the revert late this evening several hours after other edits stopped, and previous form in this and other articles all warrant a block, but you are the admin with more experience in these things. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that the disruptive actions of one individual now seemingly prevent the building of an encyclopedia on this topic by well-meaning editors. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Building the encyclopedia is good: but disrupting the encyclopedia is Not Good. The page history shows that content disputes have been going on for the last four weeks, during which time more than one person has performed a revert. Which of these should I have blocked? One? Two? All of them? By not blocking anybody, all parties are still able to discuss ways of improving the article. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have my own opinion on this matter, and I tried to engage in discussion with the disruptive editor a few months back, but regrettably was met with hostility. Frankly, if you take one editor out of the equation here, then there is no content dispute to consider. My experience, in the section above, is that a balanced and thorough discussion to reach a resolution seems unlikely, which is a shame, as that is certainly how i'd rather do things. I admire the attempt to allow an opportunity to reach a consensus, though my breath will not be held. I hope i'm wrong. Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. We are dealing with a child who will not listen to reason - not here and not in the other articles he or she disrupts. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)