Talk:Stafford–Manchester line

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) We combine this with the Stone-Colwich article and rename this article as something like Manchester-Colwich Junction-Stafford lines.
 * 3) 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
 * 4) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)